Telecom/1996-04-telecom-walnutcreek.iso/back.issues/1991.volume.11/vol11.iss951-1000

Text File | 1991-12-13 | 918KB | 22,274 lines

TELECOM Digest     Sat, 23 Nov 91 01:25:59 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 951

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: How Do They >>Know<< ? (Gary Morris)
    Re: Follow Up; Fraudulent Calling Card Attempt (Bud Couch)
    Re: Call-Waiting Signal is Different (Tad Cook)
    Re: AT&T Billing SNAFU (ROA) (Robert J. Woodhead)
    Re: Information Needed: GlobeCom91 in Phoenix (Jeffrey Hunt)
    Re: Telemarketing COS (Steve Forrette)
    Re: Legitimate Reasons For Ringing My Phone (Warren Burstein)
    Re: Telemarketers and My Neighborhood (Gary W. Sanders)
    Re: Telemarketers: Why Not Transfer Them? (Nicholas J. Simicich)
    Re: AT&T Special Promo to Fidonet? (Andy Sherman)
    Telemarketing Fools (Douglas W. Martin)
    Re: Does Each Long Distance Carrier Have It's Own 800 Service? (J. Higdon)
    Re: ANI Numbers That I Know of (Pete Tompkins)
    Re: The ZZZZZZ Saga -- Part 1 -- "The Books" (Dell H. Ellison)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: telesoft![e-mail] (Gary Morris @wayward)
Subject: Re: How Do They >>Know<< ?
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: TeleSoft, San Diego, CA, USA
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1991 17:38:14 GMT


> In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Marshall
> Perlman) writes:

>> I went to the other machine, erased the
>> number and name from the header, and send a blank page to them and
>> guess what happened two minutes later?...
>> Now can anyone tell me how they know my number?

> [Moderator's Note: You said the answer yourself: They have real time
> ANI.  Your number is delivered to them along with your fax.  PAT]

It is common for fax machines to have their phone number set in the
"station message" that is exchanged when the fax connection is setup.
It usually appears in a little window (or in a dialog box on my Mac)
while the connection is in progress so you can see who you are connected
to.  This station message doesn't appears on the fax itself.   They could
be getting your number that way.


Gary Morris                  Internet: [e-mail]
KK6YB                        UUCP:     ucsd!telesoft!garym
TeleSoft, San Diego, CA      Phone:    [phone]


[Moderator's Note: He said he specifically erased that information.  PAT]

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

From: kentrox![e-mail] (Bud Couch)
Subject: Re: Follow Up; Fradulent Calling Card Attempt
Organization: Kentrox Industries, Inc.
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1991 23:30:27 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John
Parsons) writes:

> PAT, you're on!  The bill came today, and his number is 212 221-9242.
> Is this a pay station or not?  If I win, you owe me a Chicago pizza.
> If you win, I owe you a plate of Rocky Mountain oysters!

> [Moderator's Note: You win. The phone is a pay station located 'next
> to the pizza restaurant' by the subway entrance at 42nd and Broadway
> in New York City.

Don't be so quick to concede, Pat. A Sprint security man told me that
a large amount of the toll fraud out of NYC was controlled by the mob.
He said that a NY Telephone person would be bribed or threatened into
cross connecting a line in an apartment to a payphone in the area at
some distribution box outside of the CO. This ANI's back as a payphone,
but the perp is warm and dry, and difficult to catch since a physical
inspection of each splice point in the cable would be required. He
said these things are put up and used for about a month, then moved.

Then again, living in Chicago, maybe you really don't want to know,
since the boys have been known to do favors for one another.


Bud Couch - ADC/Kentrox   If my employer only knew ...  standard BS applies


[Moderator's Note: I still say the best thing would be to turn the
entire matter over to the Investigation Department at the Tucker
Telephone Company and let them convince the practioners of phreakcraft
to find a new hobby, like stamp collecting or something. :)   PAT]

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

Subject: Re: Call-Waiting Signal is Different
From: [e-mail] (Tad Cook)
Date: 19 Nov 91 23:52:46 GMT


[e-mail] (Marcus Adams) writes:

> It used to be that when I got a call on my call-waiting, there would
> be a click that was audible to whoever I was talking with at the time.
> It was handy because they would hear the click and say something like
> "Sure, go ahead and answer that."

> Sometime a couple years back, I noticed that this click disappeared on
> my phone. Friend's call waiting would still emit a click, but whenever
> I get a call-waiting call, the tone is only audible to me (although my
> girlfriend says she can hear my voice "drop out" for a second instead
> of the click).

> What happened? Is it my phone that caused the change? Is it the switch
> in my area?

This happened when they changed my residential service from a 1AESS to
a 5ESS.  The only audible difference to the other party is if they are
listening quite carefully while I am talking, my voice will go away
during the brief period that the tone appears at my end.  I think that
on the older switches there was also a flash ... a very brief period
of no battery on the line during the switching to the tone.  The new
system is much cleaner sounding, but can be annoying, because it is
more subtle and harder to tell when I am being signalled.

So they probably changed your office to a modern digital switch.


 Tad Cook     |  Phone:  [phone]             |   MCI Mail: 3288544
 Seattle, WA  |  Packet: KT7H @ N7DUO.WA.USA.NA   |   [e-mail]
              |  USENET: [e-mail]          or...sumax!ole!ssc!tad

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

From: [e-mail] (Robert J Woodhead)
Subject: Re: AT&T Billing SNAFU (ROA)
Organization: Foretune Co., Ltd.
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1991 03:00:41 GMT


[e-mail] (Peter da Silva) writes:

> No matter *what* they do automatically, they're damned. The only
> appropriate action is to call the customer and ask.

Agreed.  But they might also set things up so that *IF* they are not
the primary carrier *AND* there are no billable LD calls in a month,
then there are no ROA charges.  That way, more or less, you'd get to
eat your cake and keep it too.


Robert J. Woodhead, Biar Games / AnimEigo, Incs.   [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 19 Nov 91 08:51:01 MST
From: ames!ncar!noao!asuvax!gtephx!huntj (Jeffrey Hunt)
Subject: Re: Information Needed: GlobeCom91 in Phoenix
Organization: gte


I'm signed up for GlobeCom, so I have the booklet right at my side.
The dates are Deceber 2-5.

Registrar:
Frank Young
P.O. Box 40495
Phoenix, AZ 85067-0495
602-266-1991   fax [phone]


Jeffrey Hunt     [phone]
UUCP: ...!ames!ncar!noao!asuvax!gtephx!huntj
Compuserve:  73760.767@compuserve

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

Date: Tue, 19 Nov 91 20:59:11 pst
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telemarketing COS


In article <[e-mail]> John Higdon writes:

> Telco's should be all for this idea because they can then inflate (by
> a factor of four or five as they have done in the 900/976 business)
> the costs of providing these special lines and make some extra profit.
> The people should all be in favor since they would now have the
> ability to positively block all junk calls. And who cares about the
> telemarketers?

This plan would most likely drastically reduce the number of
telemarketing calls made, as I would imagine that a great number of
people would opt for a non-telemarketing-receiving line.  And anything
that greatly reduces the number of completed calls is not going to be
in favor with TPC.  But, if they were allowed to charge for
Telemarketing*Block (R), then you might have an idea ...


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Warren Burstein)
Subject: Re: Legitimate Reasons For Ringing My Phone
Date: 20 Nov 91 11:39:09 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: WorldWide Software


[e-mail] (John Hood) writes:

> The big deal is that a telephone call demands your time and attention,
> wherever you may be.  Junk mail you can let pile up in the mail box
> for a few days, newspapers and TV you can ignore, but the ring of a
> phone brings you running.

Was it in TELECOM Digest, or was it somewhere else, that I saw that
during some war there was a campaign to get people to pick up the
phone as soon as possible to cut down on the load on the phone network
and since then Americans are the only people who will interrupt
love-making in order to pick up the phone?  Or am I spreading an Urban
Legend?


[e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 20 Nov 91 08:58:48 EST
From: [e-mail] (Gary W Sanders)
Subject: Re: Telemarketers and My Neighborhood
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


> As of late I have been getting calls every couple of night from
> telmarketers wanting to know about my radio listening habits.  A
> number of local radio stations have change formats so guess they want
> to know is the switch is working.

Since I like to have fun with a tel-e-scum calls, Ill talk with them
for a bit. They wanted to know age, own/rent, income level (I lied a
litte on that one, we're all millionares aren't we??). They wanted to
know what radio stations I listen to at home and in the car.

I live in Columbus, Ohio and apparently the telmarketers preload a
database with only local radio stations before calling. When
responding on what radio station I listen to at home I replied CFMI.
CFMI is in Vancover BC and I listen to it via a TVRO satellite
channel. Well that really confused the telemarketer and even got the
computer confused. Apparently the database does a lookup on US calls
only and CFMI didn't fit in and the database crashed.

She took the rest of the info by hand ... I wonder what that will do.

Second favorite radio station at home WWV.
Favorite radio station while in the car W8ZPF (local ham repeater).

People need to have fun with the tele-scum ... answer with some left field
answer and most of all HAVE FUN ...


Gary Sanders (N8EMR) AT&T Bell Labs, Columbus Ohio
[e-mail]         614-860-5965


[Moderator's Note: You are confusing telemarketers with survey takers.
There is a difference. Don't paint them with the same brush. Survey
takers have a hard time convincing people they are NOT (really, not!)
selling anything. And many of them do provide a valuable service.  PAT]

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

Date: Wed, 20 Nov 91 11:30:45 EST
From: "Nicholas J. Simicich" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telemarketers: Why Not Transfer Them?
Reply-To: Nick Simicich <[e-mail]>


Actually, Roy's suggestion has a lot of merit: You could own your own
540 or 976 number, which you were perfectly happy to recieve
telemarketing calls on, at $$$/minute, 10 minute minimum.  Just refer
people to that number, then you answer and listen to their spiel with
an open mind.

I can see it now, as a 30 second spot on late night TV: Frustrated
telemarketers?  Been hung up on 450 times this week?  We have people
who are willing to talk to you, listen attentively, and buy, buy,
buy!!!  Call 1-900-BUY-ERS1, and you will be connected to sales
prospects who *want* to hear your pitches, and will not only act
interested, but will also give you constructive criticism.  $2/minute,
ten minutes minimum.

The info-marketer could just relay incoming calls to regular people
who had signed up with the service, might actually be interested in
buying something over the phone, and recieved mailings about
constructive criticism; and split with them based on the number of
calls that they got.


Nick Simicich (NJS at WATSON, [e-mail]) -SSI AOWI #3958, HSA #318

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 91 12:11:04 EST
Subject: Re: AT&T Special Promo to Fidonet?
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories - Murray Hill, NJ


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:

[ A description of a promotional announcement for what is purported to
be AT&T Software Defined Network that was blasted to Fidonet
coordinators. It had a lot of claims about OCC overbilling due to
lack of answer supervision, etc. ]

> Questions for those who are more in the know on these telecom issues:

> Is this type of promotion officially sanctioned by AT&T ??

No definitive answer, but I will be *REAL* surprised if the marketing
people for SDN could even spell FidoNet.  I do know that as a general
rule AT&T ads don't go out with unsupportable claims.  Claims about
call set-up time and tear-down time in normal print/broadcast ads can
be believed.  Personally, I don't know what the current situation on
answer supervision is for OCCs and AOSs, so I can't comment.

This sounds more like an ad from an aggregator rather than from AT&T.
He buys SDN from AT&T, signs up his customers and puts them on the
SDN, and then bills you from the call detail received from AT&T.

> Is this guy getting a kickback from the calls placed by those he signs
> up ??  I >KNOW< some LD companies do this.  I was offered to just such
> a deal myself recently if I would sign others up for a certain plan.

If my guess is correct, that this is an offer from an aggregator,
kickback is the wrong term.  He is not representing AT&T, he is
representing himself.  His profit comes from *MARK-UP*, by billing you
more than he is paying out.

Needless to say, I am conjecturing based on experience, not speaking
for the Company.


Andy Sherman/AT&T Bell Laboratories/Murray Hill, NJ
AUDIBLE:  [phone]
READABLE: [e-mail]  or att!ulysses!andys
What? Me speak for AT&T?  You must be joking!

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

Date: Wed, 20 Nov 91 09:26:45 PST
From: [e-mail] (Douglas W. Martin)
Subject: Telemarketing Fools


     Regarding telemarketers, last night between 6 and 7 pm, I got two
calls from two different people, both from the same insurance company.
(I won't say which one, but the name has to do with people involved in
agriculture.)  Anyway, both tried to sell me auto insurance.  I am
totally blind, and if they want to insure me to drive, I'm all ears!


Doug Martin    [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 20 Nov 91 10:00 PST
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Does Each Long Distance Carrier Have It's Own 800 Service?


[e-mail] (Bill Gripp) writes:

> 1-800-abc-defg on AT&T is Spacely Sprockets,

NO! 1-800-abc-defg is "Hooked on Phonics" Obviously, you do not listen
to network radio much! :-) Actually, Pat's explanation was correct.


        John Higdon         |   P. O. Box 7648   |   [phone]
    [e-mail]      | San Jose, CA 95150 |       M o o !

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

Date: Wed, 20 Nov 91 10:56:29 PST
From: pete![e-mail] (Tompkins)
Subject: Re: ANI Numbers That I Know of


[e-mail] (Granville Barker) wrote:

> In some places in MS you can dial 1 - 310 - 555 - 1212 or 5555 and a
> Computer voice will come on and say the number you are calling from.

Not likely anymore!  1-310-555-1212 gets you Directory Assistance in
the new 310 area code (213/310 were split 11/2/91)

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

From: motcid![e-mail]  (Dell H. Ellison)
Subject: Re: The ZZZZZZ Saga -- Part 1 -- "The Books"
Date: 20 Nov 91 21:28:03 GMT
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Lauren
Weinstein) writes:

> This is Part 1 of a series chronicling the history of the ZZZZZZ
> telephone entertainment service; from 1970 to 1980 the last listing
> in the Los Angeles telephone directory, and at the time "the most
> frequently dialed residential telephone number in the world".

I remember ZZZZZZ very well as a kid.  We used to have a lot of fun
dialing it.  But it did get a lot more busy as time went by.  I grew
up in West Los Angeles, about a half block from the corner of Westwood
Blvd and National Blvd.  (Maybe you know the area).

I had forgotten all about it until you posted your article.


Dell H. Ellison  ...!uunet!mcdchg!motcid!ellisond   Motorola, Inc.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #951
******************************





^A^A^A^A
Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa17632;
          23 Nov 91 15:41 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA18580
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 23 Nov 1991 13:50:52 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA25188
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 23 Nov 1991 13:50:40 -0600
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1991 13:50:40 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #952

TELECOM Digest     Sat, 23 Nov 91 13:50:36 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 952

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Network Info and Access (Will Martin)
    New MC145447 CLID Chip -- Comments on Application Notes (Marcus Leech)
    CD-ROM Databases (Monty Solomon)
    Short Supervision Transition (SST) Low Without Radar (Kevin Houle)
    WWII Telephony Propaganda? (Edward Floden)
    How About an Annoyance Tax? (Rob Stampfli)
    Information Wanted: FTP Sites Storing CCITT Recs (Matt D. Nguyen)
    GEnie and the Internet (Mikel Manitius)
    Talk About Pushy! (John Higdon)
    US West: BBSs are Businesses (Peter Marshall)
    Phone Charges and Technology in the US (Juergen Ziegler)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 21 Nov 91 11:49:28 CST
From: Will Martin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Network Info and Access


As the local e-mail answer-man and contact-point, and someone who has
been involved with the Internet since the ARPANET of 1976 vintage and
who has had on-and-off USENET access in the years since then, I'm
ashamed to say I don't have the answer to this question at my
fingertips or in my brain. But maybe the resource I'm looking for
doesn't exist. I'm often asked if this or that organization has
Internet connectivity; if it can be reached via e-mail or accessed
with FTP or telnet. The latest example of this was a query regarding
the Library of Congress. Sometimes I know the answer off the top of my
head, but I don't know about the LoC, and I don't even know where to
look it up or who to ask to get a definitive answer.

In the old days, it was simple -- you checked the host tables.
Nowadays, with the move to domain addressing and the growth of
interconnected sub-nets and gateways between disparate networks, even
the concept of a "host table" is sort of laughable. So I ask the
question: where does one look now to search for organization names who
are Internet-connected, to find out their host IP addresses and names?
Or where can one ask this question and expect an accurate response?
(And, while I'm asking, is the LoC on the Internet and can its
catalogs be remotely accessed electronically? Does the latter require
the establishment of an account or is public or anonymous access
possible?)

And, in a related topic, where can one find out about "public" or
"free" or reasonably-priced methods for network access? Here in
Telecom, we recently saw a description of the PANIX public-access UNIX
system in New York, and there have been references to others like the
Well in the Bay Area of CA, or the Cleveland Free-Net. How can I find
if there are any similar systems in other areas of the country? For
example, here in the St. Louis area, in the 314 area code, and across
the river in Illinois in 618? As people retire here, or otherwise
leave, having become used to Internet e-mail and access to various
mailing lists or interest groups, many wish to continue to have such
access after they no longer have accounts here, and I am often asked
about alternatives.

While toll phone calls to out-of-area systems such as those cited
above are possible, and perhaps alternatives like PC Pursuit could be
used to reduce the toll-call bill, it would still be preferable for
there to be a local system providing low-priced accounts with Internet
access. I don't know of one myself, and have pointed people to the
local UNIX users' group as a place to begin asking. (I've gotten no
feedback yet from this.) But perhaps there is some central directory
or at least a forum where one might inquire about such things? [It may
be more important to find such a resource in the 618 area code; I have
heard from people who live in that part of Illinois that there are no
local-call dial-up data-service numbers for the commercial services
like Genie. Calls from there to the 314-area numbers for such services
incur oppressive toll charges and thus are not a viable option.]

So pointers to network resources for obtaining information as described
above would be appreciated!


Regards,

Will    [e-mail] OR [e-mail]

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

Date: 22 Nov 91 09:02:00 EST
From: Marcus (M.D.) Leech <[e-mail]>
Subject: New MC145447 CLID Chip -- Comments on Application Notes


I got my MC145447 sample earlier this week (five day turnaround from
request to getting it in the mail -- way to go MOTOROLA!).

I was keen to try the chip out, so I built up one of their application
notes with a MAX232 RS-232 driver.

Here are a few comments based on my experience:

- The circuit as shown introduces a *lot* of hum into the line, since
one side of the ring-detect bridge is directly grounded.  In real
life, CO ground and your ground are not the same, so you have to
provide a lot of isolation between your ground and its.  The grounded
portion of the diode bridge circuit should be changed to be isolated
from ground by a 180K resistor.

- The MAX232 has a built-in pull-up on its input circuit (400K), which
buggers up the R/C time constant used on the output of /RING DET OUT
and /CARRIER DET. This time-constant is used to allow the /PWR UP
signal to "ride out" the interval between /RING DET going high (end of
ring) and /CARRIER DET going low.  If you use the suggested 0.33uf
capacitor/4.7Meg resistor, the time-constant will be too low because
of the pullup on the MAX232.  Change the capacitor to be between 3.3uf
and 4.7uf.  The time-constant here is critical to allowing the
automatic PWR UP circuitry to work.  On "real" COs, there can be
substantial wobble in the timing between end-of-ring and start of
data, so the time-constant has to be long-enough to account for the
worst-case wobble.

Once you've fixed these little problems, the chip seems to work "as
advertised".

You could run the chip in PWR UP mode all the time, except that if
you're using it on a an incoming modem line (my application), it'll
"false" on many non-202 carriers.


Marcus Leech, 4Y11     Bell-Northern Research  |opinions expressed
[e-mail]          P.O. Box 3511, Stn. C   |are my own, and not
[e-mail]     Ottawa, ON, CAN K1Y 4H7 |necessarily BNRs

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

Date: Fri, 22 Nov 91 01:33:41 EST
From: [e-mail] (Monty Solomon)
Subject: CD-ROM Databases


There are two interesting articles today (11/21) on page B1 of the
{Wall Street Journal}.

The first article is about CD-ROMs.  Phonedisc USA offers two CD-ROMs
with nationwide residential phone and address listings for about
$1,000 each.

SpeedDial from Dataware is a $299 disc that contains nine million
business telephone listings from around the country.

The second article is about the FCC's new plan to revamp the Bell
network.  It indicates that the Bell companies would have to unbundle
phone services (e.g. call routing and switching) and provide them on
an "a la carte" basis.  This would probably cause phone rates to rise
and computer modem users to see sharp hikes.

The article also mentions that the Bell companies can use information
about subscribers for marketing purposes.  They can identify customers
whose phones are frequently busy and try to sell them a voicemail
system, for example.


Monty Solomon   roscom![e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1991 12:46 CST
From: Flying Low Without Radar <[e-mail]>
Subject: Short Supervision Transition (SST)
Organization: Iowa Network Services, Inc.


I am investigating a large number of call records which have been
stripped out into an error file by our billing system, and I am hoping
to find some advice or information. The call records have all errored
out due to an "Unexpected Bellcore call type code". The structure code
on the CR's is 10002 and the call types are 34. I've traced this
through our switch documentation and found that particular call type
to translate to "Signaling Irregularities". As the vast majority of
the call records involved have both originating and terminating
NPA-NXX's, the conclusion we are seeing is these must be calls
initiated by a customer but receive a switchhook before the call is
terminated. Is this a correct assumption, or are there other
possibilities? These types of errors make up about .5% to 1% of all
the call records we process through our switch. Personally, I hang up
before completing a call more than once every 100 attempts. :)


Kevin Houle
Bitnet Address   : kh1461a@drake
Internet Address : [e-mail]

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

Date: Sat, 23 Nov 91 10:26:17 CST
From: [e-mail] (Edward Floden)
Subject: WWII Telephony Propaganda?
Organization: Technological Renaissance Users Group, Wonder Lake, IL


My dad has told me that he remembers that Western Electric (he thinks)
had a sort of "Rosie the Riveter"-type campaign during World War II, a
sort of inspirational female character. Does anyone recall details of
this? Dad's not certain of the specifics, and he'd like to know if
he's right or wrong.


Internet: [e-mail]  UUCP: crash!pro-ren!edward
DDN: crash!pro-ren![e-mail]   ProLine: edward@pro-ren

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

From: colnet![e-mail] (Rob Stampfli)
Subject: How About an Annoyance Tax?
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1991 04:21:39 GMT


Try this on for size: Petition your legislators to mandate an
annoyance tax on calls you receive that you don't want.  It would work
like this: If you are called by someone that interrupts you for no
good reason, after hanging up, you could dial a special code that
would add a $1.00 tax to that person's phone bill.  It would be
implemented sort of like the dial-back-most-recent-number-that-called-
you service.  You could impose the tax on any phone that calls your
number, once per call.  You would not receive any of the money back
yourself, but the proceeds could go to offsetting the cost of
everyone's service.

To make it less likely that people would play games, like leaving a
note on an answering machine and zapping the innocent party when they
returned the call, the first few instances of the charge would be
forgiven each month.  But it would make matters very interesting for
the telemarketers.  They would have to carefully determine in advance
just who would really be interested in their product, or face huge
charges from indescriminate calling.  But, if they really have a hot
product, they wouldn't be prohibited from trying to market it by
phone.

Now, both you and I know such a scheme would never fly, since the
telemarketers have more lobbyists and political clout than you or I.
But I bet such a program would sure be popular with the masses, and
dramatically reduce the number of annoyance calls.


Rob Stampfli, 614-864-9377, [e-mail] (osu-cis!kd8wk!res), [e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 21 Nov 91 14:25:20 EST
From: [e-mail] (Matt D Nguyen)
Subject: Information Wanted: FTP Sites Storing CCITT Recs
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


I am looking for FTP sites storing CCITT Recommendations and other
ANSI and international standards.  Please email the info directly to
me.  My machine can't access bruno.cs.colorado.edu.


Thanks,

Matthew Nguyen (att!ihlpy!mdn)

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

Date: Fri, 22 Nov 91 14:29:36 EST
From: [e-mail] (Mikel Manitius)
Subject: GEnie and the Internet


There have been several rumors recently about an Internet gateway for
email on GEnie. Last night I noticed a survey on GEnie which asks
questions such as how many messages one would send/receive, and how
much one would be willing to pay (in a flat monthly fee) for the
service.

GEnie is currently priced at a $4.95 per month flat fee for unlimited
off-peak usage, and email is currently included. One of the survey
questions proposes a price structure which would impose an additional
montly flat fee for the email Internet gateway service ranging from $5
to $25.

GEnie = General Electric Network for Information Exchange.


Mikel Manitius   [e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 21 Nov 91 23:31 PST
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Talk About Pushy!


I was visiting my mother yesterday and the phone rang. It was yet
another call from someone pushing MCI. Even though I have given Mom
rude lessons, particularly so she won't inadvertantly buy an "I've
Fallen And I Can't Get Up" machine or worse, she politely talked to
the MCI gentleman.

He insisted that she would save a great deal over AT&T. She replied
that she was very happy with her current arrangement. "But wouldn't
you like to pay less money for your phone service?" Mom: "I'm happy
with what I have now."

At this point you have to understand that a monthly interLATA total on
her bill is less than five dollars, and is frequently zero. She talks
to me (local), my sister in San Francisco (intraLATA), and very
infrequently, my brother in Los Angeles (the only interLATA call she
would make).

This guy kept badgering. "Why don't you switch, and if you don't like
it you can switch back?" Good old Mom was finally moved to say, "My
son is in the telephone business and he set up what I have now." The
reply?  "Do you always do whatever your son says?"

This is absolutely the most offensive and aggressive telemarketing
that I have ever seen. I cannot believe that MCI needs a little old
lady's $50/year that badly. If I had not actually been sitting there
it is very possible that she would have given in, but as it was she
actually managed to convince the salesanimal that the answer was
definitely "no". Next time I'm by, we will be dialing 700 555-4141
just to see if MCI has changed its slamming ways.


        John Higdon         |   P. O. Box 7648   |   [phone]
    [e-mail]      | San Jose, CA 95150 |       M o o !

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

Date: Sat, 16 Nov 91 10:11:11 -0800
From: ole!rwing![e-mail] (Peter Marshall)
Subject: US West: BBSs are Businesses


According to a 11/5 {Communications Daily} article, "System operator
of ... (BBS) in Portland has asked PUC to block US West from charging
him business rates for service..." The article states that Fidonet
sysop Tony Wagner's "problems with US West began in early October,
when he applied to add three lines into his house to go with two he
had. US West took order, but then wrote him Oct. 10 informing him that
he must pay business rates," which "are about $30 monthly, residential
rates about $10 less."  The US West letter, according to the article,
indicated "...you have computer bulletin board services and you have
been using your residential telephoneserviBulletin board services are
considered a business, therefore, subject to business rates."

Sysop Wagner, says the article, "objected, saying he never had charged
for access to his board, called 'First Choice Communications.' Extra
lines are needed because he's regional ... coordinator for FidoNet ...
One of additional lines was for TDD, Wagner said."

The article indicates Wagner filed a formal complaint against US West
on 10/14 and that a US West spokesman "said difference of opinion
stems from view of what constitutes business service," and that "under
US West tariff, individuals who operate bulletin boards are considered
to be offering service, subject to business rates." The article quotes
the US West source as stating that "Business rates would hold even if
[the] operator doesn't charge for access, as in Wagner's case ..."

Tony Wagner is represented by legal counsel, and the Oregon PUC has
set a pro forma reply to the complaint from US West was submitted
before the hearing was set.

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

Date: Thu, 21 Nov 91 12:20
From: "Juergen, ZIEGLER" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Phone Charges and Technology in the US


Hi TD-readers,

  I am a German reader of TD. As the majority of the TD readers know,
there is still a monopoly (telephone and network) on most telecomm-
unication services in Germany. This results in higher charges and the
lack of modern services (e.g. call-waiting, ...). To get a picture
about the state of telecommunications services , I am interested in
some information about rates, services and technology.

  First of all I would like to know when certain features first became
available and then widely available. Here are some features:

  Touch-tone dialing
  Itemized billing
  800 service
  900-(also 976,..) service
  Centrex
  Enhanced phone features (call waiting, forwarding, three-way, ...)
  Class Services (caller-ID)
  ....

  Second I am interested in the rates/(per month or use) of several
services:

  Local Phone Service
  Enhanced Services
  Long Distance
  ....


Thanks,

Juergen

BITNET   : [e-mail]
Internet : [e-mail]
X.400    : S=UJ32;OU=ibm3090;OU=rz;P=uni-karlsruhe;A=dbp;C=de

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #952
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa21188;
          23 Nov 91 16:11 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA24705
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 23 Nov 1991 14:24:33 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA22177
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 23 Nov 1991 14:24:23 -0600
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1991 14:24:23 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #953

TELECOM Digest     Sat, 23 Nov 91 14:24:13 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 953

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    LEC Competition to Come to Chicago (Wall Street Journal via Charlie Mingo)
    NT Wins Ameritech Network Upgrade Contract (Dan J. Rudiak via Jack Decker)
    Telephone Tapping Scandal in Brazil (Toronto Globe & Mail via Nigel Allen)
    CPSR FOIAs U.S. Secret Service (Craig Neidorf)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Charlie Mingo)
Date: 22 Nov 91 17:21:26
Subject: LEC Competition to Come to Chicago


TELEPORT PLANS TOUGH ASSAULT ON ILLINOIS BELL

By John J. Keller, {The Wall St. Journal}, November 22, 1991 at B1.

   Teleport Communications Group, which has been struggling to gain
entrance to the telephone services market dominated by local phone
monopolies, may soon get a big boost from the Illinois Commerce
Commission.

   Teleport executives said the company within a couple of weeks will
file with Illinois's chief utility regulatory agency a request to
expand the private-line services it now sells Chicago-area businesses
into public switched services.  These would compete directly with the
local phone monopoly, Illinois Bell Telephone Co.

   Illinois's chief regulator says he will work hard to support
Teleport's plan to become Chicago's second phone company.  "Teleport
is going to ask for permission to provide a public switched service ...
[that] would ultimately mean the breakup of the local telephone
monopoly," said Terrence Barnich, chairman of the Illinois Commerce
Commission.  "This will be the most significant event since [the
American Telephone & Telegraph Co.]  divestiture.  And I would give
them permission to do it."

   "That's a powerful message from a local regulator," notes Kenneth
Leon, telecommunications analyst at Bear, Sterns & Co.  In fact, he
says a rivalry is growing among regulators in states such as New York
and Illinois to lower the barriers for alternative carriers such as
New York-based Teleport and Metropolitan Fiber Systems, Inc., which is
based in Oakbrook Terrace, Ill.

    Any inroad by an alternative carrier such as Teleport into local
phone service could ultimately bring greater competition and drive
down local phone rates, which unlike long-distance rates, have barely
budged since the breakup of AT&T in 1984.

   "The customers are getting a choice they didn't have before.  It's
going to put pressure on the local operating company to lower pricing,
and provide network redundancy" in the event of a network outage, says
Mr. Leon.

   The local phone monopoly may benefit, too, since more competition
could help it win deregulation.  "We've always been pro-competitive
ever since the divestiture" of AT&T, says John Ake, vice president of
regulatory affairs at Illinois Bell.  But, "if competition is going to
enter our market, [then] we have to be able to price our services to
our costs in places where we're seeing competition. We'd like more
flexibility than we have now."

    Teleport, which is 100% controlled by Merrill Lynch & Co., has
installed highly efficient fiber-optic communications loops in New
York, Boston, Chicago, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Dallas and Houston.
Teleport uses the lines to provide private-line voice and data
communications services to businesses.  Merrill has recently agreed to
sell a 12.5% stake to cable operator Cox Enterprises, Inc., which had
been seeking to expand into local telecommunications services as a way
of finding more cable subscribers.

    The first step in Teleport's Chicago expansion would be to install
a multi-million dollar switching center that would provide so-called
Centrex- type and shared-tenent services to businesses in Chicago,
said Scott Bonney, Teleport's director of regulatory affairs.  Most of
the customers are currently served by Illinois Bell, which is owned by
Ameritech, one of the seven regional Bell holding companies.

    By the middle of next year, Mr Bonney said, Teleport will take the
second step and ask the Illinois agency to require Illinois Bell to
provide alternative carriers access to pieces of the phone company's
network, including subscriber lines, so that Teleport could provide
their own switched service and even billing to customers.  In
addition, Teleport will ask the Commission to have the phone company
make physical connections to its local lines more accessible and allow
the alternative carriers to assign and service customer telephone
numbers.

   "Our ultimate goal is to become the second phone company in the
Chicago area ... and in all the other areas in which we now operate,"
Mr. Bonney said.

   Illinois Commerce Commission Chief Barnich acknowledges he must
line up at least four commission votes out of seven to open up the
local phone network to a second carrier.  But he says he already has
two votes, his and Commissioner Calvin Manshio's.  "He's collaborated
with me on this, and I haven't even gone searching for the other
votes."  Mr. Manshio couldn't reached for comment.

   Alternative carriers have been gaining more ground lately in their
turf battle with the local monopolies.  Last spring, the Federal
Communications Commission proposed that fiber-optic companies such as
Teleport be allowed to connect their networks to phone systems run by
the regional Bell companies and GTE Corp. for equal access to
interstate long-distance networks.  The FCC has yet to issue a final
order on its proposal, which would allow phone company competitors to
monitor and control their own circuits, and would require the local
phone companies to make certain equipment available to rivals such as
Teleport.

   The FCC's proposal is initially limited to private-line services
that corporations could use to connect branch offices or other
buildings through the public network.  However, the Commission is also
considering allowing alternative carriers to plug into local phone
networks and provide public switched service when it is used to access
a long-distance company.

   In April, Illinois Bell began allowing Teleport and other
alternative carriers to connect to its network and provide business
customers with a backup telecommunications system that can prevent
interruptions in service during a network outage.  However the service
is limited to intra-state high-speed, digital private-line services
and other services dedicated to a particular customer.  It doesn't
include interstate or switched services, such as Centrex, which the
industry calls "plain old telephone service," or POTS, which Mr.
Bonney says Teleport ultimately wants to provide.

    Centrex is a type of phone service for businesses that uses the
phone company public-network switching facilities rather than private
switching facilities owned by the customer itself.  Shared-tenent
service is a service that extends Centrex service to corporate tenants
in a single building.

    Teleport's plan is to expand into a regular local phone service.
"We already have two switches in New York and we plan to put one in
Chicago," said Mr. Bonney.  "We're not making this investment of
millions of dollars of switching equipment just to provide Centrex.
That second switch is going to be used to become the second phone
company."

                                ---------

Perhaps the Moderator will subscribe and tell us what it's like ...


Charlie Mingo  [e-mail]   [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: I really doubt it. They're cream-skimmers also. I
need a full service phone company.   PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 21 Nov 91 16:39:05 CST
From: Jack Decker <[e-mail]>
Subject: NT Wins Ameritech Network Upgrade Contract


The following message originally appeared in the Fidonet MDF conference:

 Original From: Dan J. Rudiak

Chicago, Ill., November 12 -- Northern Telecom has won a large
contract to upgrade more than four million telephone lines in
Ameritech's telecommunications network. The contract is part of a
$1.05 billion network modernization program involving more than six
million telephone lines across five states.

Digital central office equipment and software will replace older
analog technology to improve transmission quality and enable the five
Ameritech Bell telephone companies to make the latest telecomm-
unications services more widely available in Illinois, Indiana,
Michigan, Ohio and Wisconsin.  Digital technology is particularly
important to computer networking and video teleconferencing, and
essential to the growth of commerce in today's business environment.

The upgrade also positions the Ameritech companies to deliver
Integrated Services Digital Network (ISDN) capabilities. With ISDN,
people can transmit voice, data and images over a single, ordinary
telephone line.

"Ameritech is assembling the telephone network its customers will need
to meet the challenges of the information age," said William Kashul,
regional vice president, Northern Telecom Inc.  "Northern Telecom is
proud to have its products play such a prominent role in this
endeavor."

Much of Northern Telecom's public networks product line, known as the
DMS family, is manufactured in Research Triangle Park, N.C., where the
company employs more than 8,000 people.  Northern Telecom has more
than 22,000 employees in the United States, and 60,000 worldwide.


Blue Wave/Max v2.00 [NR]
Origin: Gorre & Daphetid - ASP Approved BBS (1:134/14.0)

Jack Decker  [e-mail]  FidoNet 1:154/8

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

Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1991 21:50:25 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Nigel Allen)
Subject: Telephone Tapping Scandal in Brazil
Organization: FidoNet node 1:250/438, Echo Beach


 From {The Globe and Mail}, Toronto, November 22, 1991.

 Scandal / Retired Brazilian intelligence officers trying to earn
 extra money are using phone company to steal business secrets.

 Telephone tapping threatens economic reform.

 By Isabel Vincent
 South American Bureau

  RIO DE JANEIRO --- Brazilian president Fernando Collor de Mello's
attempts to liberalize his economy and encourage foreign investment
have been dealt a severe blow by allegations that retired intelligence
officers are using Brazil's state-run telephone company to steal
business secrets.

  The scandal, which broke last month when a U.S.-owned company
discovered that its phones were being wiretapped, has left the foreign
business community concerned about the security of Brazilian
telecommunications.

  Princeton do Brasil Ltda., a Sao Paulo company owned in partnership
by a U.S. and a European company, pulled out of Brazil's first
privatization auction last month after discovering that a competitor
had learned the amount it was willing to bid for the state-owned
Usiminas steel mill.

  Princeton administrator Carlos Roberto Damasceno said he realized in
September that his phones were being tapped and hired a private
intelligence firm to conduct an investigation.

  "They found out our most important secret as a result of the tap.
That's why we bowed out of the Usiminas auction," Mr. Damasceno told a
Sao Paulo newspaper. Usiminas was auctioned to a consortium of
Brazilian companies in late October.

  The investigation found that 12 retired intelligence officers are
involved in wiretapping within Telesp, the Sao Paulo branch of
Brazil's national telephone company.

  "There have been various instances of clandestine wiretapping, and
it's obvious to me that there are a group of people at Telesp doing
what they shouldn't be doing," said Waldemar Marques Ferreira, who
heads Segamr, the Sao Paulo firm that investigated the Princeton case.

  Mr. Marques, who formerly headed security operations at Telesp, says
retired army colonels are trying to earn extra money by trading in
business secrets.

  When he heard of Mr. Marques' findings last month, Telesp president
Oswaldo Nascimento immediately ordered a separate police
investigation, which recently confirmed the tap on Princeton's line.

  A report by Gerson Carvalho, the police officer conducting the
investigation, indicated that the tap was traced to one of Telesp's
high-security switching stations in Sao Paulo.

  Mr. Carvalho suspects that Raul Ruffino, a retied colonel who is a
senior executive at Telesp, may have ordered the wire-tapping, but Mr.
Ruffino denies any involvement and no charges have been laid.

  Mr. Marques says Mr. Ruffino and the other colonels at Telesp tapped
political dissidents' telephones during military rule in Brazil from
1964 to 1985.

  "Now they just want to make a little money," he said, adding that he
has received several death threats since doing public with his
investigation. He suspects the military group at Telesp.

  In an official statement released earlier this month, the federal
department of strategic affairs in Brasilia said that none of the
colonels implicated in the Telesp scandal are connected to the
government.

  Robert Brydon, president of the Royal Bank of Canada's Brazilian
subsidiary and head of the Brazil/Canada Chamber of Commerce in Sao
Paulo, said that Canadian executives working in Brazil have not
complained about wire-tapping.

  "Maybe we should start being concerned about the security of our
phones," he said, "but I don't think we really have big business
secrets."


Nigel Allen - via FidoNet node 1:250/98
INTERNET: [e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1991 16:55:20 -0500
From: Craig Neidorf <[e-mail]>
Subject: CPSR FOIAs U.S. Secret Service


     The Secret Service's response to Computer Professionals for
Social Responsibility's (CPSR) Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
request has raised new questions about the scope and conduct of the
agency's "computer crime" investigations.  The documents disclosed to
CPSR reveal that the Secret Service monitored communications sent
across the Internet.  The materials released through the FOIA include
copies of many electronic newsletters, digests, and Usenet groups
including "comp.org.eff.talk," "comp.sys.att," "Computer Underground
Digest" (alt.cud.cu-digest)," "Effector Online," "Legion of Doom
Technical Journals," "Phrack Newsletter," and "TELECOM Digest
(comp.dcom.telecom)".  Currently, there is no clear policy for the
monitoring of network communications by law enforcement agents.  A
1982 internal FBI memorandum indicated that the Bureau would consider
monitoring on a case by case basis.  That document was released as a
result of a separate CPSR lawsuit against the FBI.

     Additionally, we have found papers that show Bell Labs in New
Jersey passed copies of TELECOM Digest to the Secret Service.

     The material (approximately 2500 pages) also suggests that the
Secret Service's seizure of computer bulletin boards and other systems
may have violated the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 and
the Privacy Protection Act of 1980.

     Two sets of logs from a computer bulletin board in Virginia show
that the Secret Service obtained messages in the Spring of 1989 by use
of the system administrator's account.  It is unclear how the Secret
Service obtained system administrator access.  It is possible that the
Secret Service accessed this system without authorization.  The more
likely explanation is that the agency obtained the cooperation of the
system administrator.  Another possibility is that this may have been
a bulletin board set up by the Secret Service for a sting operation.
Such a bulletin board was established for an undercover investigation
involving pedophiles.

     The documents we received also include references to the video
taping of SummerCon, a computer hackers conference that took place in
St. Louis in 1988.  The Secret Service employed an informant to attend
the conference and placed hidden cameras to tape the participants.
The documents also show that the Secret Service established a computer
database to keep track of suspected computer hackers.  This database
contains records of names, aliases, addresses, phone numbers, known
associates, a list of activities, and various articles associated with
each individual.

     CPSR is continuing its efforts to obtain government documentation
concerning computer crime investigations conducted by the Secret
Service.  These efforts include the litigation of several FOIA
lawsuits and attempts to locate individuals targeted by federal
agencies in the course of such investigations.

     For additional information, contact:

     [e-mail] (David Sobel)


Craig Neidorf - Washington Intern
Electronic Frontier Foundation
666 Pennsylvania Avenue, SE  Suite 303
Washington, D.C.  20003
[phone] Voice   [phone] FAX

     *** Attribute no comment contained in this message to the     ***
     *** Electronic Frontier Foundation unless explicited stated!  ***


[Moderator's Note: Nice try, Craig. I'll respond in detail in the next
issue since space is short this time around.   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #953
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa24608;
          23 Nov 91 18:27 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA16261
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 23 Nov 1991 16:46:24 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA26826
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 23 Nov 1991 16:46:12 -0600
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1991 16:46:12 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #954

TELECOM Digest     Sat, 23 Nov 91 16:46:00 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 954

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Telemarketers Targeting Families of Vietnam MIAs (NamVet via D. Niebuhr)
    Off Hook Detection Circuit (George Brown)
    Single Source Wanted For Tariff Publications (David Esan)
    Connecting to the Network (Ken Sprouse)
    Re: New AT&T Mail Rate Clarification (David Leibold)
    Re: CPSR FOIAs U.S. Secret Service (TELECOM Moderator)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1991 15:52:59 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Dave Niebuhr, BNL CCD, 516-282-3093)
Subject: Telemarketers Targeting Families of Vietnam MIAs


This was on the soc.veterans newsgroup, submitted by Al Aharon.

  Volume  5, Number 10                             October 24, 1991

                          In-Touch or Soft Touch
                          By Ray "Frenchy" Moreau
                     NamVet's In-Touch Section Editor
                         VETLink #2 - Herndon, VA
                              [phone]

The elderly couple relaxed in their special chairs were fascinated
with what was appearing on the television screen.  It appeared as
though nothing could shake them loose from the modern imagery except
for a phone call.  Leo got up from his chair and grabbed the
clattering device.

"Damn," he thought,"been saying to myself to silence this ringer."

"Hello."

"Hello!! Is this Mr. Snapwood speaking?"

"Yes!  Who is this please?"

"You don't know me, Mr. Snapwood,  but you will.   Do you remember
Albert Marion Snapwood?"

"Yes, he is my nephew and he has been MIA since 1966."

"We found him Mr. Snapwood ... is the Mrs. available?"

Puzzled, Leo laid the receiver down and motioned for Jay to come to
the phone.

"Guy on the line says he found Albert ... he wants to talk to you"

Jay picked up the phone and again reiterated what Leo had said.

"Who is this?"

"Mrs. Snapwood this is good news for your family.  We have reason to
believe that Albert is very much alive.  If we cannot prove he is
alive then we will make sure his name will be placed on The Wall."

The above is an excerpt from a conversation my in-laws had just a few
weeks ago.  Somehow, somewhere a new scam is crawling out of the midst
of toxic waste.  That scam, although small, is growing and is
attacking our elderly.  They have suffered enough.  Yet, some devilish
fiends are trying to make easy money by preying on those that have
loved one's presumed to be MIAs.

My in-laws know about the "In Touch" system.  Within its databases all
the information relative to each and every soldier, sailor, or marine
that has been killed, POW and MIA is available.  Additionally, many
offices in Washington, DC provide to the public information about an
individual if found.  The one question which Jay asked had stopped the
would-be beggars from continuing.  That question was simple and to the
point - "How come my sister was not notified? And, by the way,
Albert's name IS on the Wall".

The guy hung up ...

Please educate your neighbors, especially the elderly, concerning the
possibility of falling into the arms of a con artist. With the latest
news about the possibility of the US Government's cover-up about the
MIA and POW's, our families would be more attuned to getting
assistance from these gutter bums.

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

[Moderator's Note: Thanks very much for passing this along. Just as I
would not compare all survey takers to telemarketers, neither would I
put all telemarketers in the category of creeps like this. Mr. Moreau's
report is a very sad commentary. I am reminded of the quatrain by
Rudyard Kipling:

                  God and the soldier, we adore
                  In time of danger and in time of war --
                  The war over and the trouble righted,
                  God is forgotten and the soldier slighted.

The vets get screwed all the time anyway, so why not by the
telemarketers as well, I guess.   PAT]

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

From: George Brown <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1991 11:21:08 EST
Subject: Off Hook Detection Circuit


     Perhaps someone can help me, I am looking for a simple circuit
that will reliably detect on/off hook for an extension phone.  The
circuit must be FCC approved.

     Because I don't read news often, please respond via Email.

Thanks,

George Brown
School of Electrical Engineering, Georgia Tech, Atlanta, GA  30332
USENET: ...!{allegra,hplabs,ihnp4,ulysses}!gatech!eedsp!brown
INTERNET: [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Yes please, reply to Mr. Brown by email.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (David Esan)
Subject: Single Source Wanted For Tariff Publications
Date: 21 Nov 91 16:42:19 GMT
Organization: Moscom Corp., E. Rochester, NY


We subscribe to various services to get copies of intrastate and local
telephone tariffs.  I have often thought that it would be nice (and
save money) if we could order these tariffs directly from the state
Public Service (Utility) Commission.

Wading through 50 states worth of bureaucracy is not my idea of a good
time, and I wonder if anyone else has been through this, has been
sucessful, and has any tips or pointers to help.

Thanks.


David Esan      [e-mail]

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

Subject: Connecting to the "Network"
Date: 19 Nov 91 11:19:57 EDT (Tue)
From: [e-mail] (Ken Sprouse)


In article 5825 David G Lewis writes:

> Doesn't *anyone* have a right to call and ring your phone when they
> please?  And don't you have the right to not answer it, to screen
> using an answering machine, to get an auto-attendant, or to take any
> number of other strategies to not talk to whomever may be calling?

I don't have a problem with 98% of the people who ring my phone.
There are certain times of the day I would prefer it not ring such as
dinner time and after I have gone to bed.  I ask friends and business
associates not to ring my phone durnig those times and they have
obliged me.  I also know that the rest of the world does not run on my
schedle so if someone missdials the phone or has been given a wrong
number in error and calls me I don't get upset. (Even at 2 in the
morning!)  This DOES happen but not often.

However, when I go answer the phone only to have some machine babble
away at me, one that I know dialed my number at random or because it
was the next one in numeric order, then I do get upset.  I DO have an
answering machine at home.  I also have an 86 year old grandmother who
I'm glad to talk with any time she chooses to call me who also REFUSES
to utter a sound when the answer machine picks up the line.  I have
tried to get her to leave a message to no avail.  I also feel that I
should not have to screen my phone calls to avoid what I consider
nusiance calls.

> It seems to me that by purchasing service on a public network, you are
> implicitly permitting anyone else on that public network to attempt to
> call you.  If you don't like it, don't answer.  Or purchase something

I basically agree with you with some limitations.

> Face it -- if you want restrictions on whether or not a call is
> permissible based on the reason for the call, the intent of the call,
> or whether or not the call has a "legitimate purpose" or some such,
> you're getting into regulating content.  And having anyone --
> certainly the telco, but even worse the government -- starting to
> regulate content of telecommunications is to me a very scary thought.

Perhaps "intent" was a bad choice of words on my part and I did not
make my meaning clear.  The thought of the phone company or the
government regulating the content of conversations is a scary one
indeed.  However there are limitations set on what you can do when
connected to the "public network".  You can not for example use your
phone to harass or annoy other useers of the "network".

If I have a problem with the way local school board is doing there job
I can't call each member up at 3 AM and read them the riot act five
nights a week.  I'm sure if I did I would be hearing from not only the
local police but the phone compay as well.  How do you think they
would respond if I told them "If you don't want to be bothered with my
3 AM calls get an answering machine or other technology that will
prevent me from calling you."  Not well I think.

My point is that "we" the users of the "public network" just as here
on Usenet have set some limits on the behavior of the other users.  In
my opinion the telemarketing people have crossed that line.  Judging
from the mail I have received since my original post a number of other
people feel the same way I do.  I saw an analogy between telemarketing
and door to door sales.  In the town I live in if you want to go door
to door selling or soliciting you must first go to the borough
building and get a permit and the permit sets limits on what you can
do.


Ken Sprouse / N3IGW
[e-mail]       GEnie mail KSPROUSE     Compu$erve 70145,426

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

Date: Tuesday, 19 Nov 1991 18:03:01 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: New AT&T Mail Rate Clarification
Organization: York University


I have spoken with some AT&T Communications folk in Canada, and this
USD$25/month minimum usage seems to be news to them; the Canadian
rates seem to be set on the Canadian end of things, and no one out of
AT&T Canada is talking about any monthly minimum usage fee. However, I
still have to get my attmail account out of U.S. action before the
$25/month kicks in. The annual fee in Canada is somewhat higher, when
various taxes are thrown on top, but USD$25/month would be a killer
compared to <$CAD$38/yr (I don't have the exact rate handy, but it is
in the $30s and things get billed in CAD$).

We'll see how things turn out from my end and see if I got out of
there in the nick of time.


[e-mail]

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

Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1991 15:43:39 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <telecom>
Subject: Re: CPSR FOIAs U.S. Secret Service


In TELECOM Digest V11 #953, Craig Neidorf <[e-mail]> tells of
efforts by the Computer Professionals For Social Responsibility to
seek out evidence of U.S. Secret Service activity relating to
investigations that agency has undertaken. TELECOM Digest was
mentioned as one electronic journal apparently examined as part of one
or more investigations. Perhaps Craig thought that seeing this journal
in the agency's files would somehow excite (or incite?) me to action.
Well, he is right. I was motivated to write this response.

> The Secret Service's response to Computer Professionals for Social
> Responsibility's (CPSR) Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request has
> raised new questions about the scope and conduct of the agency's
> "computer crime" investigations.  The documents disclosed to CPSR
> reveal that the Secret Service monitored communications sent across the
> Internet.

Since the Internet is a government-owned and managed resource in
cooperation with numerous publicly funded institutions and others, it
is fair game for anyone who wishes to 'monitor' its traffic, provided
that traffic is intended for public consumption and display, as are
the various e-journals and newsgroups.

Anyone is free -- even members of CPSR -- to interconnect with this
network and read the newsgroups or subscribe to the various
e-journals. Craig makes it sound, in his context, like the Secret
Service did something wrong. In this instance, they did not.

>   The materials released through the FOIA include copies of
> many electronic newsletters, digests, and Usenet groups including
> "comp.org.eff.talk," "comp.sys.att," "Computer Underground Digest"
> (alt.cud.cu-digest)," "Effector Online," "Legion of Doom Technical
> Journals," "Phrack Newsletter," and "TELECOM Digest (comp.dcom.
> telecom)".

Well I don't know about those other guys mentioned here, but I have no
problem with TELECOM Digest being in anyone's files.

> Currently, there is no clear policy for the monitoring
> of network communications by law enforcement agents.  A 1982 internal
> FBI memorandum indicated that the Bureau would consider monitoring on a
> case by case basis.

Well, why should there be a 'clear policy'?  That which is available
to the public is available to anyone, including employees of
government agencies. If I can read it, take offense to it and (feeling
it might be a criminal action) report it to authorities, then why
can't an employee of the Secret Service read something here, feel the
same way and report the matter?  Or conversely, why can't any member
of the public read something here, be disinterested in it or bored by
it and forget the matter.

> Additionally, we have found papers that show Bell Labs in New
> Jersey passed copies of TELECOM Digest to the Secret Service.

FYI, I have numerous names on the mailing matrix for TELECOM Digest of
people associated with various government agencies, including the
Secret Service, the IRS and many others. I ask for one thing from
people who wish to subscribe: an interest in telecommunications policy
and practice; and an enthusiasm for understanding telecommunications
in an intellectually and ethically honest way. I specifically forbid
and repudiate copyright of TELECOM Digest in the hopes people will
share their understanding and ideas with others.

If Craig's implication here is that there was something sneaky about
the passing of the Digest to the Secret Service, then he is entitled
to think that way; my answer is that had I known someone at Bell Labs
was going to all that trouble (passing along issues of the Digest) I
would have added the names of the interested parties to the matrix
here, or started yet another expansion mailing list (there are
currently over 100 such expansion mailing lists serviced from the main
list here).

> Another possibility is that this may have been a bulletin board set
> up by the Secret Service for a sting operation.  Such a bulletin board
> was established for an undercover investigation involving pedophiles.

I think that's an admirable goal ... investigating pedophiles.

>      The documents we received also include references to the video
> taping of SummerCon, a computer hackers conference that took place in
> St. Louis in 1988.  The Secret Service employed an informant to attend
> the conference and placed hidden cameras to tape the participants.

Well again, a public event is a public event. It was advertised widely
and people were invited to attend. That which can be seen with the
eyes does not become forbidden to view later through the lens of a
camera for strictly that reason alone.

> The documents also show that the Secret Service established a computer
> database to keep track of suspected computer hackers.  This database
> contains records of names, aliases, addresses, phone numbers, known
> associates, a list of activities, and various articles associated with
> each individual.

Not that you would ever keep any computer database of people with
interests like your own ....:)

> CPSR is continuing its efforts to obtain government documentation
> concerning computer crime investigations conducted by the Secret
> Service.  These efforts include the litigation of several FOIA lawsuits
> and attempts to locate individuals targeted by federal agencies in the
> course of such investigations.

Fine ... you do your thing. But let me make it perfectly clear you do
not speak for Patrick Townson and/or TELECOM Digest, although you may
speak for various readers of the Digest who have asked you to
represent them or speak for them. I have no problem whatsoever with
the Secret Service or any other government agency reading what I
publish here. They don't have to sneak around reading it.

> For additional information, contact:
> [e-mail] (David Sobel)

By all means, dear readers, contact CPSR if you want more information,
but as for myself, I support government efforts to crack down on
computer crime, and electronic invasion of computers by unauthorized
users. I do not support organizations which would deny the government
the right to participate in any public forum.

Email is a whole different matter ... notice I have not mentioned it
once today. I am talking about newsgroups and public mailing lists.


Patrick Townson

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #954
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa06213;
          24 Nov 91 1:53 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA17958
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 23 Nov 1991 23:40:57 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA06448
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 23 Nov 1991 23:40:47 -0600
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1991 23:40:47 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #955

TELECOM Digest     Sat, 23 Nov 91 23:40:45 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 955

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Sneaky! Michigan Bell Pulls a Fast One on Everybody (Jack Decker)
    Re: Telecom Sucks on the Road (Steve Forrette)
    Re: Call-Waiting Signal is Different (Tony Harminc)
    Re: Telemarketers and My Neighborhood (David Leibold)
    Re: Telemarketing and the Slippery Slope (Steve Forrette)
    Re: USWest Voice Mail Problems (Laird P. Broadfield)
    Re: Cellular Antennas (Chris Arndt)
    Re: Legitimate Reasons For Ringing My Phone (Wolfgang Zenker)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 23 Nov 91 16:35:59 CST
From: Jack Decker <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Sneaky! Michigan Bell Pulls a Fast One on Everybody


In a message dated 17 Nov 91 15:29:10 GMT, Steve Simmons
<[e-mail]> writes:

[[a long posting about phone calls in excess of 300 per month being
billed extra has been deleted ]]

> There's not much excuse for ignorance on this one; even a wimp rag like
> the {Detroit Free Press} has been covering it.

We don't get the {Detroit Free Press}, and I make no apologies for
that.  When Michigan Bell goes to the MPSC for a rate increase, or a
fundamental change in the way they want to charge customers, they have
to publish a notice in all newspapers in their service area (even our
little rag here in Sault Ste.  Marie).  Obviously, in this case they
didn't see the need to do that.

> As for circumventing the regulatory process by getting a law passed,
> you've got it turned around here.  The regulatory process is subservient
> to the law, as it should be.  The regulators are subservient to the house
> and senate, as they should be.  When private citizens petition the
> legislature to change the laws that control the regulatory agencies,
> it get's called "seeking to make the bureaucracy more fair".  When MI
> Bell does the same thing, it's called "circumventing the regulatory
> process".  Go figure.

You mean you CAN'T see the difference here?  You mean the fact that
Michigan Bell can hire a staff of lobbyists and attornies to get their
point across doesn't phase you?  The only real "watchdog" that we
"private citizens" have is the MPSC.  They are SUPPOSED to watch out
for the interests of customers here.  Please remember that this is a
regulated monopoly we're talking about, not a business where consumers
have the option to patronize another firm if they don't like the way
the first one charges.

> That aside, I'm in *favor* of what Mi Bell is asking for.  Jeez, billing
> people for actual use.  Next we'll want to charge timeshared users for
> CPU and disk, and then where will we be?  MI Bell should go all the way,
> and charge *nothing* if you don't use your phone at all.  Your phone bill
> should reflect the actual costs of providing the service.

Fine.  Please explain to me how my making x number of calls in a given
day drives up their costs of providing service.  A better comparison
would be to say "let's charge cable TV viewers for all the time they
have their TV set turned on." You see, the phone company would like
you to THINK you are somehow "using up" their resources when you place
calls, but it just isn't so.  Virtually all modern exchanges have
plenty of capacity to handle the highest calling volumes that would
ever be expected.

Another thing you might ask yourself is why they are wanting to charge
by the call rather than per minute of use.  If there are resources
that really are somehow consumed by usage, then why is it fairer for
the person who makes ten one-minute calls to pay more than the person
who makes one phone call that lasts four hours?  (I had a call that
lasted that long once!).  The phone companies don't want to charge by
time because they would then most likely be required to itemize calls
on the bill, and customers could actually check and verify the
accuracy of the billing.

The largest expense of providing phone service is what is called
"outside plant" ... that is, the network of wires and cables that
connect your home to the telephone network.  If you REALLY wanted to
have users pay for the actual costs of providing service, then the
person who lives ten miles away from the central office should be
paying ten times as much as the person who lives only one mile from
the central office.

My point is that the actual costs of providing telephone service bear
almost no relation at all to the amount of usage on a line, and
therefore usage is not a valid criteria for charging for telephone
service.  When you have measured service, it's like paying a monthly
rental fee to have a painting hanging in your home or office, and then
being charged extra every time someone looks at it!

> Anything else is subsidising the big user (you and me, Jack) at the
> cost of the little user.

You are making an unwarranted assumption here (and you know what they
say about people who ASSUME...).  When Michigan Bell was putting phone
call counts on their bills last year, my personal local usage rarely
went much over 150 calls per month, and I was making more calls then
than I do now.  Supposedly I would benefit from measured service, but
I still don't like it in principle because it isn't a fair way to
charge for the service.  It also ignores the fact that for many
decades the phone companies have managed to provide flat-rate service
without going broke, and now that their labor costs are much lower
(ask any telephone company employee how many people they have laid off
due to automated equipment taking over jobs that were performed by
people), they feel they need more revenue.  For what?  So they can
finance their NON-telephone related ventures?!  Now, who is
subsidizing whom?


Jack Decker   [e-mail]   FidoNet 1:154/8

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

Date: Wed, 20 Nov 91 16:08:13 pst
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telecom Sucks on the Road


Regarding hotel telephone policies, over the past two months, I've had
three surprises: one bad and two really great!

Bad: Hyatt Regency O'Hare near our Moderator's city.  Placard states
"no charge for 800 calls - calling card calls 75 cents."  So, I of
course used my Sprint FON card instead of AT&T.  When I check out,
there are 75 cent charges for every call to 800/877-8000.  I
complained, stating that the placard said 800 numbers were free.  The
response was "But it also said that calling card calls are 75 cents."
Me: "So, all 800 numbers are free, except 800/877-8000?"  Response:
"Yes, that's right.  A new law was passed a few months ago which
forces us to charge the same amount for each carrier's calling cards."
Yea, right!  They did remove the charges, though.  Some law if it can
be ignored if you complain.

Good: Sheraton Station Square, Pittsburgh, PA and Embassy Suites,
Washington, DC: No surcharge for 800 or calling card calls, and AT&T
as the default carrier.  They had something like 75 cent charges for
local calls, but I can live with this, as they incur some cost with
these.  I think that if these are chain-wide policies, that these
chains will score major brownie points with travelers.  I know that I
for one am fed up with paying for calling card and 800 access, which
of course cost the hotel nothing to provide.  Much like the COCOT
situation, I think that merchants are finally waking up to the fact
that the (small) extra profit these schemes generate are just not
worth the customer bad will they create.

One interesting note is that one of the last two (I think it was the
Sheraton) provided a "data port" on the back of the phone.  The
instruction card said that it supported data rates up to 1200 baud.
That's an interesting limit on a voice grade line.  However, I noticed
that whenever placing an off-premises call, there was a large amount
of "hiss".  This hiss was apparent even when entering the calling card
number, so it was not the "long" distance part of the call that was
creating the hiss.  I had no terminal with me, so I could not
experiment further.


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 19 Nov 91 19:40:51 EST
From: Tony Harminc <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Call-Waiting Signal is Different


[e-mail] (Marcus Adams) wrote:

> Sometime a couple years back, I noticed that this click disappeared on
> my phone. Friend's call waiting would still emit a click, but whenever
> I get a call-waiting call, the tone is only audible to me (although my
> girlfriend says she can hear my voice "drop out" for a second instead
> of the click).

> What happened? Is it my phone that caused the change? Is it the switch
> in my area? I really hate not having that audible click because its a
> pain to stop someone mid-sentence to tell them I have another call,
> and some people don't believe me, saying "I didn't hear a click ..."

It's the switch.  On older switches (ESS type, and others like
Northern Telecom's SP1), the connection is made with electromechanical
means (reed relays in one case -- mechanical crosspoints in the other).
To give you the call-waiting beep while *not* beeping the other party,
the switch has to break the connection momentarily, beep you, and
reconnect the call.  This makes two closely spaced clicks.

On digital switches (5ESS, DMS100, etc.) the connection is made by
time- division means and there is no audible click.  But indeed the
connection must still be broken (otherwise some portion of the beep
would be echoed to the other party and they might think it was *their*
call-waiting going off).

Now most people like it the new way.  In fact when my sister moved
recently from an area served by a DMS100 to one served by a 1ESS, she
cancelled call waiting after a few days because she couldn't stand all
the clicking!


Tony H.

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

Date: Tuesday, 19 Nov 1991 18:15:15 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Telemarketers and My Neighborhood
Organization: York University


I get the odd early-evening telemarketer, and on occasion they even
pop up on the answering maching during the day. Rather interesting to
hear a canned voice babble on and using up your incoming message tape
(not to mention raping the environment with all the electricity used).

One canned telemarketer called, and when the time came to give some
kind of response, I turned up channel 47 (the multi-language TV
station in Toronto) and gave them a dose of international dialogue. It
would be interesting if the telemarketers actually tried to do
something with it.


[e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 20 Nov 91 16:50:53 pst
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telemarketing and the Slippery Slope
Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA


In article <[e-mail]>:

> I got to thinking about this along the following lines:

>  How much would it annoy you if you got one telemarketing call in
>     six months?
>  How about once a month?
>  Once a week?
>  Once a day?
>  Once an hour?
>  Five times in an hour?
>  Every two or three minutes?

> The machinery and phone service are cheap enough.  What's to keep
> someone from setting up a machine that simply calls people and
> delivers a canned advertising message, not caring whether it gets a
> response?  What's to keep 500 people from doing the same thing?

The thing that will keep it from getting to the last example is that
the marketplace will self-regulate this to some extent.  If everone
were to receive a telemarketing call every two to three minutes, I
doubt very much that anyone would be interested in buying anything
over the phone.  At this point, the calls would stop, as it would be
no longer profitable to place them.

As far as the frequency of calls, I for the most part have been
fortunate to avoid "avalanches" of calls that some readers report.  I
wonder how much this is a result of living in a targeted area, or
rather having their individual numbers on some widely-distributed
lists?


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: The {Chicago Sunday Tribune Magazine}, 11-24-91 has
a major article on telemarketing: statistics from the industry; the
history of the industry, and a lot more. Get the paper today if you
can, or send a couple dollars to Chicago Tribune Public Service
Bureau, 425 N. Michigan Avenue, Chicago, IL 60611 and ask for a copy
of the Sunday Magazine, 11-24-91.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Laird P. Broadfield)
Subject: Re: USWest Voice Mail Problems
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1991 00:38:35 GMT


In <[e-mail]> asuvax!anasaz![e-mail]
(Bob Maccione) writes:

> At last, a reason to post to telecom! I have USWEST (tm, no doubt)
> voice mail and am experiencing a problem with missing data (so to
> speak). It seems that whenever someone pauses the next couple of words
> are lost. This is most apparent when the person is leaving a phone
> number; I seem to lose at least one digit.  I did call the friendly
> USWEST rep and her reply was that it was supposed to happen whenever a
> person paused. I said (in my Monday voice) "But that's not acceptable,
> I shouldn't lose any of the message", her reply was "That's just the
> way it works" ...

> Needless to say I'm pissed. Any net hints on what to do?

Yes.  Purchase a real answering machine.

Seriously though, this seems to be a characteristic of voicemail
systems in general, particularly noticeable on Octels.  I leave
messages on Octel boxes a lot, (since 1: we have one, and 2: they have
the largest market share (by a long shot), so everyone else has one
too) and I noticed that I was adjusting my own speech patterns to
prevent the digit-dropout.  (Avoid pausing after the third digit, keep
voice-carrier (so to speak (ha ha)) going between digits, run them
together a bit; sounds (ha ha) more difficult than it is.)  I've
noticed the same adjustment in other people here, I suspect most of
them are doing it unconsciously.  (We use the voicemail system at
three times the person/usage that Octel terms "very heavy", so people
here are on it a lot.)

Aside from speech therapy for everyone who calls, I don't have any
better suggestion.  I have contacted my engineering contact to find
out if there's a service parameter that can be patched, I know there
isn't a customer (i.e. box-owner, not user) one.  If I learn anything,
I'll follow up.

(I don't know how the original correspondent's experience has been
with US West, but the PatheticBell horror stories have been rampant.
My suggestion to get a "real" answering machine was not at all
tongue-in- cheek.)


Laird P. Broadfield
UUCP: {ucsd, nosc}!crash!lairdb
NET: [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 18 Nov 91 13:04:49 -0800
From: [e-mail] (Chris Arndt)
Subject: Re: Cellular Antennas


Our first mobile phone was a used IMTS we bought for use when we
travel in our motorhome. (Pac Bell IMTS service Highly recommended --
includes free follow-me-roaming in all PAC Bell IMTS areas with no
long distance charges.)

Our second mobile phone was a cellular for my wife's car for her
business use.

Our third was a Nokia hand portable for my business use. (Nokia mobile
mounting kits include RJ11 datajacks.)

Upshot: Two more mounting kits and antennas gives us three phones in
the motorhome. (And, yes, we do have a portable FAX that travels with
us.)

So, yeah, some people have two phones in their vehicle.

IMTS note: I selected IMTS service for the motorhome for its longer
distance ability coverage. We are very rarely without service when we
travel, especially in the mountians. We can hit the Sacramento
terminal from Kirkwook Ski Area. (about 60 air miles.) The record so
far was from Brianhead Utah to an ATT terminal in Nevada, about 80 (!)
air miles. We were calling hotel 800 numbers in Las Vegas, and ATT
didn't even nail us for airtime! The longest short distance call I
made was from a payphone at the lodge at Kirkwood, home to the IMTS
number (209 to 805) roamed to the motorhome a half mile away (805 to
Sacramento terminal in 209 and then 80 air miles to motorhome.

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

From: [e-mail] (Wolfgang Zenker)
Subject: Re: Legitimate Reasons For Ringing My Phone
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1991 02:09:32 GMT


As a side note: Here in Germany any unsolicited calls on phone, fax or
telex are considered unfair trade practice and illegal, unless the
caller and called party already have some business relations.
Telemarketing calls during night-time would break an additional law
that prohibits disturbing noise between 10 pm and 7 am.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #955
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa11612;
          24 Nov 91 4:33 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA03361
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 24 Nov 1991 00:36:04 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA04232
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 24 Nov 1991 00:35:52 -0600
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1991 00:35:52 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #956

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 24 Nov 91 00:35:49 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 956

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: The Future of Printed Books (Jeff Sicherman)
    Re: The Future of Printed Books (John Higdon)
    Re: Calling Card Wars (John Higdon)
    Re: Calling Card Wars (Dan Hartung)
    Re: Calling Card Wars (Harold Hallikainen)
    Re: How Illinois Bell Really Chose AC 708 (H. Peter Anvin)
    Re: How Illinois Bell Really Chose AC 708 (David W. Tamkin)
    Re: How Illinois Bell Really Chose AC 708 (Carl Moore)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 20 Nov 91 23:38:22 -0800
From: Jeff Sicherman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The Future of Printed Books
Organization: Cal State Long Beach


> [Moderator's Note: Thank you. You phrased it very well. I have no
> complaints about competition. I fully favor the right of anyone and
> everyone to offer telecommunications services, and let the public
> decide who is the best. But to allow MCI, Sprint et al to compete with
> AT&T is not the same thing as smashing AT&T into pieces. The *only*
> legitimate thing Judge Greene could have done was to order AT&T and
> the Bell Companies to interconnect in an even-handed and arm's length
> way with the new competitors. He should have ruled the competitors
> were permitted to string wires, set up exchanges, solicit customers
> and compete in every way -- both at the local and long distance level
> -- with the Bell System, with the assurance their customers would be
> able to connect with Bell System customers. PERIOD. END OF COURT
> ORDER.  Let *them* put together a nationwide integrated network, even
> if it took them over a century to do so. Let them start out like Bell
> started out at the turn of the century. That would be fair. The rest
> of the MFJ was simply theft of AT&T's property, based in large part on
> Greene's own bigotry toward and dislike of AT&T.  PAT]

  There PAT goes again. The fact is that Greene is not responsible for
the breakup, AT&T agreed to it because they recognized that they would
have lost the anti-trust suit because they had engaged in anti-compet-
itive and illegal practices. There was no 'smash into pieces'. It was
neatly divided into pieces because AT&T had demonstrated that it could
not operate as a ethically responsible corporate citizen within the
context of our anti-trust laws. It's punishment was to be denied the
right to continue in its present form which it used and abused to the
detriment of its competitors and the public at large (hey, PAT, notice
how LD prices *have* come down since AT&T had to play honestly).

  BTW, AT&T had no property as such. Its shareholders did, and they
were given shares in the entities into which AT&T was divided (and
remained) so there was no direct loss (or theft, as you mischaracterize
it) other than the power held by the corporate honchos who didn't
know how to exercise it legally and responsibly.

  Perhaps, PAT, you would have proposed that Al Capone be told to not
due naughty things anymore and just let go.

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

Date: Thu, 21 Nov 91 02:08 PST
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: The Future of Printed Books


On Nov 20 at 23:01, TELECOM Moderator writes:

> He should have ruled the competitors
> were permitted to string wires, set up exchanges, solicit customers
> and compete in every way -- both at the local and long distance level
>  -- with the Bell System, with the assurance their customers would be
> able to connect with Bell System customers. PERIOD. END OF COURT
> ORDER.

But this is so short-sighted. There are many services for which there
are competition that it is unreasonable to expect that the service
provider should have to create an entire network from scratch. I
submit, as an example, answering service bureaus. Do you expect an
answering service or voicemail provider to set up his own network? Of
course not.

But His Honor had enough forsight to realize that if the Bell System
was not broken up, there could never be REAL competition. "Arms
Length" is a myth. The Bells literally had to be removed from certain
areas of the arena. As further proof, look at what is happening as the
RBOCs are being allowed back into certain areas. Pac*Bell is already
manipulating its policies and procedures to force the smaller
providers off its network. What is not widely known is the new
"streamlining" of its ESP (Enhanced Service Providers) office from
sixteen representatives to four. Why? "We do not anticipate growth in
ESP." And you can bet the farm on that, even if Pac*Bell has to lie,
cheat, and undercut everyone at ratepayer's expense.

My only complaint about the "breakup" is that some misguided people
are trying to put it back together again. IMHO, to the degree that
they succeed we will have the worst of both worlds.

> Let *them* put together a nationwide integrated network, even
> if it took them over a century to do so. Let them start out like Bell
> started out at the turn of the century. That would be fair. The rest
> of the MFJ was simply theft of AT&T's property, based in large part on
> Greene's own bigotry toward and dislike of AT&T.  PAT]

That is really the old Bell line if I ever heard it. One of the
reasons that the Bell System was so stogy was that it really did
consider almost every aspect of telecommunications "its property". To
remind yourself of that, just look at the bottom of a 70s phone. "BELL
SYSTEM PROPERTY. NOT FOR SALE." How you or anyone can look fondly on
an era when ONE COMPANY jealously guarded the technology of
telecommunications is beyond me.

Oh, sure, there was competition before divestiture. Through CDH
couplers and the like. And when you even THOUGHT about buying a
Stromberg Carlson E120, the Pacific Telephone representative would be
out telling you how all that "cheap, imitation junk" did not work
properly with "Bell lines". The way those couplers impared service,
this even had some truth to it.

No, the field of telecommunications does not belong to the Bell
System.  And, pray tell, just what was stolen from it? Were there
facilities that were arbitrarily given to some third party? Were there
patent infringements? Oh, sure, it pained Mother mightily to have to
chuck over the BSP manuals so that EVERYONE could know what the
standards were. And maybe this is what you mean by "theft". But we are
SO much better off with all the cards on the table.

I think that you will find that those of us who are up to our elbows
in the deep and dirty generally approve of divestiture. The
opportunities for innovation and accomplishment would have been
non-existent in the pre-divestiture environment. Back when I was a
kid, everyone just assumed that I would end up working for "the phone
company". Not in my wildest nightmares would that have ever happened!
Were they kidding?  Unions, policies, bureaucracy, seniority, and
secrecy were not my idea of a good time.

But divestiture changed all of that. Many who had something to
contribute could do so outside of that non-creative environment. The
creation of procedures, standards, networks, and enhanced services
became possible on a much more free-wheeling basis. Even the enhanced
services that the RBOCs are now offering were created OUTSIDE the
"Bell" environment. I and many like me have been able to roll up our
sleeves and work hard in telecommunications and make contributions to
the art that would have been impossible under the iron hand of Ma
Bell.

Jeez, every time I think I am going to answer you in a line or two
about this topic it turns into a diatribe and lecture. But I am still
unable, apparently, to view this from your prospective. I just do not
see the advantages of the "before" nor the disadvantage of the
"after".  Oh, sure, you have to make some educated choices now. One of
the most frequent observations of immigrants from Eastern Bloc
countries was that you had to make so many choices when you lived in a
free society.  Some even returned, unable to cope with a society that
did not "take care of them". So it is with telecommunications. If you
want choices, you have to make them. If you don't want them, just
order vanilla POTS with AT&T as your carrier and it will be just like
the old days.

Only it will be cheaper and better.


        John Higdon         |   P. O. Box 7648   |   [phone]
    [e-mail]      | San Jose, CA 95150 |       M o o !

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

Date: Thu, 21 Nov 91 01:12 PST
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Calling Card Wars


[e-mail] (Andy Sherman) writes:

> In article <[e-mail]>, simona@panix (Simona Nass)
> writes:

>> At least here in New York it is. I just got a notice from NYTel that
>> AT&T would no longer be able to use customers' home phone number as
>> part of their calling card.

> For sure, one arrangement that must end on 1/1/92 is the shared
> calling card database.  So AT&T and the RBOCs have no choice -- they
> must have independent databases.

Well, I can tell you for sure that Pac*Bell is not racing headlong
into this arrangement.

Last week, my wallet was stolen after I dropped it at a gas station.
In it was (foolishly) a PAC*BELL calling card. So, among the many
calls to card issuers was one to Pac*Bell. The rep told me that not
only could I cancel the card with this phone call, but I could select
my new PIN for immediate use.

This I did and thought nothing more about it. In yesterday's (Wed)
mail, my new AT&T calling card showed up. Guess what number it showed!
It bears my phone number just as always, with my new self-selected
PIN!  Now, today is 11/21/91 and the claim is that the databases will
have to separate on 1/1/92. Why on earth would AT&T issue me a brand
new card with my Pac*Bell calling card number? Presumably, it will not
work after the first of the year for AT&T calls, right? Am I missing
something here?

> However the AT&T card option of calling plans (like the Reach
> Out (SM) Card Option) will only work with the new AT&T card numbers.

So why did AT&T just issue me a card with the OLD number on it? This
would have been the perfect opportunity to give me a new card. I have
numerous plans with AT&T, including WATS, ROW, ROC, and ROA. Am I
getting second rate service from my beloved carrier?


        John Higdon         |   P. O. Box 7648   |   [phone]
    [e-mail]      | San Jose, CA 95150 |       M o o !

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

From: [e-mail] (Dan Hartung)
Subject: Re: Calling Card Wars
Organization: Chinet - Public Access UNIX
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1991 07:12:27 GMT


[e-mail] (Simona Nass) writes:

> At least here in New York it is. I just got a notice from NYTel that
> AT&T would no longer be able to use customers' home phone number as
> part of their calling card.

Anybody know why this is?  This just happened to my father, and he
really feels inconvenienced.  He used to be able to remember the whole
dialing sequence, now he has to pull his card out, etc.

NYTel offered to allow customers ("How many plastic cards would you
like?") to keep the same number (home phone) and PIN from their AT&T
card, but with it under NYTel's jurisdiction.

This is sounding like Judge Greene ruled that the local telco "owns"
the number?


Dan Hartung   [e-mail]

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

Date: Sat, 23 Nov 91 11:20:00 -0800
From: [e-mail] (Harold Hallikainen)
Subject: Re: Calling Card Wars
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo


> [Moderator's Note: One or the other (AT&T or local telco) has to
> change the card number; otherwise how would a distant telco know who
> to (intercompany) bill for the call you made on your trip?   PAT]

    I seem to remember something like if I use my PacBell card to
place a call that PacBell cannot handle, my default (1+) long distance
carrier gets billed for the call (who then bills me).  So, I can use
my PacBell card to place AT&T calls from whereever.  Actually, it
seems that PacBell could just act as a credit verification system for
any LD carrier.  If I key in a card number that is a PacBell number
(followed by my id code), the LD carrier could check with PacBell and
see if it's a valid number.  If it is, then the LD carrier bills
PacBell, who then bills me.

    It seems to me that AT&T is supposed to move away from using
phone numbers for credit card numbers, since that may have given them
an unfair advantage.  Actually, why not let all the LD carriers use
the phone number plus personal ID for credit card numbers.  The credit
card number only identifies who the calling customer is, not which
carrier is supposed to be used.  All carriers could use the same
customer ID number.  The customer determines which carrier to use thru
950 or 10+ dialing.  The LD carrier could either contract with the
local telcos to do the billing, or could just do card validation thru
them.  Or, the LD company should be free to use any number for the
customer account number, including one suggested by the customer,
which could quite likely be based on the customer telephone number.
The LD carrier then has a record of the account number and the
personal ID number and needs to do no further checking.


Harold

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

From: [e-mail] (H. Peter Anvin N9ITP)
Subject: Re: How Illinois Bell Really Chose AC 708
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, USA
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1991 01:25:02 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> of comp.dcom.telecom,
[e-mail] (Stephen Wolfson) writes:

> how could they really choose any boundary other than Chicago/Suburbs
> to make the split without totally upsetting all the suburbs that
> didn't get 312.

Well, they could have given Chicago 708!  The reason why the suburbs
wanted to keep 312 was to keep this marker of belonging to Chicagoland.
Well, would anyone doubt Chicago is in the Chicago area? :-)

Regarding the IBT argument that changing Chicago's area code would be
global mayhem, I'd just like to point out that more subscribers were
changed to 708 than kept 312.


INTERNET: [e-mail]   TALK:      [e-mail]
BITNET:   HPA@NUACC     HAM RADIO: N9ITP, SM4TKN
FIDONET:  1:115/989.4   NeXTMAIL:  [e-mail]
IRC:      Xorbon        X.400:     /BAD=FATAL_ERROR/ERR=LINE_OVERFLOW

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

Subject: Re: How Illinois Bell Really Chose AC 708
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 91 19:13:50 CST
From: [e-mail] (David W. Tamkin)


Stephen Wolfson wrote in volume 11, issue 949:

> Bellcore had given them two choices, 901 and 708.

It must have been 910 or 708; 901 was already in use in Tennessee.
Most others already were prefixes in the old 312.

When the split was first rumored I noticed that 708 was the only
unused area code that wasn't an existing prefix here, but it was 1987
and I didn't know back then that N10 combinations were permissible.
There was a 910 prefix (now in 708) by the time of the split, but it
might well have opened in the intervening two years.

The story given out for public consumption was that of all the choices
available, 708 had the advantage of being entirely at the bottom of
the keypad whereas 312 is entirely at the top.  How that is an
advantage I cannot tell; it's important that the two codes be
dissimilar but they needn't be diametric.  I find 708 to be very high
on pulls, and there must be more pulse customers in the city dialing
1708 to reach suburbia than there are in the suburbs pulsing 1312 to
call into the city.

Today I saw an ad for an apartment complex in the Chicago-Superior
service area that gave a seven-digit number (with no area code)
beginning "708".  Illinois Bell assures me that there is no such
prefix in area code 312; things haven't gotten that far out of hand.
It must have been a misprint, perhaps for 703 or 908.


David W. Tamkin  Box 7002  Des Plaines, Illinois  60018-7002  [phone]
[e-mail]   CIS: 73720,1570   MCI Mail: 426-1818  [phone]

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

Date: Fri, 22 Nov 91 15:04:42 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: How Illinois Bell Really Chose AC 708


No, 901 was not a possible area code for the Chicago suburbs.  901
was already in use in Tennessee.

Suppose a firm in Utah advertises something like:
Toll-free 800-xxx-xxxx
In Utah 801-xxx-xxxx

Has there been any problem with these similar area codes?

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #956
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa20403;
          24 Nov 91 11:54 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA01540
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 24 Nov 1991 10:20:17 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA14163
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 24 Nov 1991 10:20:06 -0600
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1991 10:20:06 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #957

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 24 Nov 91 10:20:01 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 957

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: ANI Numbers That I Know of (Linc Madison)
    Re: ANI Numbers That I Know of (Ron Schnell)
    Re: ANI Numbers That I Know of (Marcus Adams)
    Re: ANI Numbers That I Know of (Tad Cook)
    Re: 'Easy' Numbers, Teleslime, Wrong Numbers, etc. (Wilson Mohr)
    Re: Caller ID Capable Answering Machines (Scott Coleman)
    Re: Caller ID Capable Answering Machines (Laird P. Broadfield)
    Re: Automatic Emergency Dialers in Chicago (David W. Tamkin)
    Re: Automatic Emergency Dialers in Chicago (Harold Hallikainen)
    Re: Busying Out a Phone Line M. (Pat Turner)
    Re: USWest Voice Mail Problems (John R. Levine)
    Re: The March of Progress (Floyd Davidson)
    Re: Discount International Calls (Heard on BBC Mediawatch Program) (G Toal)
    Re: RCMP Raids Montreal BBS (Peng H. Ang)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 21 Nov 91 02:49:05 PST
From: [e-mail] (Linc Madison)
Subject: Re: ANI Numbers That I Know of
Organization: University of California, Berkeley


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Granville Barker) writes:

> In some places in MS you can dial 1 - 310 - 555 - 1212 or 5555 and a
> Computer voice will come on and say the number you are calling from.

Not any more!  That number is DEFINITELY not an ANI number ANYWHERE,
because it is the number for directory assistance in coastal areas of
Los Angeles, as of November 2, 1991.

Have any other areas used N10 as pseudo-area-codes for special
purposes, only to have them abruptly change as 210/310/410/510 have
been assigned?


Linc Madison  ==  [e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 21 Nov 91 15:52:09 -0500
From: Ron Schnell <[e-mail]>
Subject: ANI Numbers That I Know of


In GTE Los Angeles, either 114 or 1223.
In PACBell San Diego 211-2111.

*Interesting note: In San Diego, 211-2112 gives you your number, but
with Touch-Tones(tm)!  I think it playes a # at the beginning.

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

From: [e-mail] (Marcus Adams)
Subject: Re: ANI Numbers That I Know of
Date: 22 Nov 91 01:12:21 GMT
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail].
duke.edu (Alan M. Gallatin) writes:

> In article <[e-mail]> Joe Stein writes:

>> I know of several.  Here in GTE-Northwest, you dial 999, or 611.
>> In US-West territory, it is 956-2742.
>> Also, 1-200-555-1212 is supposed to work in the "little" offices.

> Is anyone compiling a list?  If so, two additions: NY Telephone (at
> least in NYC and on Long Island) = 958 GTE-South (at least in Durham,
> NC) = 711

Add 114 for GTEland here in West LA (I'm in 310-477)

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

Subject: Re: ANI Numbers That I Know Of
From: [e-mail] (Tad Cook)
Date: 21 Nov 91 23:01:00 GMT


[e-mail] (Granville Barker) says:

> In most places there is some special number you can dial and it will
> tell you what number you are dialing from.  In some places in MS you
> can dial 1 - 310 - 555 - 1212 or 5555 and a Computer voice will come
> on and say the number you are calling from.  I was wondering if anyone
> knew of any other simular numbers?

Incredible!  Why don't you get Directory Assistance for the 310 area
code in Southern California?


Tad Cook     |  Phone:  [phone]             |   MCI Mail: 3288544
Seattle, WA  |  Packet: KT7H @ N7DUO.WA.USA.NA   |   [e-mail]
             |  USENET: [e-mail]          or...sumax!ole!ssc!tad


[Moderator's Note: He probably meant in pre-310 days, and had not
updated his information recently.   PAT]

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

From: motcid![e-mail]  (Wilson Mohr)
Subject: Re: 'Easy' Numbers, Teleslime, Wrong Numbers, etc.
Date: 22 Nov 91 18:23:14 GMT
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL


In article <[e-mail]>, Jack.Winslade@ivgate.
omahug.org (Jack Winslade) writes:

> Shortly after moving out here, I noticed two things about the
> telephone.  One was a sharp increase in the number of wrong numbers.
> We have xxx-1379, which has no repeated digits, and I would not call
> it an 'easy' number to remember.  I would say we get a couple of wrong
> numbers per week.

AHHH, but if you look at the normal touch-tone(tm) phone, these last
four digits are the corners of the pad. Your local "dialing without a
cause" individual picks the number probably because of the pattern.
There are other numbers like this that are frequently (ab)used. i.e
1234, or other (un)meaningful four letter words. We have a WATS line
here at work like this and most people remember "the four corners"
rather than the number itself!


Wilson Mohr - Motorola CIG    ...!uunet!motcid!mohr

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

From: [e-mail] (Scott Coleman)
Subject: Re: Caller ID Capable Answering Machines
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1991 18:04:18 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Kevin Kadow) writes:

> What's the lowest rate for a simple serial output Caller ID box?

By far the cheapest way to get a CNID device is to build one. Motorola
has just come out with a single chip call identifier, the MC145447.
They were recently giving away free samples of this chip (call
800/521-6274 to request one). The chip comes with data and sample
application schematics. The output is serial, so all you need is an
MC145407 EIA driver chip to get EIA-232 level serial output.

I haven't had the opportunity to play with this chip yet since I live
in Central Illinois and we won't get CNID until well after Chicago
gets it in January. :-( I'd love to hear from anyone who has built
something based on this chip.

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Fri Nov 22 13:32:27 1991
From: [e-mail] (Laird P. Broadfield)
Subject: Re: Caller ID Capable Answering Machines
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1991 21:32:25 GMT


In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Kevin
Kadow) writes:

> Illinois is scheduled to have Caller ID in mid-January 1992, and I
> have been considering getting a CID box, but since my answering
> machine takes my calls more often than I do it would make more sense
> to get a machine that would have a DATE/TIME/CALLER ID stamp.

[can't find one...]

> Has anybody seen one of these available in states that already have
> Caller ID?

Hmmm.  Sounds like an aftermarket product idea: A box, that you would
have inline with your answering set (or even with your whole house)
that would detect the calling party disconnect, grab the line itself
to prevent the answering set from hanging up, and speak the
time/date/callerid, and then disconnect.

Anybody who's more familiar with disconnect-detection who can
reality-check this?


Laird P. Broadfield
UUCP: {ucsd, nosc}!crash!lairdb
INET: [e-mail]

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

Subject: Re: Automatic Emergency Dialers in Chicago
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 91 18:51:28 CST
From: [e-mail] (David W. Tamkin)


Michael J. Graven wrote in volume 11, issue 949:

> So, will this eliminate the LifeCall systems as well?  My only
> knowledge of them stems from some rural New Jersey installations, in
> which the devices call the local police department directly because
> the exchange lacks 911 service.

My parents live in Chicago and subscribe to a comparable service.
When an alarm is triggered, live human operators call for police,
firefighters, or paramedics.  They do not play a prerecorded tape.


David W. Tamkin  Box 7002  Des Plaines, Illinois  60018-7002  [phone]
[e-mail]   CIS: 73720,1570   MCI Mail: 426-1818  [phone]

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

Date: Fri, 22 Nov 91 12:55:09 -0800
From: [e-mail] (Harold Hallikainen)
Subject: Re: Automatic Emergency Dialers in Chicago
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo


> The Chicago Police Department will no longer respond to calls
> generated by automatic taped messages received over the police
> emergency 911 system.

> Have injunctions like this been instituted in other urban areas
> besides Chicago?  It seems to me that ill cordless phones would pose
> more of a problem than off-kilter autodialers, and idle minds (the
> devil's workshop) more so than that.

    San Luis Obispo (not exactly an "urban area") has disallowed
automatic alarms calling the police or fire for many many years.  I
think that when the ban was first instituted, it was in response to
their lines being jammed during momentary power interruptions.  Here,
all such alarms are to report to an answering service or alarm
company, who may then call the police.


Harold

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

Date: Fri, 22 Nov 91 12:23:03 CST
From: Patton M. Turner <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Busying Out a Phone Line


> Given an "ordinary" phone line, how would one go about busying the
> line out?  I don't think crossing the two wires is an appropriate way
> of doing it, and it probably doesn't work ...

Shorting tip to ring is fine if you are far away from the CO.  A
generally safer way to do this is to place a resistance of 200-300
ohms across tip and ring.  Just make sure you use resistors with a
high enough power rating.  Four 1K, 1/2 w resistors in parallel will
have 250 ohms of resistance, and should have no problem with the
power.  I would guesstimate that using a VOM to make sure you have 10
to 40 mA of loop current will yield a satisfactory result.  Too high a
loop current might trigger a trouble report in electronic CO.  I think
either the DMS-100 or the 5ESS will "lock out" any loop drawing too
much current until reset.

This is a handy way to busy out a loop you are working on, so ringing
voltage will not be applied at the CO.


Pat Turner    [e-mail]     KB4GRZ @ K4RY.AL.USA

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

Subject: Re: USWest Voice Mail Problems
Organization: I.E.C.C.
Date: 23 Nov 91 10:25:00 EST (Sat)
From: [e-mail] (John R. Levine)


In article <[e-mail]> is written:

[US West voice mail clips out entire words in messages]

> Needless to say I'm pissed. Any net hints on what to do?

Sure.  Since the service is unusable, refuse to pay for it and make
sure they know why.  The can hardly say with any credibility that an
answering machine that makes it impossible even to leave a phone
number is working correctly.  Technically, it sounds like some eager
beaver in a misguided effort to get the maximum storage on undersized
disks has cranked up the compression much too high.

In the larger picture, this is yet another reason why it is a terrible
idea to allow telcos to provide enhanced services, since you can be
sure that US West will price their voice mail so low and the network
features that competitors need to use to priovide third party voice
mail so high, that all the competitors will be driven out leaving only
US West's third rate offering.


Regards,

John Levine, [e-mail], {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnl


[Moderator's Note: Ameritech's voicemail service is definitly not
third rate. It has worked very well for me in the two months I have
had it on my line. It works well with my distinctive ringing number
also, although the person who sold it to me said it would not.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Floyd Davidson)
Subject: Re: The March of Progress
Organization: University of Alaska Institute of Marine Science
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1991 11:03:36 GMT


John Higdon <[e-mail]> writes:

> And in the next article, [e-mail] (Dill) writes:

>>     Is it not the case that AT&T would not bill for a call until after
>> the first second or two or five?  I remember hearing that somewhere.

> This was a technical limitation in the old mechanical (including
> crossbar) switches. It took up to several seconds for such equipment
> to recognize supervision from the far end and as such would take that
> long to start the billing record. This was not done as a courtesy or
> to provide a "grace period". It was merely a technical limitation.

It may or may not be true, but I'm lead to believe that at least well
into the '60 it took more like 30 seconds to start billing.  And that
it essentially was a "grace" period.  That went by the way when people
figured out how to record something and play it back faster, thus
being able to transfer a significant amount of information in less
that 30 seconds.  I'm sure that data communications via modems put the
final touch on any significant "grace" period.

However, apparently in some places (perhaps all?) regulations require
at least 2.0 seconds of off hook supervision before billing begins.  I
don't keep up with regulations, but the DMS-200 documentation states
that the parameter is set by default to be 2.08 seconds to comply with
any such 2.0 second regulation.  (The parameter may be set from .16
seconds to 40.8 seconds in .01 second increments on a DMS switch.)

>>     Recently, I noticed that I have had a large increase in one minute
>> calls.  So, last month I tried making a few calls and hanging up the
>> moment the other side picked up (say it was an answering machine or
>> something to that effect).  Sure enough, these one minute calls showed
>> up on my bill.  Is AT&T trying to dig out a few pennies or am I just
>> wrong?

> Modern electronic equipment can recognize supervision almost
> instantly.  Added to this is the conversion from inband signaling.
> Your observations are correct, but your assumptions regarding cause
> and purpose are not warranted. Yes, the grace periods are over. But
> remember, AT&T has no control over what the originating switch is.
> That equipment belongs to the LEC and when call timing begins depends
> on the local switch. Even when it does not, as in the case of some
> OCCs, billing will generally begin immediately because most equipment
> is now capable of it.

Call timing for billing purposes is a function of whichever switch
does the AMA recording, which is usually the toll switch (ie. AT&T).
That switch inserts whatever delay (which defaults to 2.08 seconds on
DMS-200 toll switches) there is between called party off hook
supervision and the recorded call start time.  (I don't really think
that the length of time it takes to recognize supervision has much to
do with it.  The two second delay is to avoid false supervision.)

I have no idea if AT&T (or Alascom) or any OCC is required to provide
a 2.0 second delay.  I also have no idea how that delay is handled in
AT&T ESS switches.  I do know that Alascom does in fact use the
default timing of 2.08 seconds.


Floyd L. Davidson   | Alascom, Inc. pays me, |UA Fairbanks Institute of Marine
[e-mail]| but not for opinions.  |Science suffers me as a guest.

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

From: [e-mail] (Graham Toal)
Subject: Re: Discount International Calls (Heard on BBC Mediawatch Program)
Date: 22 Nov 91 22:00:09 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: MCGV Stack @ EUT, Eindhoven, the Netherlands


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David E
A Wilson) writes:

> the # key [pronounced pound by the person describing the service] to
> terminate a call and get a fresh dial tone).  I have no idea how this
> could be made to work -- ANI would not be available internationally
> would it?

Now there's a thought; assume it is CLID (not ANI) and that it works
in Britain, that implies CLID - which is not passed on to customers in
the UK, but is passed around between exchanges - is passed on to the
US phone system.  Has anyone in the US with a CLID-identifying device
ever received a call from the UK which showed the ID?

*Or* ... maybe you were right about ANI, and it works from one of the
BT 0800 numbers which is linked directly to the US.


Graham

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

Date: Wed, 20 Nov 91 13:45 EST
From: "Peng_H.Ang" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: RCMP Raids Montreal BBS


How did they get the horse through the door?


[Moderator's Note: The same way our FBI manages to get their bureau
through the doorway, silly!  :)   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #957
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa21436;
          24 Nov 91 12:32 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA32160
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 24 Nov 1991 10:56:53 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA15358
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 24 Nov 1991 10:56:42 -0600
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1991 10:56:42 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #958

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 24 Nov 91 10:56:32 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 958

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: AT&T Billing SNAFU (John Higdon)
    Re: USWEST Voicemail Problem (Charles Hoequist)
    Re: Cellular Antennas (Will Martin)
    Re: Copyright on Phone Books (Peng H. Ang)
    Re: How Do They >>Know<< ? (Ken Abrams)
    Intercept Recordings: Comments and Questions (Douglas W. Martin)
    Can You Block Outgoing Calls? (John T. Ellis)
    Re: Touch-Tone on Old Switches (John Higdon)
    Re: 5ESS Audio Quality (Graham Toal)
    Bell System Consent Decree (was Future of Printed Books) (Tad Cook)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 21 Nov 91 01:22 PST
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: AT&T Billing SNAFU


[e-mail] (david.g.lewis) writes:

> Note also that if this premise was carried to its logical conclusion,
> "slamming" would not be a problem.  If IXC presubscription is a
> service I get from the LEC, only I can change that service, not an
> IXC.

I got so tired of the various companies slamming one client that I
finally told Pac*Bell that I wanted no PIC and that if they put one on
anyway it would not matter. The client's switch uses ARS, and so it
appends the carrier code of choice on each and every call, depending
on the selected route.

Each of the client's twenty or so trunks could each have a different
pre-subscribed carrier for all I know or care at this point. No matter
who tries to slam what, the call WILL go over the expected carrier.
This is the best way I know of to "slam proof" someone's service.


        John Higdon         |   P. O. Box 7648   |   [phone]
    [e-mail]      | San Jose, CA 95150 |       M o o !

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

Date: 21 Nov 91 08:05:00 EST
From: Charles (C.A.) Hoequist <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: USWEST Voicemail Problem


Bob Maccione writes concerning his US WEST voicemail:

> It seems that whenever someone pauses the next couple of words
> are lost.

Every voicemail system I've come across has some algorithm for editing
out silences over a certain duration. It has the obvious benefit that
someone doesn't fill up your buffer with a long relfective pause; but
I have yet to find a silence clipper that doesn't trim off the
beginning of the first word following the silence. That, however,
doesn't sound like your problem. You should not be losing entire
words.

One possibility: the voicemail silence-detector (to know when to start
and stop cutting) is taking its noise floor (='silence') reading from
your line, and your line has unusually high noise. The detector is
thus overenthusiastic about what to cut, since its 'silence' threshold
has been set too high. If this is the case, then other people using
the service should have widely varying experiences: some should have
your problem, some not.  Obvious solution: get the line fixed. (or
tell everyone to talk _loudly_ after the beep, and not to pause before
saying phone numbers :-) )

On the other hand, if everybody is losing big chunks, then it's the
voicemail's fault (or USWest gives everybody noisy lines).  In this
case, what the rep told you is true. It's not a bug, it's a feature.
Obvious solution: stop using USWest voicemail.


Charles Hoequist   |Internet: [e-mail]
BNR Inc.           | 919-991-8642
PO Box 13478, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-3478

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

Date: Thu, 21 Nov 91 7:25:27 CST
From: Will Martin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular Antennas


motcid![e-mail] (Mark Ahlenius) wrote:

> Now once while driving on Rt. 53 (Illinois) I saw a van with 13
> cellular antennas, unless it was a special test vehicle, your guess is
> as good as mine.

Why, that sounds as if it must have been John Higdon's mobile home!

:-)  :-)  :-)  :-)  :-)  :-)  :-)  :-)  :-)  :-)

Regards,

Will


[Moderator's Note: Nah, John never gets this far east.  PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 21 Nov 91 11:13 EST
From: "Peng_H.Ang" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Copyright on Phone Books


I have not kept in touch with the law in that area but it is a drastic
change from the previous position to say now that lists of information
are no longer copyrightable in the US. Back in 1988/89, I'd done some
research on the area and the law there seemed settled. (Not surprising
that the defendants lost in the lower courts.) The rationale was that
protection was to reward effort and that although there was minimal
creativity, the law was not out to judge the amount or quality of
creativity.

Does anyone know what has been the impact since? Did the database
community raise a brouhaha? What about the impact on international
copyrights as the US has bilateral agreements with countries that
protection would be reciprocal -- ie we will protect your company to
the level that they are protected at home.

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

From: [e-mail] (Ken Abrams)
Subject: Re: How Do They >>Know<< ?
Organization: Athenanet, Inc.,  Springfield, Illinois
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1991 16:04:19 GMT


> [Moderator's Note: It is not a question of them being 'special'. ANI
> (auto number ID) is not the same thing as Caller-ID. The end results
> do look the same, but the method of delivery is different and the
> purpose of the information is different. ANI is delivered on calls to
> 800 numbers. Caller-ID is delivered to customers who pay for that
> service on regular POTS lines.   PAT]

I think a little clarification is in order.  Pat is correct when he
says that the "method of delivery" is different.  ANI has been around
for a long time and is the method used internally in the network to
capture the billing number of the calling party.  Prior to 1984, the
ANI generally did not propogate out onto the network but went only as
far as necessary to create an originating billing record (closest
tandem).  In most cases, it never left the originating office.  It
didn't need to because all the billing was done by the BOCs at the end
offices or local tandems.  Enter Judge Green ...

Now inter-exchange carriers (and other service providers) have the
option to send their own separate bill to the originating party for
the service used.  To accomplish this, the ANI (originating number) is
sent to IXCs and other qualified service providers.  Some of these
service providers have arranged to pass the ANI all the way to the
terminating end of the call.  When this happens, the ANI CANNOT be
delivered to called customer over a plain old line.  The final
connection to the called customer must be a trunk type connection
(DID) or a direct connection to the service provider.  A "normal"
phone line is not capable of sending ANI to the station equipment.
Enter Caller ID ...

To over simplify a bit, CID offers all the same functionality of ANI
but the purpose and method of delivery is different.  CID was designed
explicitly to deliver the calling number to the called party over a
"normal" line wereas ANI requires a trunk type connection at the
terminating end.  I guess you could consider CID as a modification or
enhancement to ANI but it requires SS7 inter-office signalling to pass
the "ANI" from one end to the other.


Ken Abrams        nstar!pallas!kabra437
Springfield, IL   [e-mail]   (voice) 217-753-7965

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

Date: Thu, 21 Nov 91 11:51:07 PST
From: [e-mail] (Douglas W. Martin)
Subject: Intercept Recordings: Comments and Questions


     A few notes, and some questions about intercept recordings:

     Most intercept recordings begin with a three-tone seequence.
Some, however, do not; e.g. the intercept recordings in exchange
(619) 811 which connects to various Pac Bell offices.  Also,
[phone], in Yellowknife Northwest Territories gets a recording
"Your call cannot be completed as dialed" with no tones and a human
male voice.  I also called an intercept recording in Zaire (country
code 243).  I got the same three-tone sequence as in the states, but
the recording was in French, saying "Your call cannot be completed as
dialed.

     Some questions: why are some intercept recordings preceeded by
one or more rings, whereas some come on immediately, with no ringing?
Why is it generally impossible to forward calls to an intercept
recording?  (I have found a few numbers to which I can forward calls,
but usually it doesn't work for most numbers.)  Can someone explain
what causes the intercept: "Your call did not go through."  What
indeed happened to my call?  "Call cannot be completed as dialed makes
sense; most unassigned numbers are routed to this recording.

Finally, if I start an answering machine message with the appropriate
three-tone sequence, can my number then be called long-distance with
no charge?  If not, why not?


Doug Martin    internet: [e-mail]

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

From: motcid![e-mail]  (John T Ellis)
Subject: Can You Block Outgoing Calls?
Date: 21 Nov 91 20:52:17 GMT
Organization: Motorola Inc. - Cellular Infrastructure Grp., Arlington Hgts, IL


Dear netters,

This request comes after an interesting discussion with a friend of
mine.  Since I don't know the answer, I'm asking you for assistance.

This buddy has RESIDENTIAL phone service through Illinois Bell here in
Chicago.  He has enjoyed service with them for the last 20 odd years
but now finds himself in a most peculiar situation.  He would like to
control the ability of his phone (here I refer to the number ie
312-xxx-xxxx) to place outgoing calls.  He has contacted Illinois Bell
on this, and they said they do not offer any such capability.

Why would you want to control outgoing calls, you may ask?  Well, it
seems his kids do not realize what kind of costs are involved in
making phone calls and refuse to stop using the phone.  He would
rather not rip out the phone since he is interested in receiving
calls.  However, that has been listed as the last option.  Ideally
what he wants is this.

ALL incoming calls are accepted.
ALL outgoing 312, 0, 911 and 411 calls are accepted.
ALL OTHER outgoing calls are rejected.

This situation allows him to be in contact with the world as well as
make emergency and operator assisted (ie. credit card calls) calls.

Now, is this possible to do by just going through the telco (even
though Illinois Bell has said no)?  If not, is (are) there any
pheripherals he can buy and add-on to achieve this?

Any and all responces are appreciated.  If something like this has
been discussed before, excuse my ignorance and send me the
reference(s).

Thanks in advance.


John T. Ellis 708-632-7857    Motorola Cellular    [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Yes it is possible. He might want to include 708 in
the places to be dialed. He has to get some service rep at IBT who
knows what they are talking about. That may be the biggest part of the
job right there. They know about 900/976 blocking, but many do not
know about other kinds of toll-restriction. He can also purchase an
inexpensive device from Hello Direct (1-800-HI-HELLO) which is
installed at his end to do the same thing.  PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 21 Nov 91 13:09 PST
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Touch-Tone on Old Switches


On Nov 20 at 23:01, TELECOM Moderator writes:

> [Moderator's Note: I suspect I would have outlasted that incident at
> the least when I explained that my intent was only in one thing: to
> stop the theft of telco resources, and that since the subscriber would
> not agree to curtail his theft of resources he would need to be placed
> in an environment (ie on a prefix) where such theft could be
> controlled by the company.   PAT]

I would hardly use the term "theft" if no effort is made by the telco
to protect the commodity. The fact is (and you of all people should
know this) that when ANY customer came off hook, a tone receiver was
connected to the line. At that moment, the resources are committed
whether a DTMF tone is sounded or not.

A good analogy would be a continously running drinking fountain in the
public square. The water is consumed whether anyone actually takes a
drink or not. It is no drain on resources if someone takes a sip of
the water. If a customer used pulse dialing, he would tie up these
facilities for about 20-30 seconds. If he used DTMF, it would be less
than five. Which is more of a "theft of service"?

Now if the telco actually had the facilies to put the customer in a
more modern switch that could have restricted use of DTMF, he probably
would gladly go along if for no other reason than to have better
service. But in this case, there was not even tariff relief for the
telco (nothing in the rules that allowed it to take any type of action
against the customer given the current availability of the
facilities).

Therefore I fail to see your position of indignation over what was
done for the customer. Technically, it was a BENEFIT for the telco.
Ethically and morally, I had no problem benefitting the telco even
against its protestations while simultaneously benefitting my client.
And legally, the telco had no recourse. My customer was not violating
any tariffs. The tariff simply said that the telco could charge for
the service if the customer ordered it. The customer never ordered it,
even though the telco tried many times to get him to do so.


        John Higdon         |   P. O. Box 7648   |   [phone]
    [e-mail]      | San Jose, CA 95150 |       M o o !

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

From: [e-mail] (Graham Toal)
Subject: Re: 5ESS Audio Quality
Date: 22 Nov 91 00:02:08 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: MCGV Stack @ EUT, Eindhoven, the Netherlands


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail].
dec.com (Fred R. Goldstein) writes:

> The MD-110 should derive all of its own timing from the digital CO
> line!  Otherwise you WILL get clock slips, causing } on modems.  In
> Europe, where telcos don't give customers so much freedom, it's
> usually a requirement.  In America, it's simply the way things work;
> telco can't force you to do it right, but it only works right if you
> do it right!

Not in Britain.  I've had the <del>{ noise ever since we moved to
digital exchanges five or six years back.  I knew at the time (from
postings here) that it was clock synch problems between digital
exchanges, but *never* in those six years have I been able to get a BT
person to admit this.

If anyone in the UK had had any better luck, let me know please.  Not
that I think anything can be done about it; they're not going to
redesign the UK phone system for a few modem users ...

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

Subject: Bell System Consent Decree (was Future of Printed Books)
From: [e-mail] (Tad Cook)
Date: 21 Nov 91 22:59:36 GMT


> [Moderator's Note: Thank you. You phrased it very well. I have no
> complaints about competition. I fully favor the right of anyone and
> everyone to offer telecommunications services, and let the public
> decide who is the best. But to allow MCI, Sprint et al to compete with
> AT&T is not the same thing as smashing AT&T into pieces.

(stuff deleted here)

> The rest of the MFJ was simply theft of AT&T's property, based in
> large part on Greene's own bigotry toward and dislike of AT&T.  PAT]

Boy, do you have it backwards!  Greene did not dismember the Bell
System.  The Bell System asked to be broken up when they offered to
settle the anti-trust case.  They were tried for violating anti-trust
laws.  They lost.  Characterizing this as "theft" is like
characterizing imprisonment of convicted defendents in any other court
case as unconstitutional "involuntary servitude."


 Tad Cook     |  Phone:  [phone]             |   MCI Mail: 3288544
 Seattle, WA  |  Packet: KT7H @ N7DUO.WA.USA.NA   |   [e-mail]
              |  USENET: [e-mail]          or...sumax!ole!ssc!tad

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #958
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa23835;
          24 Nov 91 14:02 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA31910
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 24 Nov 1991 12:21:31 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA29487
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 24 Nov 1991 12:21:11 -0600
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1991 12:21:11 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #959

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 24 Nov 91 12:21:06 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 959

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: CPSR FOIAs U.S. Secret Service (Paul Coen)
    Re: CPSR FOIAs U.S. Secret Service (John Higdon)
    Re: CPSR FOIAs U.S. Secret Service (Dave Niebuhr)
    Re: CPSR FOIAs U.S. Secret Service (Mike Godwin)
    Re: Value-Added Service and Local Competition (Joshua E. Muskovitz)
    Re: Value-Added Service and Local Competition (Bob Ackley)
    Re: How Does The Law Handle Crank Calls? (Bill Martens)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1991 21:09 EST
From: Paul Coen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: CPSR FOIAs U.S. Secret Service


Sorry, Pat.  While I often agree with what you say, I'm going to have
to disagree on a few points here.

> Since the Internet is a government-owned and managed resource in
> cooperation with numerous publicly funded institutions and others, it
> is fair game for anyone who wishes to 'monitor' its traffic, provided
> that traffic is intended for public consumption and display, as are
> the various e-journals and newsgroups.

That's a matter of perception.  My description is that the Internet
started as a DARPA project, and quickly grew.  Now, only a portion of
it is under government control.  The international sites certainly
aren't.  While I agree that the federal government has a vested
interest in what's on the .mil and .gov sites, or what is going over
lines that the federal government is paying for, that's not a whole
lot of the net these days.  I'd certainly stop short of saying that it
is "government owned."

> Anyone is free -- even members of CPSR -- to interconnect with this
> network and read the newsgroups or subscribe to the various
> e-journals. Craig makes it sound, in his context, like the Secret
> Service did something wrong. In this instance, they did not.

You're right -- anyone is free, including the Secret Service.  More on
this later, as this actually raises questions about the Secret
Service's behavior.

> Well I don't know about those other guys mentioned here, but I have no
> problem with TELECOM Digest being in anyone's files.

Yes, but did all of the people who made contributions realize that it
could end up in a file pertaining to a Secret Service investigation?

> Well, why should there be a 'clear policy'?  That which is available
> to the public is available to anyone, including employees of
> government agencies. If I can read it, take offense to it and (feeling
> it might be a criminal action) report it to authorities, then why
> can't an employee of the Secret Service read something here, feel the
> same way and report the matter?  Or conversely, why can't any member
> of the public read something here, be disinterested in it or bored by
> it and forget the matter.

This is a tough issue -- if the net is considered "public behavior,"
and statements made here are not criminal in nature (none in TELECOM
Digest have been to date -- ie, no credit card numbers :), then why
should it end up in a Secret Service file?  Doesn't it then become
government monitoring legal public activities/statements by citizens?
Sorry, that's a bit too much like a police state for my liking, in
flavor if not degree.

> FYI, I have numerous names on the mailing matrix for TELECOM Digest of
> people associated with various government agencies, including the
> Secret Service, the IRS and many others. I ask for one thing from
> people who wish to subscribe: an interest in telecommunications policy
> and practice; and an enthusiasm for understanding telecommunications
> in an intellectually and ethically honest way. I specifically forbid
> and repudiate copyright of TELECOM Digest in the hopes people will
> share their understanding and ideas with others.

Do you really think the people who placed those excerpts in the files
were interested in telecom issues?  Or in who was saying what?  Not
the people who passed them on, but the "investigators."  (Using the
term loosely -- Foley certainly wasn't much of an investigator IMO.)

> Not that you would ever keep any computer database of people with
> interests like your own ....:)

Of course, who knows how many people are in that database that
shouldn't be -- considering that the Secret Service seemed to think
that the statement that Kermit is a file transfer protocol used on
mainframes was so serious.  I'm surprised that they haven't busted
Digital Press and confiscated the MS-Kermit User's Guide :).

> By all means, dear readers, contact CPSR if you want more information,
> but as for myself, I support government efforts to crack down on
> computer crime, and electronic invasion of computers by unauthorized
> users. I do not support organizations which would deny the government
> the right to participate in any public forum.

The problem is that you are dealing with two different entities here.
On the one hand, you have the individual government employee, who has
a right to participate in a public forum, and on the other, you have a
governmental investigation agency, represented by that individual.

Unless it clearly relates to the comission of a crime, or it falls
under the heading of "expert opinion," relating to an issue under
investigation (and no copyrights are violated), the government should
not be placing legal, public statements in the record of a criminal
investigation is out of line.  Sure, they can read it -- but to place
it in that file implies that there is something wrong with the
statement.  Considering law-enforcement infiltration of legal lobbying
groups who disagree with policy, and other abuses, you really have to
wonder who is more paranoid -- extreme privacy advocates who would
deny the government any role, or the agents of the government.  These
folks really seem to feel that anyone is a potential threat.  And
winding up, even by accident or chance, in one of their files is not a
trivial matter.  It can cost you security clearance, it can cost you a
job, a promotion, or an appointment.

It's very easy for a paper-pusher to get the idea that "it's all
criminals on these here groups," based on the appearance of excerpts
in files (why else would they be there -- remember Ed Meese's
"innocent people aren't accused of crimes" comment?) -- so anyone who
posts must not be trustworthy.  The government understanding of the
net is not yet mature enough to assume that they're not going to react
that way.  So far, they've been pretty predictable.


Paul Coen,   [e-mail], [e-mail]

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

Date: Sun, 24 Nov 91 01:09 PST
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: CPSR FOIAs U.S. Secret Service


On Nov 23 at 16:46, TELECOM Moderator writes:

> I have no problem whatsoever with
> the Secret Service or any other government agency reading what I
> publish here. They don't have to sneak around reading it.

They why do they behave in this manner? The fact is they DO sneak
around when indeed getting a subscription would be no problem at all.
After dealing with FBI and telco security types for the past couple of
years, I have come to believe that they would figure out a complex and
covert way to gleen some information even if it was painted in
ten-foot high letters on Shasta Dam.

The fact of the matter is that many of these gum shoes are in way over
their heads on a lot of this computer stuff and it is a full time job
to keep from looking like the horse's ass. And most of the time they
are not successful. Secret Service and FBI types have no idea what is
"sensitive" and what is garbage. I have seen agents pore over
documents in a case that I would not even fish out of the trash. Most
amusing was watching a telco security person fawn over a box of
"evidence" that was filled with stuff supposedly "stolen" from
Pac*Bell that I would pay you to remove from my garage. It was garbage
that even Pac*Bell has not used in any way for over thirty years.

Unlike Patrick, I have little or no faith and confidence in law
enforcement when it comes to "hackers". Even the "experts" I have met
on that side of the fence tend to drool a bit and would have not a
clue concerning who and what was "dangerous" or not. For all the
seizures and raids that have occurred we have seen precious little in
terms of court action and that which actually has landed in court has
proven my point.

It is unfortunate that more enlightenment has not managed to find its
way into government's enforcement arm in the form of knowledgeable
personnel. But what can you expect when even the laws dealing with
these "crimes" are confusing and inadequate. You have policemen
enforcing laws they do not understand, serving warrants issued by
judges who have not a clue, and occasionally, courts dispensing
justice in the dark.

Until you have personally witnessed the wheels of enforcement and
justice grind away on the field of computers and telecommunications,
you cannot grasp the pitiful nature of these processes, nor comprehend
the damage that is being done to rights and protections that we all
used to take for granted. I cannot believe that Patrick would be so
gung-ho on this matter if he could see the reality of what he
euphamistically refers to as "enforcement" and "justice". It could not
be a bigger joke.

> By all means, dear readers, contact CPSR if you want more information,
> but as for myself, I support government efforts to crack down on
> computer crime, and electronic invasion of computers by unauthorized
> users.

Surely you cannot be referring to any of the efforts to date. I have
personally looked into many of these efforts, some in great detail,
and am horrified at what misguided efforts these are. To be honest,
these efforts are also as ineffective as they are unnecessarily harsh.

> I do not support organizations which would deny the government
> the right to participate in any public forum.

Since when is sneaking around obtaining covert copies of a forum's
output "participation"? I support organizations that strive to ensure
that the government operate within the framwork of laws and the
constitution, regardless of how "important" and "urgent" the matters
under investigation may be represented by that government.

> Email is a whole different matter ... notice I have not mentioned it
> once today. I am talking about newsgroups and public mailing lists.

A thin line, to be sure. A line that most (if not all) enforcement
agencies have no problem crossing.


        John Higdon         |   P. O. Box 7648   |   [phone]
    [e-mail]      | San Jose, CA 95150 |       M o o !

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

Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1991 10:22:27 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Dave Niebuhr, BNL CCD, 516-282-3093)
Subject: Re: CPSR FOIAs U.S. Secret Service


Pat's rebuttal to Craig Neidorf's article fits my perspective 100%
when it comes to using a public access media such as Usenet.  I feel
that if I put something onto it, then I'm willing to have anyone read
what I want to say.

Conversely, if I don't want anyone to see it, then I don't post it.

Good show, Pat.


Dave

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

From: Mike Godwin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: CPSR FOIAs U.S. Secret Service
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 91 11:52:16 EST


Pat writes:

> By all means, dear readers, contact CPSR if you want more
> information, but  as for myself, I support government efforts to
> crack down on computer crime, and electronic invasion of computers by
> unauthorized users. I do not support organizations which would deny
> the government the right to participate in any public forum.

It should be noted that the Electronic Frontier Foundation has never
argued that there is a principled rationale for denying the government
access to public forums. Moreover, both EFF and CPSR have hosted
public forums on computer crime, civil liberties, and privacy matters
at which government representatives have been informative and
enthusiastic participants.

> But let me make it perfectly clear you do not speak for Patrick
> Townson and/or TELECOM Digest, although you may speak for various
> readers of the Digest who have asked you to represent them or speak
> for them.

This seems to me to be an odd comment. I don't know of anyone,
including Craig Neidorf, who has claimed to "speak for" TELECOM Digest
or Pat Townson.

You seem to be expressing opposition to CPSR's efforts to find out the
contours of the government's efforts to fight computer crime. This
surprises me, since I'd have thought that anyone in a democratic
society would be interested in knowing how the government is spending
our tax money -- not to mention whether some of its efforts might affect
the exercise of the Constitutional right to free speech in a public
forum.


Mike


[Moderator's Note: Readers who are interested in more information
about the Electronic Frontier Foundation and/or membership should
contact Mike Godwin <[e-mail]>.  PAT]

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

Date: Tue, 19 Nov 91 09:52:13 EST
From: "Joshua E. Muskovitz" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Value Added Service and Local Competition


Jack Decker wrote about providing "retro-fifties" style phone service
through an alternate (human) service.  When speaking about the "busy
executive", you failed to notice that this service exists today --
it's called a secretary!

For inbound service, the secretary effectively chokes the line or
forwards the call to an underling, etc.  For outbound service, the
exec just tells the secretary, "Get Jack on the phone for me".

With regard to the physically handicapped, don't services like this
exist today?  (And aren't they subsidized?)

For language barriers, it might be useful, but then you still have a
problem if the person you are calling doesn't speak the same language.
Again, didn't we read here in the Digest about AT&T's language
service?

Oh well -- A good idea is one that makes you think, and this one did.


josh

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

Date: Fri, 22 Nov 91 09:15:44 cst
From: [e-mail] (Bob Ackley)
Subject: Value-Added Service and Local Competition
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha


In a message of <18 Nov 91 22:31:14>, Jack Decker writes:

> Now, suppose you offered a service where a person's phone line,
> instead of being directly connected to the phone company, was instead
> sent to another location.  In other words, when that person picked up
> your phone, they wouldn't be connected directly to the telephone
> company's central office exchange switch, but rather to a piece of
> equipment is some other location.  They'd still be using the
> facilities of the telephone company for the circuits, but not for dial
> tone.

> And what would be connected at the other end?  OPERATORS!  Real,
> human, flesh-and-blood OPERATORS, that could complete calls between
> subscribers and also to customers served by the "real" telephone
> company!

Isn't this called a 'PBX'?  I suspect that the telco will take a dim
view of using a PBX to compete with their monopoly local service.  Of
course, the telco took a dim view of MCI when that company was
reselling WATS long distance service in direct competition with Long
Lines ...


msged 1.99S ZTC
Bob's Soapbox   , Plattsmouth  (1:285/666.7)

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

From: [e-mail] (Bill Martens)
Subject: Re: How Does The Law Handle Crank Calls?
Date: 23 Nov 91 09:39:05 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Bill Martens)
Organization: Info Connections @ Mt. Fuji


Well, there have been many well publicized cases where the telco's
turn these same 15 year old phreakers into mince meat and take away
their little computers.  But I wonder if any of these people with
these government agencies were ever a kid or if they were born grown
up.

As for SCUM like these people who are quite old enough to know better
and have had their freebie (when they were kids), I say fry them!

When I say quite old enough, I mean 18+.


[Moderator's Note: Are you saying a 19 year old hacker should be
punished in the electric chair on conviction?  Geeze, that makes *me*
even feel like siding with the EFF. I know I was a kid while I was
growing up, and we used to have great fun with the three-slot pay
stations -- the original ones with a cloth-covered cord from the main
box to the handset instead of the armored cable they use today. Those
phones didn't have trap doors on the coin return slot either. A safety
pin sending tip to ground momentarily connected the line and brought
the operator's 'number please' -- no five cent coin needed. And when
the operator wanted more money for toll calls, we'd give it to her,
and use a flexible piece of wire up the coin return slot to dump the
shelf holding the coins down the return slot before the operator had a
chance to hit the 'collect' key on her end. We'd use the same quarter
over and over to accumulate the dollar she was demanding ("just a
minute operator, I'm looking for more change!"). I'm sure glad they
didn't fry me.    PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #959
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa25539;
          24 Nov 91 15:14 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA29659
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 24 Nov 1991 13:24:45 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA01133
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 24 Nov 1991 13:24:15 -0600
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1991 13:24:15 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #960

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 24 Nov 91 13:23:31 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 960

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Copyrights on Phone Books (Gary L. Russell)
    Re: Copyrights on Phone Books (Charles McGuinness)
    Re: Sneaky! Michigan Bell Pulls a Fast One on Everybody (John Higdon)
    Re: Sneaky! Michigan Bell Pulls a Fast One on Everybody (David G. Lewis)
    Caller ID Tariff Information Needed (John Bertot)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: /PN=GARY.L.RUSSELL/O=GTE/ADMD=TELEMAIL/C=US/@sprint.com
Date: 22 Nov 91 20:07 UT
Subject: Re: Copyrights on Phone Books


The following items should be of interest concerning the copyrights of
both white and yellow page phone directories.

{The Wall Street Journal}, 10/2/1990
LAW:  TELEPHONE BOOK COPYRIGHTS, page:B-10.
The justices also agreed to decide whether a federal copyright for a
telephone directory prohibits another company from using that listing
as a source for names, addresses and phone numbers to publish its own
directory.

{Business Week}, 11/19/1990
INFORMATION PROCESSING: COPYRIGHT LAW: THE HIGH COURT PONDERS THE
PHONE BOOK, page:138C
Do phone books deserve the same copyright protection that literary
works enjoy?  The Supreme Court will take up that issue in its next
term.  The test case, Feist Publications vs. Rural Telephone Service
Co., pits an independent directory publisher against a tiny,
non-profit phone cooperative in Lenora, Kan.  Rural refused to license
its listings.  When Feist copied them anyway, checked them for
accuracy, and put out its own white pages, Rural sued.

{The Wall Street Journal}, 11/20/1990
SEE 'L' FOR LAWYERS: PHONE FIRMS, RIVALS SCRAP OVER WHO OWNS
DIRECTORY NAMES, page:B1
Amid the plains of Nevada, Iowa, Dun & Bradstreet Corp. workers sit
copying telephone listings into a computer.  It may not be the world's
most glamorous work, but it's the foundation of a $200 million
business that sells lists of consumers to marketing companies.  It
also may not be legal.  BellSouth Corp., the regional phone company
for the Southeastern U.S., is suing Dun & Bradstreet for copyright
infringement.

{The Wall Street Journal}, 3/28/1991
PHONE LISTINGS CAN BE COPIED, JUSTICES DECIDE, page:B1
Washington - The Supreme Court, in a decision with major ramifications
for the direct marketing and information-services industries, made it
even easier for marketers to gain access to consumers' telephone
numbers and addresses.  The high court, in a 9-0 ruling, said that a
telephone directory's white-pages listings of names, addresses and
phone numbers isn't protected by federal copyright law.

{The Wall Street Journal}, 9/24/1991
YELLOW-PAGES REUSE IS FOUND NOT TO VIOLATE COPYRIGHT, page: B1
In a decision that could have major implications in the $8 billion
yellow-pages industry, a federal appeals court ruled that listings
from yellow-page phone directories can be copied by competitors as
long as changes are made in the way the material is organized.  The
decision follows a U.S.  Supreme Court decision this year that dealt
with how copyright law applies to white-pages listings.  The appeals
court applied the Supreme Court ruling explicitly to the lucrative
yellow-pages market, where the Baby Bells and their partners generally
control the information needed to publish such directories and reap
enormous revenue from selling yellow-pages ads.

                also

January 9, 1991

The Supreme Court heard arguments Jan. 9 regarding copyright
protection for telephone white pages.

Feist v. Rural Telephone Service Co.: Feist, a non-telephone publisher
of a Kansas area-wide directory contends, that the names, addresses
and telephone numbers in white pages are not copyrightable.  Feist
claims, it did not infringe Rural's copyright when it copied some
listings without first obtaining the information through its own
independent survey.

Rural answers that precedent supports its contention that the
particular arrangement of names, addresses and numbers in a
telephone directory is copyrightable and that Rural's original
compilation was wrongly used by Feist.

           also

APRIL 1, 1991

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that there is no copyright
protection for telephone directory white pages.  The decision favored
Feist Publications, Inc., a directory publisher in Kansas who competes
with the directory published by the regional telephone company, Rural
Telephone Service Co.  The decision reversed two lower court decisions
against Feist.

Justice O'Connor, said that Rural's white pages did not meet the
constitutional or statutory requirements for copyright protection.
Facts themselves cannot be copyrighted because they are not original
works of authorship.

Compilations of facts are copyrightable if they are selected,
coordinated or arranged in such a way that the resulting work as a
whole constitutes an original work of authorship.  The originality
requirement is not very stringent, requiring only some minimal degree
of creativity.

Presumably the vast majority of compilations will pass this test, but
not all will, said Justice O'Connor.

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

[Moderator's Note: Thanks very much for preparing this compilation of
articles. It should prove useful to several readers.   PAT]

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

From: Charles McGuinness <jyacc![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Copyrights on Phone Books
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 91 10:54:23 EST


In TELECOM Digest Volume 11 : Issue 942, Dale Gass comments:

> I noticed that the Halifax (Nova Scotia) phone book is copyrighted
> (and I assume most are), so I assume it's up to the phone company to
> provide it on diskette.

> How far does this copyright extend?

In the United States, the Supreme Court has ruled (Feist Publications
v.  Rural Telephone Service) that the white pages are not entitled to
copyright protection. The key element missing was originality.

Some selected comments from the opinion make this clearer:

"Since facts do not owe their origin to an act of authorship, they are
not original and, thus, are not copyrightable."

"While Rural has a valid copyright in the directory as a whole because
it it contains some forward text and some original material in the
yellow pages, there is nothing original in Rural's white pages.  The
raw data are uncopyrightable facts, and the way in which Rural
selected, coordinated, and arrange those facts is not original in any
way.  Rural's selection of listings -- subscriber's names, towns, and
telephone numbers -- could not be more obvious and lacks the modicum
of creativity necessary to transfer mere selection into copyrightable
expression."

So you're free to scan the white pages, build a database, and do as
you please.

Of course, this ruling does not apply to Halifax ;-)

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

Date: Sun, 24 Nov 91 02:04 PST
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Sneaky! Michigan Bell Pulls a Fast One on Everybody


Jack Decker <[e-mail]> writes:

> Virtually all modern exchanges have
> plenty of capacity to handle the highest calling volumes that would
> ever be expected.

Usually this capacity is determined by the peak daytime business load
which generally dwarfs any evening and night usage by residences. For
this reason, there have been from time to time measured usage schemes
that called for measured service during the day and unmeasured during
off-peak hours.

In the eighties, Pac*Bell experimented with a plan (I was a
participant) that allowed, for a fee of $35/month, residences to have
unlimited calling within the metropolitan Bay Area from San Rafael to
San Jose, and east to Concord during any hours except 8AM to 5PM
weekdays. The truth of the matter is that the capacity is there for
the business day and just sits there essentially unused during the
rest of the time.

Pricing is designed to encourage use during off-peak times. This is
why Pac*Bell offers a 30% evening and a 60% night discount for
intraLATA and local calls. GTE's latest rate proposal apparently
considers this now less important than picking up more money from
residences (so it can woo businesses with more attractive rates). It
wants to cut the 30% discount to 20% and the 60% discount to 40%.

> My point is that the actual costs of providing telephone service bear
> almost no relation at all to the amount of usage on a line, and
> therefore usage is not a valid criteria for charging for telephone
> service.

This is absolutely true. But it is always the slop that the telco
peddles to get support from the public. It is a simple concept that
the unwashed can understand, even if it has no basis in reality. Telco
says, "Now don't you think that those who use the service more should
pay more?" And the average consumer says, "Yes, that makes sense to
me." In comes measured service and no one complains.

The real problem with measured service, as Mr. Decker has pointed out
previously, is that it makes the local rates so easy to manipulate. It
also removes the "cap" that is inherent in flat-rate service. In other
words, even if a transition from flat-rate to measured is "revenue
neutral" initially, the telco can pump up its revenue by encouraging
the use of the telephone. Since this is happening in the natural
course of events, what is "revenue neutral" today will definitely
become a positive increase tomorrow.

The other thing is the little deception of rates. The cries have gone
out about the proposed increase from $8.35/month to over $13/month for
residence service. This is several dollars a month or around $50 per
year. People perceive this to be a major increase. What people are
ignoring is the additional minute local rate increase from $0.01 to
$0.02. But I can assure you that this is the major increase for the
telco. This will amount to major dollars and will seriously soak
customers, but it has had scant notice by any of the consumer groups.
With measured service, major increases can be had by simply changing
the local rates by what looks like a small amount. It gives telco a
shell game to work with.


        John Higdon         |   P. O. Box 7648   |   [phone]
    [e-mail]      | San Jose, CA 95150 |       M o o !

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

From: [e-mail] (david.g.lewis)
Subject: Re: Sneaky! Michigan Bell Pulls a Fast One on Everybody
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1991 15:30:47 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Jack Decker) writes:

> In a message dated 17 Nov 91 15:29:10 GMT, Steve Simmons
> <[e-mail]> writes:

>> Your phone bill
>> should reflect the actual costs of providing the service.

> You see, the phone company would like
> you to THINK you are somehow "using up" their resources when you place
> calls, but it just isn't so.  Virtually all modern exchanges have
> plenty of capacity to handle the highest calling volumes that would
> ever be expected.

Well, yes, but that capacity costs money to provide.  The more traffic
on a switch, the more capacity which must be provided, and the higher
the cost.  A switch in an urban/business setting seeing 10 CCS/line
for a given number of lines, with 20% intra-office traffic is going to
be more costly than the same switch with the same number of lines in a
rural/residential setting seeing 3 CCS/line with 65% intra-office
traffic.  Telco engineers, like all engineers, build in spare capacity
 -- but that spare capacity costs money.

The analogy presented with cable TV is somewhat erroneous; since CATV
is broadcast, once you have the bridge tap on the line, the signal's
there whether you watch it or not.  Switched service, however, uses
resources (processor, memory, switchpaths, service circuits) when it's
in use that it doesn't use when it's not.  There is, therefore, an
incremental cost of use for switched services.

> Another thing you might ask yourself is why they are wanting to charge
> by the call rather than per minute of use.  If there are resources
> that really are somehow consumed by usage, then why is it fairer for
> the person who makes ten one-minute calls to pay more than the person
> who makes one phone call that lasts four hours?  (I had a call that
> lasted that long once!).

There are resources that are used by the call, not by minutes of use
(e.g.  DTMF or DP receivers, dialtone generators, call store memory);
however, that cost is usually captured in usage-sensitive charging by
having a higher cost for the first rate period (usually first minute)
than for succeeding rate periods.

Please note that I'm not arguing for or against the philosophy of
setting a per-call maximum or arguing for or against Michigan Bell's
method of dealing with the PSC, customers, and state legislature;
merely trying to clear up some technical issues.

> The largest expense of providing phone service is what is called
> "outside plant" ... that is, the network of wires and cables that
> connect your home to the telephone network.  If you REALLY wanted to
> have users pay for the actual costs of providing service, then the
> person who lives ten miles away from the central office should be
> paying ten times as much as the person who lives only one mile from
> the central office.

If you wait long enough, you may see this ... Note, however, that this
would be a higher monthly cost, not a higher usage cost, because the
OSP is independent of usage (it's there whether it's used or not).

> My point is that the actual costs of providing telephone service bear
> almost no relation at all to the amount of usage on a line, and
> therefore usage is not a valid criteria for charging for telephone
> service.

I don't know if I'd go so far as to say "almost no relation", but I
agree that price of local telephone service and cost of local
telephone service are rather weekly related.  There is a reason for
this, however; it's referred to by the regulatory agencies as "the
public interest, need, and necessity."

The cost of providing switched service is comprised of three parts: a
nonrecurring cost (for installation, database entry, billing record
establishment, etc.), a monthly fixed cost (for maintenance of the
outside plant, transmission plant, building facilities, and other
fixed operational costs), and a monthly variable cost (for usage of
switched resources).

There's somewhat of a match with price; you pay a fee for new
installation, a monthly fixed fee, and if you have usage-based
pricing, a monthly usage fee.  Do they match exactly with cost?  No,
because it is "not in the public interest" to require some people to
pay $10000 for installation while others pay $25; it is "not in the
public interest" to have some subscribers pay a $2 monthly fee because
they live nextdoor to the CO and to have others pay a $50 monthly fee
because they live 20 miles away.

So, costs are averaged across subscribers and averaged across time and
in some cases averaged across usage and a tariff structure is built
that, in the opinion of the regulatory agency, provides a fair and
equitable price to the consumer and a reasonable return on investment
to the telco.  At least, that's the theory; I'm not going to get into
a discussion about how well it works in practice.

Usage-based pricing is part of a general trend towards cost-based
pricing; It recovers costs based on the use of resources in way which
is generally deemed by regulators to be fair and equitable, and the
usage of those resources is relatively easy to measure.


David G Lewis        AT&T Bell Laboratories
[e-mail]  or  !att!houxa!deej      ISDN Evolution Planning

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

Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1991 09:42:25 EST
From: John Bertot <[e-mail]>
Subject: Caller ID Tariff Information Needed


I am a doctoral student in Information Studies at Syracuse University
and am researching Caller*ID's implementation across the US.  I have
followed the Telecom usegroup for some time, and have found the
discussions concerning Caller*ID most interesting.  At this point, I
am looking for actual costs of Caller*ID to residents and businesses
in various states which have Caller*ID currently in operation.
Specifically, I am looking for initiation, monthly and other incurred
costs to users of the service.

I thank you in advance for your help.


John Bertot   JCBERTOT@SUVM

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #960
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa27416;
          24 Nov 91 16:23 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA17675
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 24 Nov 1991 13:58:03 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA13241
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 24 Nov 1991 13:57:50 -0600
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1991 13:57:50 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #961

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 24 Nov 91 13:57:34 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 961

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: CPSR FOIAs U.S. Secret Service (Michael A. Covington)
    Re: Early Switches Permitting Touch-Tone (Michael G. Katzmann)
    Re: AT&T Special Promo to Fidonet? (William Degnan)
    Re: AT&T Special Promo to Fidonet? (David G. Lewis)
    Re: Network Info and Access (Syd Weinstein)
    Re: Network Info and Access (Frederick G.M. Roeber)
    Re: Local Telephone Company Assigns Same Number to 2 Housholds (S Crichton)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Michael A. Covington)
Subject: Re: CPSR FOIAs U.S. Secret Service
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 91 19:08:46 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Craig
Neidorf) writes:

>     The Secret Service's response to Computer Professionals for
> Social Responsibility's (CPSR) Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
> request has raised new questions about the scope and conduct of the
> agency's "computer crime" investigations.  The documents disclosed to
> CPSR reveal that the Secret Service monitored communications sent
> across the Internet.  The materials released through the FOIA include
> copies of many electronic newsletters, digests, and Usenet groups
> including "comp.org.eff.talk," "comp.sys.att," "Computer Underground
> Digest" (alt.cud.cu-digest)," "Effector Online," "Legion of Doom
> Technical Journals," "Phrack Newsletter," and "TELECOM Digest
> (comp.dcom.telecom)".  Currently, there is no clear policy for the
> monitoring of network communications by law enforcement agents.

Two of these are unfamiliar to me, but all the rest are forums which
everyone is welcome to read.  You might as well complain that the
Secret Service reads your local newspaper.

Seriously, I am concerned about possible violations of people's rights
by over-zealous agents.  But reading comp.dcom.telecom hardly counts
as snooping!

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Paul
Coen) writes:

>> Anyone is free -- even members of CPSR -- to interconnect with this
>> network and read the newsgroups or subscribe to the various
>> e-journals. Craig makes it sound, in his context, like the Secret
>> Service did something wrong. In this instance, they did not.

>> Well I don't know about those other guys mentioned here, but I have no
>> problem with TELECOM Digest being in anyone's files.

> Yes, but did all of the people who made contributions realize that it
> could end up in a file pertaining to a Secret Service investigation?

This is something we have had a hard time hammering into the heads of
the users here at the University of Georgia.  A newsgroup is a public
forum.  Posting something in a newsgroup is like publishing it in a
major newspaper.  The person posting it should expect that it will be
read by practically anybody anywhere.

"I've just posted this for 100,000 people, but don't tell anybody!" is
unfortunately a common attitude.  People seem to think that the
newsgroups are some kind of underground society where everyone is
sworn to secrecy.


Michael A. Covington, Ph.D.  |  [e-mail]   |  N4TMI
Assistant to the Director, Artificial Intelligence Programs
The University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia 30602, U.S.A.

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

From: vk2bea![e-mail] (Michael G. Katzmann)
Subject: Re: Early Switches Permitting Touch-Tone
Date: 22 Nov 91 17:26:25 GMT
Reply-To: vk2bea![e-mail] (Michael G. Katzmann)
Organization: Broadcast Sports Technology, Crofton. Maryland.


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(david.g.lewis) writes:

> [e-mail] (Ken J. Clark) writes:

>> I'm not sure when AT&T introduced Touchtone(R) to the market place.

> 1963, according to EOBS.

It was the same day as J.F.K. was assasinated (No connection that I
know of.)


Michael Katzmann    Broadcast Sports Technology Inc.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~    Crofton, Maryland. U.S.A
Amteur Radio Stations:
NV3Z / VK2BEA / G4NYV    opel!vk2bea![e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: As a matter of fact, JFK was killed 28 years ago
this weekend. How well I remember that! Touchtone became available
here in Chicago during 1965-67. The downtown business district had it
in late 1965. I could not get it on my 312-RAVenswood line in 1966-67
but IBT offered it when I moved and had a HYDe Park number in the
summer of 1967.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (William Degnan)
Date: 22 Nov 91  22:38:01
Subject: Re: AT&T Special Promo to Fidonet?


On <Nov 20 01:43> Jack Winslade ([e-mail] )
wrote:

> This is the one that caught my eye, and made my BS detector go 'beep'.

The biggest secret about the SDN packages is that I understand one
must sign a letter of agency (LOA) that makes someone else the _only_
party who can issue orders for LD service on the lines the LOA covers.
This means that you can't change it unless you get a reverse LOA from
the SDN management. If they won't exchange one with you up front, you
may be stuck with whatever you get.

Good luck.


William Degnan,  Communications Network Solutions
-Independent Consultants in Telecommunications-
P.O. Drawer 9530       | ARPA: [e-mail]
Austin, TX 78766-9530  | ![e-mail]  | Voice [phone]

* Origin: Private Line - Stealth Opus in Austin (1:382/39.0)

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

From: [e-mail] (david.g.lewis)
Subject: Re: AT&T Special Promo to Fidonet?
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1991 14:17:59 GMT


I'm going to take a crack at some of this, but because it deals with
issues which my company finds touchy in some cases, I wanted to
emphasize: my comments are based on my perception of what AT&T does,
drawn largely from experience acquired outside AT&T.  They should not
be construed as representing AT&T policy.

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:

>> ... describes how the AT&T Software Defined Network is saving my company
>> a lot of money in their long distance charges.  Additionally, NETxxxx
>> is using the AT&T SDN to cut their costs of echomail.

> Here's another thing that I thought AT&T did not officially support

>> With their calling card, you dial a TOLL-FREE 800 number and enter
>> your special code (your social security number) and the number you
>> want.  Sounds like a lot of numbers but it is only four more digits
>> than a using a regular AT&T card.

AT&T offers a service called SDN Network Remote Access.  It enables a
customer to place calls onto an SDN from an off-net location.  The
service requires an authorization code, but I don't know offhand what
exactly the auth code is (like whether or not it can be SSN).
However, I can't see why NRA would be at all applicable to using SDN
for intercomputer links, as the computers are unlikely to be moving
around a whole lot...

>>    TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR COMPARISON OF LONG DISTANCE CARRIERS
                [deleted]

I know that AT&T seriously frowns upon *anyone* citing performance
comparisons without them being formally blessed.  The figures I've
seen have been limited to distribution on a need-to-know basis,
internal to AT&T only.  That section certainly doesn't look like it
was sanctioned by AT&T.

> Questions for those who are more in the know on these telecom issues:

> Is this type of promotion officially sanctioned by AT&T ??

I don't know that it is; I don't know that it isn't; but my *guess* is
that it isn't.  Hey, we spend enough buying ads during the World
Series, why would we resort to mass-email? :-)

I'm also going to go a little bit out on a limb with an hypothesis.
There is a fairly large group of businesses called "SDN aggregators".
They purchase SDN service from AT&T, getting nice volume discounts,
and resell it as long-distance service to other individuals and
companies.  (SDN allows calls to off-net locations as part of the
tariff, so everywhere you call doesn't have to be part of the SDN.)
This sounds to me somewhat like at SDN aggregator deal.

It is my experience, working with AT&T from the outside, that AT&T
isn't too crazy about SDN aggregators.

> How long would these rates (and the lack of monthly charge) last ??

If it's an aggregator, anywhere from forever to never.  If it's AT&T,
it's tariffed.  (Actually, I'm not sure if promotional discounts are
tariffed per se, but it would be stated in the contract.)

> Is this guy getting a kickback from the calls placed by those he signs
> up ??  I >KNOW< some LD companies do this.  I was offered to just such
> a deal myself recently if I would sign others up for a certain plan.

So far as I know, AT&T does *not* do this.  Aggregators may.


David G Lewis        AT&T Bell Laboratories
[e-mail]  or  !att!houxa!deej      ISDN Evolution Planning

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

From: [e-mail] (Syd Weinstein)
Subject: Re: Network Info and Access
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Datacomp Systems, Inc.  Huntingdon Valley, PA
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1991 21:54:33 GMT


Will Martin <[e-mail]> writes:

> I'm often asked if this or that organization has
> Internet connectivity; if it can be reached via e-mail or accessed
> with FTP or telnet.
> I don't even know where to look it up or who to ask to get a
> definitive answer.

The 'easy' way to check for Internet Connectivity is to call them on
the telephone and ask them :-).

However, what has replaced the host tables is DNS.  When registering
for DNS you choose what domain you wish to be listed under.  Each of
these domains has a principal contact.  These principal contacts are
all listed in the "whois" database.  As an example, mine is:

$ whois datacomp
   Datacomp Systems, Inc. (DSI-DOM)
   3837 Byron Road
   Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006-2320

   Domain Name: DSI.COM

   Administrative Contact, Technical Contact, Zone Contact:
      Weinstein, Sydney S.  (SSW5)  [e-mail]
      [phone]

   Record last updated on 27-Feb-91.

   Domain servers in listed order:

   DSINC.DSI.COM        192.65.202.1
   PHLSUN.PREPNET.COM        129.250.2.1
   SPOOL.MU.EDU            134.48.1.31

Those without internet access (thus no whois command) can send their
whois requests to the electronic mail responder [e-mail]

Having said that, note: the NIC just changed hands on a new contract,
and the new NIC does not have its act totally together yet.  So
sometimes you get back things you don't expect such as:

"Sorry, you shouldn't see this record."

Hopefully this will improve with time.


Sydney S. Weinstein, CDP, CCP          Elm Coordinator - Current 2.3PL11
Datacomp Systems, Inc.                 Projected 2.4 Release: Early 1992
[e-mail] or dsinc!syd      Voice: [phone], FAX: [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Frederick G.M. Roeber)
Subject: Re: Network Info and Access
Date: 24 Nov 91 15:23:31 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Will Martin) writes:

> [How can you find out if some random company is on the internet?]

This isn't perfect, but if you can make a stab at the name, you can do
domain nameserver lookups.  Guessing that the Library of Congress
would be "loc.gov," I tried:

VXCRNA $ mu nsl /type=any loc.gov.
Server:  d-name-1.cern.ch
Address:  128.141.200.5

Non-authoritative answer:
LOC.GOV nameserver = RS1.LOC.GOV
LOC.GOV nameserver = NOC.SURA.NET

Authoritative answers can be found from:
LOC.GOV nameserver = RS1.LOC.GOV
LOC.GOV nameserver = NOC.SURA.NET
RS1.LOC.GOV     internet address = 140.147.2.12
NOC.SURA.NET    internet address = 192.80.214.100

(This is with Multinet on a VMS system, your system's command may be
different.)

So there are entries for loc.gov, and even a published nameserver.
Next step: telnet to the published name, and see if the banner
announces the organization.  (It doesn't, in this case.)  Or, try
anonymous ftp and look for a README.  (No aftp in this case, either).

If you have a program to do it (Multinet doesn't, and I haven't gotten
around to writing one yet), you could do a domain nameservice "zone
transfer" from the published nameserver, and peruse its contents.  It
is debated whether or not honoring all zone transfers is a security
threat or not, so this avenue may be closed.

There are fields in the DNS for further information -- including
generic text information that could announce contact points -- but
I've never yet seen anybody use them.

Since we still don't even know if this "loc" is what you're looking
for, the final step (left as an exercise) would be mail.  The SOA
record for loc.gov shows a mail address of [e-mail]; though
that's really intended for DNS problems, a brief note asking for a
more proper address should be ok.  Or you could try the user
"postmaster" at the nameserver, this is not a standard, but it is
common.

BTW, I would venture to guess that this "loc" -- whatever it is -- is
well endowed with networked computers: notice that rs1's address is on
a Class-B network.


Frederick G. M. Roeber | CERN -- European Center for Nuclear Research
e-mail: [e-mail] or [e-mail] | work: [phone]
r-mail: CERN/PPE, 1211 Geneva 23, Switzerland | home: [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Sharon Crichton)
Subject: Re: Local Telephone Company Assigns Same Number to Two Housholds
Organization: Mead Data Central, Dayton OH
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1991 13:33:13 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(William J Carpenter) writes:

>> My questions to the telecom group are: how easy is it to
>> assign duplicate numbers on different lines, how are long
>> distance charges assigned back to a household

> The Moderator suggests that it is more likely that only the directory
> is wrong.  I find that position particularly easy to support, since a
> local department store has my phone number as one of its half dozen or
> so listings in the Monmouth County white pages.  In case you are
> wondering, I also assume that this is somewhat more inconvenient than
> having another household with the same listing (since the latter is
> somewhat self-correcting over time, while the former, I have
> experimentally determined, is not).

I am currently experiencing the joy of having two households with the
"same" listing. I moved to a new apartment in May and had to change my
phone number at that time. Had one of those "The number you have
reached ..." recordings put on my old number. For the first three
months, no problems. Then in August, I kepts getting multiple phone
calls a week, sometimes multiple ones per day, for a "Debbie Heinz."
Yup, my new number used to be her number, and it's annoying as h*ll
(not the one in Michigan) to have to explain to people that:

1. They have the wrong number.
2. Yes, this is XXX-XXXX (which I'm not sure I should confirm).
3. This used to be her number, now it's mine.

> Two questions have twirled around my brain since the situation first
> came to our attention: (1) who to be mad at; and (2) how to get it
> fixed.

> (1)  Who to be mad at?

In my case, I'm mad at Ohio Bell. I don't how long the number sat unused before
they gave it to me, but the 1991/92 phonebooks still have us listed at our old
addresses. So I don't know if the number was unused for a day, a week, a month,
or longer.

> (2) How to fix it?

> (a) Wait for new phone book.  Thanks ... we thought of that two years

Or wait for all of this person's friends, relatives, business
contacts, etc.  to get the message (usually through me or my answering
machine) that she ain't got this number no more. :-( I've also gotten
a lot of strange calls on my machine, from people assuming I'm this
woman, even though I say "This is Sharon ..." on the greeting.

What I'm really waiting for is a telemarketer to call, asking for her.
What I'd love to do is order multiple hundreds of dollars of
merchandise from them, keeping them hanging on the line for minutes?
hours?, then at the last moment, tell them that they've reached the
wrong number. :-)


Sharon Crichton                   CE-Application Software
[e-mail]     Mead Data Central
[e-mail]              P.O. Box 933
uunet!meaddata!sharonc            Dayton, OH 45401

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #961
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa27887;
          24 Nov 91 16:42 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA10262
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 24 Nov 1991 15:02:53 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA23208
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 24 Nov 1991 15:02:37 -0600
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1991 15:02:37 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #962

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 24 Nov 91 15:02:35 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 962

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Call-Waiting Signal is Different (Scott Reuben)
    Re: DID Specs? And What is ANI? (David G. Lewis)
    1 + 10D on Local Calls (was Shared Area Codes) (Carl Moore)
    Re: Can I Generate FAKE Out Of Service Message? (Harold Hallikainen)
    Re: Cross Country Data Pipe (Antonio Desimone)
    Re: What Does Internet Cost Per Person? (Dave Levenson)
    Re: How Illinois Bell Really Chose AC 708 (Patrick L. Humphrey)
    Mac/PC Emululation Modem Problem (David Brightbill)
    Re: Copyrights on Phone Books (Eric Florack)
    Re: AT&T Billing SNAFU (ROA) (John Higdon)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 22-NOV-1991 04:17:57.64
From: Douglas Scott Reuben <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Call-Waiting Signal is Different


On 19 Nov 91 00:37:17 GMT, [e-mail] (Marcus Adams) wrote:

> It used to be that when I got a call on my call-waiting, there would
> be a click that was audible to whoever I was talking with at the time.
> It was handy because they would hear the click and say something like
> "Sure, go ahead and answer that." <...> Sometime a couple years back,
> I noticed that this click disappeared on my phone. Friend's call
> waiting would still emit a click ...

You are one of the few people I have heard who actually liked the old
Call-Waiting signal!

They just changed your exchange. The 1/1A/2(?)ESSs made these annoying
clicks.  There was a really good post on here maybe four years ago
dealing with early ESSs, and it described, inter alia, how a
call-waiting call would "latch on" (?) to an existing call via some
mechanism, which would result in the clicks. (The article also went on
to say that that second series of clicks was less "severe" than the
first, etc.)

Newer DMS-100/200 or 5ESS exchanges don't make these clicks -- they
just mask out your voice for the fraction of a second it takes to
produce the tone. Thus, if you are talking during a call-waiting beep
on your end, your voice will be cut off to the person you are talking
to for brief period of time.

I used to think that there were some hard and fast rules for
distinguishing between a DMS and a 5ESS, but after all the debates on
"generic" DMS software I am no longer sure. Try calling a changed or
disconnected number, and see if you hear a ring before you get the
AIS/Tritone/Alert message (ie, "<AIS Tones> The number you have
reached 5-5-5-1-2-1-2 has been disconnected.")

(Try calling 617-698-9963 to see what a DMS "Not in Service" sounds
like.  BTW, can the DMS generate its OWN recordings/referrals without
having to use the AIS system?)

Or, if you have Three-Way-Calling and Call-Forwarding as well, try
forwarding your calls while on a call (ie, make a call, talk to the
person, click the hookswitch, dial 72# and the number you want to
forward to). If this works and calls forward properly, you're probably
on a DMS. I've tried this on three different 5ESSS (718-643,
716-271,718-263/268) and it never worked, while it does seem to work
on the Tarrytown, NY (914-631/332), West Hartford, CT (203-
231/230/233/232/236), and the Croton-On-Hudson (914-271) DMSs.

Anyhow, basically, you got a new exchange and your friend didn't, so
he gets the clicks, and you don't. As to what sort of new exchange you
are on -- if the above "tests" are not conclusive, maybe just call the
telco and ask them! :)

Oh, and to the person who wanted a good wrong number recording in
Japan, try 81-78-555-1212. It is in English and Japanese. I'm not sure
if you are hearing a recording in the US rather than wasting bandwidth
to Japan, but there is a good deal of Japanese on the recording as
well which is clear and easy to record.


Doug    [e-mail]  //  [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (david.g.lewis)
Subject: Re: DID Specs? And What is ANI?
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1991 14:46:35 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Ken Burgess) writes:

> Also can anyone tell me what ANI is? Seems to have somthing to do with
> "the" caller's phone number ...

> [Moderator's Note: See the message on this earlier in this issue. ANI
> is automatic number identification. It is the process of sending the
> phone number of a caller to an 800 number to the subscriber of the 800
> number for billing purposes.  PAT]

Pat, you're confusing the readers again.

OK, one more time for tilting at the terminology windmill.

ANI, Automatic Number Identification, is the process used to send the
*billing number* (which may or may not be the same as the phone number
of the caller) of the caller to the *interexchange carrier* which
carries the call, for use by the interexchange carrier in billing.
The billing number is sent on all inter-LATA calls, not just 800
calls.  It must be sent to the IXC so that the IXC can properly bill
the calling (or called) party for the service.

A service offered by some interexchange carriers, which is generically
(and improperly) referred to as "ANI Delivery" ("Billing Number
Delivery" is a more proper term), uses some sort of signaling method
to send the calling party's billing number to an 800 subscriber at
call setup.  AT&T uses ISDN signaling to directly-connected customers.
I believe MCI and US Sprint do as well.  Some IXCs may offer this
delivery service via a type of inband signaling.

In addition, most if not all IXCs which offer 800 services provide, in
the bill for 800 services, call detail recording which includes the
billing number for each call.  As Pat has said several times, the 800
subscriber is paying for the call, and should therefore be able to
know where the call came from.

Sorry to get all bent out of shape about this again, but you'd be
amazed how much confusion can be avoided with a little bit of emphasis
on accurate terminology.


David G Lewis        AT&T Bell Laboratories
[e-mail]  or  !att!houxa!deej      ISDN Evolution Planning

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

Date: Fri, 22 Nov 91 11:04:30 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: 1 + 10D on Local Calls (was Shared Area Codes)


I think the 1+10D scheme being available on local calls is already the
case in the Washington, DC area, whether or not you cross an area code
boundary when making a local call.  (It's not clear whether this also
applies to local calls across the 301/410 border, which are publicly
announced as being NPA+7D, leading 1 being omitted.)  Local calls in
the DC area are publicly announced (in the call guide, etc.) as being
dialed this way:

7D within your own area code.

NPA + 7D to another area code (notice that some MD suburbs are local
to parts of the 410 area) with long distance being 1 + NPA + 7D.

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

Date: Fri, 22 Nov 91 10:44:49 -0800
From: [e-mail] (Harold Hallikainen)
Subject: Re: Can I Generate FAKE Out Of Service Message?
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo


> Another thing you can do is just record the generic intercept, which
> we get around here if we call an unallocated prefix (not many of those
> left in 313).

> I'd also like to collect a nice generic Japanese language intercept.
> Can someone suggest a number?

    Years and years ago (more and more stuff seems to have
happened years and years ago), I tried calling ringback and ANI
prefixes (which apparently existed then, I seem to remember 960 and
840) around the continent, listening to the different intercept
messages.  Got a real nice one in French from Canada.

    Also, in high school, consulted my local phone book and
compiled a list of every three digit sequence that was not an area
code or a prefix, and called them!  Found the telco test board and
various other unpublished numbers.


Harold

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

Date: Fri, 22 Nov 91 19:02:26 EST
From: [e-mail] (Antonio Desimone)
Subject: Re: Cross Country Data Pipe
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


On 20 Nov 91 05:41:48 GMT, [e-mail] said:

> I was at a workshop over the weekend where there was a discussion
> about the NREN (National Research and Education Network) and mention
> was made of about 100Gbits/second of cross country capacity.

> Which made me wonder ... just how much capacity is there from coast to
> coast?

Let's see, where's that back-of-the-envelope ...

Consider only the switched network.  Say 100,000,000 calls completed
in the AT&T network in a 12-hour day (from numerous Mother's Day,
Christmas, etc. press releases), five minute holding time gives about
6*10^5 erlangs carried, which we'll pretend is the offered load
(blocking's small, otherwise there wouldn't have been a press
releases:-), which we'll pretend is the number of trunks if it were
one trunk group (blocking's small, but it's not zero, and it's a big
trunk group), which at 64kb/s/trunk, comes out to about 40Gb/s of
switched capacity, which is no doubt a gross underestimate but we
should be in the neighborhood.  Course it's not all coast to coast,
etc, etc. Make of it what you will.

I for one would be interested in hearing more about the NREN workshop
if the original poster cares to follow up.


Tony DeSimone   AT&T Bell Laboratories   Holmdel, NJ 07733

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

From: [e-mail] (Dave Levenson)
Subject: Re: What Does Internet Cost Per Person?
Date: 23 Nov 91 02:50:38 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (John
Higdon) writes:

> [e-mail] (Doctor Math) writes:

>> Has anyone calculated the exact cost per taxpayer to support the
>> Government's share of Internet operating expenses? (I must admit, I
>> wish all standards could be implemented as RFCs ...)

> I doubt that anyone has, but IMHO whatever it is, it is worth it. The
> Internet is one of those unusual gummit sponsored projects that
> actually has benefit to education, business, and individuals. Maybe it
> is because there is so little gummit control ...

I have never seen the total cost to the public of the Internet.  Even
for government programs where we do see the total cost, the media
never bothers to try to compute the 'cost per taxpayer' which I would
find far more interesting.

Generally, the cost of a government program is discussed by folks who
would prefer not to pay for it.  I think we're better off not trying
to publicize the public cost of Internet.  While I agree with John
regarding its public benefit, I suspect that we are in the minority.
Most citizens have probably never heard of it, and would see no reason
why they should have to pay for it.

I think the only time I saw it mentioned in the news was when Mr.
Morris subverted it with his now well-known worm, several years ago.
CNN, in its usual scare-story delivery style, displayed a computer
with a red lightning-bolt striking it, and a blinking word 'VIRUS' in
pseudo-OCR font, and text that mis-spelled the name 'Arpenet'.
Meanwhile, the talking head told the audience that a new and deadly
computer virus was attacking computers all over the place, but not to
worry about your PC -- it only attacks UNIX systems.  I thought about
the PC that was then in my household: an AT&T PC6300PLUS, running
UNIX.


Dave Levenson      Internet: [e-mail]
Westmark, Inc.      UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave
Warren, NJ, USA      Voice: 908 647 0900  Fax: [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: How Illinois Bell Really Chose AC 708
Organization: Rice University
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1991 14:18:51 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Stephen Wolfson) writes:

> Bellcore had given them two choices, 901 and 708.  Well, within a
> short period of time they decided 901 was too close to 911 (Actually
> in hindsight also way to close to 900, "Grandma, you want to do
> what?!" :-) ) and how could they really choose any boundary other than
> Chicago/Suburbs to make the split without totally upsetting all the
> suburbs that didn't get 312.

There's only one small problem with your story -- it's pretty unlikely
that Bellcore offered them a choice between 901 and 708, if for no
other reason than the fact that 901 had already been in use in the
western third of Tennessee for the past three decades.  Could you have
been thinking of 905, instead?


Patrick L. Humphrey  ([e-mail])  Rice Networking & Computing Systems
  [phone] at Rice. 713 981-5952 at home. 713 527-4056 at Willy's Pub.


[Moderator's Note: The thing I found fishy about the story was that I
recall years ago -- like three or four years before any mention was
made of 708 -- that dialing '708' from here (in 312) produced some odd
responses. That is, it would produce a few clicks when dialed and
usually no other response ... or sometimes calls would complete to the
312 version of the number. I asked a 'knowledgeable friend' at IBT
about this and he said (if I remember his exact words) "708 is sort of
a special code. It is in reserve for the *possibility* 312 may get too
crowded and have to be split up." This was at least a couple years
before even any discussion of 708 came up by the sophisticates.   PAT]

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

Date: Fri, 22 Nov 91 09:44:54 -0500
From: David Brightbill <[e-mail]>
Subject: Mac/PC Emulation Modem Problem


This is a rather convoluted problem.  I am trying to connect to an
application running via PC-Anywhere IV.  I'm using a Mac running
Universal Soft PC.  I have PCAW set for flow control=none.  What
happens is that every once in a while, the system locks up.  Sometimes
it happens during a file download ... sometimes while reading text,
sometimes it just happens while manipulating a cursor.  Using a
breakout box between the mac and the modem, I've tried various
combinations of DTR, RTS, CTS, DCD and DSR.  If things are locked up,
if I momentarily short the above to Sig Gnd, the system either frees
up or else drops the line.  I suspect that this may be some sort of
flow control problem.  I'd be real interested in hearing any suggested
solutions.


Thanks.

Dave Brightbill

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

Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1991 06:17:38 PST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Copyrights on Phone Books


In Digest 942, Dale Gass writes:

> I noticed that the Halifax (Nova Scotia) phone book is copyrighted
> (and I assume most are), so I assume it's up to the phone company to
> provide it on diskette.

> This started me thinking about a numerically-sorted phone book I saw a
> few years back; it obviously wasn't produced by the local phone
> company.  Was this an outright case of copyright violation?

No, Dale. What you saw was a licensed thing. It was ROBERT'S
CRISS-CROSS directory. Just about every police and fire dept in the
country has one of these things. The cost for getting them, I'm told,
is quite high, and in large part the cost is because of the license
fees paid to the copyright holder ... telco.

And, on the bottom of every page of that criss-cross, a footer is
printed, re-stating copyright law as it applies to that book.


[Moderator's Note: Various publishers seem to have the country divided
up. Each publisher has its best coverage in different areas. Here in
the midwest, Haines Publishing Company has dozens of these
directories, but in Florida, Dressers and City Publishing Company are
the criss-cross people. R. L. Polk seems to have quite a few cities.
They seem to never overlap in any territory.   PAT]

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

Date: Sat, 23 Nov 91 01:35 PST
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: AT&T Billing SNAFU (ROA)


If I were a long distance company, I think that my default would be to
leave customer plans in place even if I became a secondary carrier to
that customer. Recently, Sprint shot itself in the foot on this very
point.

A client of an associate of mine switched from Sprint to MCI Ultra
WATS and 800 service on T1-delivered circuits. Since the employees
already had FON cards and knew how to use them, it was decided to keep
Sprint as secondary carrier and continue to put the rather hefty
amount of calling card traffic over them as before. But (as we heard
of many cases last month here) Sprint, immediately upon being notified
of its downgrade of status from PIC to secondary, cancelled all of the
FON cards. Well, since MCI was the new major carrier, guess where the
customer went for reinstatement of calling card service?

I suspect AT&T would not have made that mistake.


        John Higdon         |   P. O. Box 7648   |   [phone]
    [e-mail]      | San Jose, CA 95150 |       M o o !

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #962
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa06307;
          24 Nov 91 22:01 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA08597
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 24 Nov 1991 20:22:24 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA18111
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 24 Nov 1991 20:22:09 -0600
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1991 20:22:09 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #963

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 24 Nov 91 20:21:45 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 963

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: CPSR FOIAs U.S. Secret Service (Mark Fulk)
    Re: How Does The Law Handle Crank Calls? (John Higdon)
    Re: US West: BBSs are Businesses (Randy Bush)
    BBS = Business - What About ... (James E. Hartman)
    Re: Talk About Pushy! (Bryan Richardson)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Mark Fulk)
Subject: Re: CPSR FOIAs U.S. Secret Service
Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1991 21:27:49 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> telecom (TELECOM Moderator)
writes:

> In TELECOM Digest V11 #953, Craig Neidorf <[e-mail]> tells of

 ...Long inclusion deleted, consult the previous articles...

I think Pat is attacking a straw man here.  Craig Neidorf's posting
offered no evaluation of the purpose, danger, or legality of the
included material; Pat only assumed that CPSR/CN/EFF object to the
government keeping such files.  A more appropriate response would be
"why should this matter?", since no reason for caring was offered.
I'll offer two reasons I care:

1) Further evidence that the government investigators are operating in
the dark.

2) The use by demagogues of "presence in a file" as evidence for
guilt.  "Ah, yes, Mr. Townson, but we have seen your name in the FBI's
computer crimes file.  Now stop telling us you don't know any credit
card thiefs."  This tactic is the reason the John Birch society used
to send out postcards accusing people of being communists.  The
postcards were sometimes used by HUAC as evidence of guilt.  Among the
people who were the subject of such postcards were John Kenneth
Galbraith and Amitai Etzioni (they weren't investigated by HUAC).

>> was established for an undercover investigation involving pedophiles.

> I think that's an admirable goal ... investigating pedophiles.

On the surface.  I must admit that I know next to nothing about
pedophilia.  However, I'm fairly certain that it is a condition
requiring treatment more than a crime requiring punishment.  And it
seems likely to me that the Secret Service's bulletin board would very
likely be an entrapment; would very likely result in the arrest of
people who never touch a child despite their condition; and almost
certainly will do nothing whatsoever to contribute to the safety of
children.  On the other hand, an investigation of the Diocese of
Chicago would, it seems, be of great value.  For some reason, that
investigation has not yet begun.

>> The documents we received also include references to the video
>> taping of SummerCon, a computer hackers conference that took place in
>> St. Louis in 1988.  The Secret Service employed an informant to attend
>> the conference and placed hidden cameras to tape the participants.

> Well again, a public event is a public event. It was advertised widely
> and people were invited to attend. That which can be seen with the
> eyes does not become forbidden to view later through the lens of a
> camera for strictly that reason alone.

Not all events at a conference are public.  Most of the interesting
work goes on in private meeting rooms and bedrooms.  People have a
right to privacy where they might reasonably expect it; if a meeting
room is labelled private, taping there would violate privacy.  Taping
in anyone's hotel room would certainly be a violation of privacy,
lacking the permission of the people present.  It has been a long time
since Summercon '88 was a current topic, but I recall that the taping
occurred in someone's hotel room.

>> The documents also show that the Secret Service established a computer
>> database to keep track of suspected computer hackers.  This database
>> contains records of names, aliases, addresses, phone numbers, known
>> associates, a list of activities, and various articles associated with
>> each individual.

> Not that you would ever keep any computer database of people with
> interests like your own ....:)

Again, no evaluation of the data was offered, Pat.  You're barking at
the mailman.  The point was to give a clear idea of the amount of effort
the Secret Service has expended.  I would expect them to construct
such a database.  What concerns me is the quality of information in
the database.

I think CPSR's efforts are clearly worthwhile.

>> CPSR is continuing its efforts to obtain government documentation

> Fine ... you do your thing. But let me make it perfectly clear you do
> not speak for Patrick Townson and/or TELECOM Digest, although you may

> By all means, dear readers, contact CPSR if you want more information,
> but as for myself, I support government efforts to crack down on
> computer crime, and electronic invasion of computers by unauthorized
> users. I do not support organizations which would deny the government
>the right to participate in any public forum.

The straw is flying now!

Of course the government has a right to participate in c.d.t, and to
record articles.  Of course it should crack down on computer crime,
provided that in so doing it respects the Constitution and the law,
and provided (1) that the crackdown is directed at substantial crimes,
not at teenage pranks that should be dealt with by parents and
relevant local authorities, and (2) that the crackdown has some chance
of success.

The problem with Secret Service efforts is that they SEEM to be a
bunch of Keystone Kops.  Since they are apparently unable to approach
the real problems, they are spending time collecting massive
quantities of irrelevant material to pad their files.  I suspect that
they are also padding their suspect lists, which makes the matter of
their database of suspected hackers AND ASSOCIATES a bit of a worry.

One might ask, "How SHOULD the SS proceed?"  My prescription: for
decades there have been persistent rumors of computer thefts by
insiders.  The perpetrators, once caught by their employers, would be
let go for minimal restitution and silence.  The SS should track some
of those rumors down, and if any turn up correct, prosecute.  The
effort, of course, would be substantial.  The probability of success
is not 100%.  But, by all accounts known to me, this is the best way
to get at the real bulk of computer crime.


Mark A. Fulk                Computer Science Department
[e-mail]            University of Rochester
Omit needless words -- Strunk        Rochester, NY  14627


[Moderator's Note: One glaring inaccuracy in your response was your
comment that 'an investigation of (pedophilia in) the Archdiocese of
Chicago would be of great value and it has not begun.' The truth here
is that following several detailed articles in the {Chicago Sun Times},
the {Chicago Reader}, a couple articles by myself in misc.legal which
drew considerable attention, and several news reports on television,
the 'pedophilia problem' in the Archdiocese of Chicago WAS investigated
at the church level and IS being investigated by the Cook County State's
Attorney now. During the past two weeks, six priests have been removed
from their positions, and more are expected to be removed soon.  PAT]

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

Date: Sat, 23 Nov 91 01:18 PST
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: How Does The Law Handle Crank Calls?


On Nov 23 at  0:31, TELECOM Moderator writes:

> [Moderator's Note: Aren't all hackerphreaks poor, misunderstood
> people? When I've used the term 'burglar' and 'burglary' to describe
> computer break-ins in the past, I have been widely castigated, in
> particular by some of our Socially Responsible readers who don't like
> it that I phrase the activity in such stark, plain terms.

I agree -- to a point. I doubt that even our Socially Responsible
readers would condone or approve of anyone sitting down at a terminal
and hacking into a private or government system. I know of no one who
does.  In fact, on this very system is essentially my life's work.
There is vast information about the cases that I am working with, the
clients that I work for, not to mention megs and megs of source code.
There are a few trusted friends with accounts on the system for the
purpose of news and mail access. I would feel violated in the extreme
if someone unknown to me logged in and even just looked around.

But here is where I believe we diverge in our attitudes. The security
of my system is MY responsibility, not the FBI's, not the Secret
Service's, not the Sheriff's Office's, nor that of the police. It is
up to me to make sure that all logins are adequately passworded and
that they are changed regularly. If I detect any hacking attempts, it
is up to me to take evasive action.

I do not feel that breaking down the doors of kids' homes, holding
them at gunpoint, confiscating everything they own, and theatening
them with thirty-year sentences helps in the slightest. "Hacker laws"
are a waste of time and resources. They protect no one and prevent
nothing and I think you know that. One does not have to condone
hacking (in the intrusive sense) to believe that "hacker hysteria" is
counter productive.

And let us keep it all in perspective. Even if someone broke into my
system and simply looked around, what WAS the damage? No, I would not
like it and would be pissed as hell, but if no files were damaged and
none of my intellectual property was taken, so what? Bell South would
probably come up with some five or six figure amount that the break-in
cost them, but even they lost round one in that battle. If it happened
to me, I would close the hole and move on.

No, "burglar" and "burglary" are inappropriate words to use. We are in
a new age and we need to expand our vocabulary. Breaking into a
computer system cannot be compared to the more traditional physical
"breaking and entering" because nothing is "broken". And entering a
computer system is not the same as physically entering a home or
office. Therefore, using the ancient descriptions of common crimes is
inaccurate at the least and at most inflammatory.

> They'd rather play word games and talk about the dire consequences of
> stifling the intellectual curiosity of the hackers.

I am less concerned about stifling the intellectual curiosity of
hackers as I am concerned about destroying the lives of people that
get in the way of our ignorant, blunderbus law enforcement system. I
am talking about the practices of confiscating computer equipment for
the dual purpose of trying to collect some evidence of a "crime" and
the dispensation of punishment without benefit of due process. Those
that have been through this nightmare would have fared better to have
committed some violent crime. They would have not suffered the loss of
equipment, means of livelihood, or money for very expensive specialist
lawyers. They would also not have faced penalties that were as stiff.

In some countries hacking is not a crime. Is it not peculiar that
there is no evidence that there exists a rampant computer security
problem in those countries? No, ironically, hackers in those countries
prefer to explore around in the US via phone line, probably because
computer owners here are so lax about security.

I, for one, would much rather rely on technical means and normal
prudence to keep interlopers out of my system than on laws enforced by
Keystone Kops.

On Nov 24 at 12:21, TELECOM Moderator writes:

> I know I was a kid while I was growing up, and we used to have great
> fun with the three-slot pay stations ...

> and use a flexible piece of wire up the coin return slot to dump the
> shelf holding the coins down the return slot before the operator had a
> chance to hit the 'collect' key on her end. We'd use the same quarter
> over and over to accumulate the dollar she was demanding ("just a
> minute operator, I'm looking for more change!"). I'm sure glad they
> didn't fry me.    PAT]

I'm glad they did not fry you, either. But the Secret Service and the
FBI and others are figuratively trying to fry many who are exhibiting
the same inquisitive juvenile behavior. The only difference is that
you used a piece of wire and kids today are using personal computers.

It would appear that you are being sucked in by the same irrational
fear of computers that grips the public at large today. Would you
characterize your manipulation of the coin telephone as an attempt to
defraud the telephone company or an exercise to see if the act could
be done (a puzzle-solving challenge, if you will)? I would be willing
to bet that gun-toting agents never appeared at your parents' home for
the purpose of hauling away your life's possesions.

Time marches on. Using wires in old, insecure pay telephones has given
way to kids using computers to fool around in currently insecure
computer systems. I see little difference. Eventually, computer
designers and programmers will wake up in the manner of payphone
manufacturers and produce a product that is not such a pushover.

I'll bet your wire trick would not work on today's instruments!


        John Higdon         |   P. O. Box 7648   |   [phone]
    [e-mail]      | San Jose, CA 95150 |       M o o !

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

From: [e-mail] (Randy Bush)
Subject: Re: US West: BBSs are Businesses
Organization: Pacific Systems Group, Portland Oregon, US
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1991 01:18:52 GMT


ole!rwing![e-mail] (Peter Marshall) writes:

> Sysop Wagner, says the article, "objected, saying he never had charged
> for access to his board, called 'First Choice Communications.' Extra
> lines are needed because he's regional ... coordinator for FidoNet ...
> One of additional lines was for TDD, Wagner said."

a - TW is not FidoNet RC.  TW is the regional echo hub.

b - He does run commercial systems.  He is the support system for a
    commercial product, D'Bridge, from which he derives income.

c - He receives income from those systems for providing echomail.

d - The honest people in similar circumstances in the area pay
    business rates for similar use.

e - As Portland has a very wide free calling area, and the telcos have
    been very liberal with BBSs, TW's actions can only make things
    worse, not better.

One person's greed can harm us all.


randy     [e-mail]   ...!uunet!m2xenix!randy

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

Subject: BBS = Business - What About ...
From: unkaphaed![e-mail] (James E. Hartman)
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 91 17:04:07 GMT
Organization: Unka Phaed's UUCP Thingy


On the continuing saga of "BBSs are businesses," what about the
following scenario:

A small system (for example, running Waffle to receive news/mail) that
is not open to the public, but IS answering the phone/dialing out for
news/mail.  This system is accessed remotely by the owner of the
computer, as well as a few of his friends.  Again, the system is NOT
open to the public.

What would (hypothetically) happen in this case?  If it comes up that
that system isn't a business, I see an awful lot of loopholes opening
up.


[e-mail] (James E. Hartman)
Unka Phaed's UUCP Thingy, [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Bryan Richardson)
Subject: Re: Talk About Pushy!
Date: 23 Nov 91 22:37:47 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Purdue University


In article <[e-mail]> John Higdon <john@zygot.
ati.com> writes:

> I was visiting my mother yesterday and the phone rang. It was yet
> another call from someone pushing MCI.

[stuff deleted]

> This guy kept badgering. "Why don't you switch, and if you don't like
> it you can switch back?" Good old Mom was finally moved to say, "My
> son is in the telephone business and he set up what I have now." The
> reply?  "Do you always do whatever your son says?"

> This is absolutely the most offensive and aggressive telemarketing
> that I have ever seen.

About a year ago, I received a call from MCI.  I, too was amazed by
how aggressive they were, considering I told them straight-away I was
employed by AT&T.

 ...Touting the wonders of MCI...

MCI:  Would you like to switch to MCI?  (or some such)
Me:   I work for AT&T.
MCI:  Does this mean that you won't switch?
Me:   (Dumbfounded that this has continued after the first response)
      I will not switch.
MCI:  What would it take for you to switch?
Me:   I already get free long distance from my employer--I suppose you'd have
      to pay me to make calls on MCI.
MCI:  <click!>


Bryan Richardson     [e-mail]
AT&T Bell Laboratories and, for 1991, Purdue University

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #963
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa08315;
          24 Nov 91 23:20 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA07077
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 24 Nov 1991 21:40:24 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA03118
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 24 Nov 1991 21:40:06 -0600
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1991 21:40:06 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #964

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 24 Nov 91 21:40:00 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 964

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Network Info and Access (Jacob R. Deglopper)
    Re: Telemarketers: One Good Solution (Graham Toal)
    Re: Can I Generate FAKE Out Of Service Message? (H. K. Henson)
    Re: Phone Charges and Technology in the US (John Higdon)
    Re: How Illinois Bell Really Chose AC 708 (Ihor J. Kinal)
    Re: Telecom Sucks on the Road (David Appell)
    Re: Telecom Sucks on the Road (Bob Denny)
    Re: Calling Card Wars (Bob Denny)
    Re: Intercept Recordings: Comments and Questions (John Higdon)
    Re: Copyrights on Phone Books (J. Philip Miller)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Jacob R. Deglopper)
Subject: Re: Network Info and Access
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Jacob R. Deglopper)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 91 23:03:21 GMT


In a previous article, [e-mail] (Will Martin) says:

> doesn't exist. I'm often asked if this or that organization has
> Internet connectivity; if it can be reached via e-mail or accessed
> with FTP or telnet. The latest example of this was a query regarding
> the Library of Congress. Sometimes I know the answer off the top of my
> head, but I don't know about the LoC, and I don't even know where to
> look it up or who to ask to get a definitive answer.

> (And, while I'm asking, is the LoC on the Internet and can its
> catalogs be remotely accessed electronically? Does the latter require
> the establishment of an account or is public or anonymous access
> possible?)

LoC itself is not currently on the Internet at all.  Network design is
underway, and they hope to be on the net for mail within a few years.
This is, of course, subject to the normal government funding and other
sorts of delays.  I don't know if they plan online catalog access, but
I would expect something.  There is a fairly cryptic system in place
inside the library now, but there would most likely have to be some
work before it could be directly accessed from outside.  There is a
commercial company which provides access to a subset of the LoC
database for free, as far as I can tell.  telnet to dra.com, and
you're popped right into the system.


 _/acob DeGlopper, EMT-A, Wheaton Volunteer Rescue Squad
 [e-mail] -- Biomedical Engineering '95, Case Western Reserve
 Opinions my own...

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

From: [e-mail] (Graham Toal)
Subject: Re: Telemarketers: One Good Solution
Date: 18 Nov 91 23:23:59 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: MCGV Stack @ EUT, Eindhoven, the Netherlands


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Roger
Fajman) writes:

> To get on the association's list (and removed from many mailing and/or
> telephone lists), send your name address and telephone number to:

>   Mail Preference Service and/or Telephone Preference Service
>   Direct Marketing Association
>   6 East 43rd Street
>   New York, NY 10017

We have a Mailing Preference Service in Britain, but we will never
have a Telephone Preference Service -- at least under that name ...
because the Telephone Preference Service is the name of a secret BT
facility to allow certain lines to be enabled during those times of
emergency when the phone system is turned over to the military.

No-one *knows* if they are on the TPS (there are two level of service
depending on the grade of the emergency), and frankly you don't really
want to be on it - as it means your house/office is on the list of
places to be taken over for civil defense.

This information is found in Duncan Campbell's "War plan UK".


Graham

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Can I Generate FAKE Out Of Service Message?
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 91 22:22:19 PST


Since someone mentioned the great old {Mad Magazine} article, I can't
resist adding to this thread, though I may have already told this
story in the Digest.  (And it will likely get added to my FBI file.)

Many years ago when the phone co. was less picky, I listed my phone
under a club name from high school, Heimdallr The Watcher, or H. T.
Watcher.  My friends all knew me by that handle, so a call for "the
Watcher" was from one of them.  But a call for Mr. or Mrs. Watcher,
well, that was certain to be some kind of solicitor.

Ring, ring.

"Hello"

"Is Mrs. Watcher there"

"Yes, she is right here, but unfortunately, she is unable to speak to
anyone."

Sometimes they would bite and ask;

"Gee, why is that"

"Well, you see, Mrs. Watcher used to be a telephone solicitor" (long
dramatic pause) "until someone caught her at it" (another long pause)
"AND CUT HER TONGUE OUT!"

Usually that was the end of it, but one lady solicitor told me it was
the best joke she had heard in the whole time she had been in the
business.

Only got a call or so a month in those days.  Get three or four a week
nowadays.


Keith Henson

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

Date: Sat, 23 Nov 91 19:26 PST
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Phone Charges and Technology in the US


"Juergen, ZIEGLER" <[e-mail]> writes:

>   First of all I would like to know when certain features first became
> available and then widely available. Here are some features:

Here is an off-the-cuff observation of the availability of services:

>   Touch-tone dialing

This was introduced in 1963. I first laid eyes on it in Danville, VA
in 1965 and actually had the service in Laurenburg, NC in 1966.
Raleigh, Greensburo, etc. all had the service available around 1965 in
many exchanges. Imagine my surprise to come to California in 1967 and
find no such thing (and not until the next year, at that). Touch tone
dialing was generally available by 1975.

>   Itemized billing

This has been part and parcel of US telephone service from the
beginning. In fact, some of the slowness to implement DDD came as a
result of billing difficulties rather than the ability to actually
complete the call. Americans have always had and insisted upon
itemized billing.

>   800 service

This was introduced by AT&T in the late sixties. Within a very few
years many businesses were taking advantage of 800 numbers.

>   900-(also 976,..) service

The first time the 900 prefix was used was on a nationwide talkshow
hosted by President Jimmy Carter. It was designed to be a huge choke
network to handle the large anticipated traffic. It was in the early
eighties that the 976 prefix was born. Shortly thereafter, 900 service
was devised to allow more than one carrier to handle such calls. Both
services have been generally available for the past five years.

>   Centrex

Centrex has been around for decades, but it has not always been done
the same way. Back when it was "the phone company", switching equipment
would be placed on the customer's premesis and trunks would be provided
back to the CO. In reality it was a giant DID arrangement although it
was called "Centrex". Later, after the Bells were prohibited from
providing equipment, Centrex was done entirely in the CO equipment. It
has been done in this manner since divestiture.

For instance, the Santa Clara County offices have Centrex on 408/299.
Years ago, the phones were served by a SXS switch in the county
facilities. Now, all the lines go back to 95 Almaden Ave. where they
are served by an ESS.

>   Enhanced phone features (call waiting, forwarding, three-way, ...)

I remember these features being available from the early seventies.
They came as part of the ESS equipment which was then being installed
so every time a CO was installed or cut over from mechanical equipment,
the "enhanced" phone features appeared.

>   Class Services (caller-ID)

Well, we still do not have it here in California but a number of states
do. They were first introduced several years ago.

>   Second I am interested in the rates/(per month or use) of several
> services:

California's rates are not representative of the rest of the country,
so I'll let someone else pick up the topic of cost.


        John Higdon         |   P. O. Box 7648   |   [phone]
    [e-mail]      | San Jose, CA 95150 |       M o o !

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

Date: Sun, 24 Nov 91 11:40:28 EST
From: [e-mail] (Ihor J Kinal)
Subject: Re: How Illinois Bell Really Chose AC 708
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (H.
Peter Anvin N9ITP) writes:

> Regarding the IBT argument that changing Chicago's area code would be
> global mayhem, I'd just like to point out that more subscribers were
> changed to 708 than kept 312.

There's another aspect that I haven't seen mentioned, but it came to
my attention when Northern New Jersey split its area code recently:
the cost of printing up NEW business cards, letterheads, etc.

And apparently these costs are fairly substantial. [ Think about it -- you
hardly want to send out correspondence with your old phone number on
it, even during the optional phase -- so fairly quickly, all of this
becomes obsolete].

Since presumably, businesses are more concentrated in the 312 area, I
suppose the decision made sense.


[standard disclaimers apply - I'm a software person].
Ihor Kinal         att!cbnewsh!ijk

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Sun Nov 24 08:27:46 MST 1991
Subject: Re: Telecom Sucks on the Road


On Wed, 20 Nov 91 16:08:13 pst Steve Forrette <[e-mail]> writes:

> Regarding hotel telephone policies, over the past two months, I've had
> three surprises: one bad and two really great!

> Bad: Hyatt Regency O'Hare near our Moderator's city.  Placard states
> "no charge for 800 calls - calling card calls 75 cents."  So, I of
> course used my Sprint FON card instead of AT&T.  When I check out,
> there are 75 cent charges for every call to 800/877-8000.  I
> complained, stating that the placard said 800 numbers were free.  The
> response was "But it also said that calling card calls are 75 cents."
> Me: "So, all 800 numbers are free, except 800/877-8000?"  Response:
> "Yes, that's right.  A new law was passed a few months ago which
> forces us to charge the same amount for each carrier's calling cards."

   Wonder how they plan to bill such a surcharge for AT&T's SDN
calling card ("Network Remote Access")? With this service, there is a
different 800 number for each SDN customer.


David Appell   attmail!appell   Gold Systems, Inc.

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

From: [e-mail] (Bob Denny)
Subject: Re: Telecom Sucks on the Road
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1991 16:59:39 GMT
Organization: Alisa Systems, Inc.


In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Steve Forrette)
writes:

> Regarding hotel telephone policies, over the past two months, I've had
> three surprises: one bad and two really great!

> One interesting note is that one of the last two (I think it was the
> Sheraton) provided a "data port" on the back of the phone.  The
> instruction card said that it supported data rates up to 1200 baud.
> That's an interesting limit on a voice grade line.  However, I noticed
> that whenever placing an off-premises call, there was a large amount
> of "hiss".  This hiss was apparent even when entering the calling card
> number, so it was not the "long" distance part of the call that was
> creating the hiss.  I had no terminal with me, so I could not
> experiment further.

We recently set up a demo in a suite at the Red Lion Inn in San Jose.
They had those data ports on the phones, and I happened to have a
PM9600SA modem and my Mac A/UX system disk with me so I could read
news after hours. I tried a 9600 baud call back to our office (my news
feed is the office VAX/VMS system), and it worked great. SO at least
some of those data ports are full-quality grade.


Robert B. Denny voice: [phone] Alisa Systems, Inc.  fax: (818)
792-4068 Pasadena, CA ([e-mail], ..uunet!alisa.com!denny)

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

From: [e-mail] (Bob Denny)
Subject: Re: Calling Card Wars
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1991 16:31:20 GMT
Organization: Alisa Systems, Inc.


In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Harold
Hallikainen) writes:

>    It seems to me that AT&T is supposed to move away from using
> phone numbers for credit card numbers, since that may have given them
> an unfair advantage.  Actually, why not let all the LD carriers use
> the phone number plus personal ID for credit card numbers.  The credit
> card number only identifies who the calling customer is, not which
> carrier is supposed to be used.  All carriers could use the same
> customer ID number.  The customer determines which carrier to use thru
> 950 or 10+ dialing.  The LD carrier could either contract with the
> local telcos to do the billing, or could just do card validation thru
> them.  Or, the LD company should be free to use any number for the
> customer account number, including one suggested by the customer,
> which could quite likely be based on the customer telephone number.
> The LD carrier then has a record of the account number and the
> personal ID number and needs to do no further checking.

At one time I had PacPell and ATT credit cards that _both_ had my office
number and the _same_ PIN. Then our office manager got paranoid and had
both changed to some off-the-wall numbers, forcing me to remember yet
another "secret". Recently she changed our LD carrier to MCI, and our new
MCO credit cards came through with, yup, our office number. I don't know if
we could have had a PacBell, ATT _and_ MCI card with our phone number, but
I do know that at one time or another our phone number was used on all
three.


Robert B. Denny           voice: [phone]
Alisa Systems, Inc.         fax: [phone]
Pasadena, CA    ([e-mail], ..uunet!alisa.com!denny)

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

Date: Sun, 24 Nov 91 11:20 PST
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Intercept Recordings: Comments and Questions


[e-mail] (Douglas W. Martin) writes:

> Finally, if I start an answering machine message with the appropriate
> three-tone sequence, can my number then be called long-distance with
> no charge?  If not, why not?

Only if you make the call from a COCOT or maybe some sleazy long
distance company. Answer supervision in not done inband (anymore) and
even when it was, those tones had nothing to do with it. Answer
supervision is a positive signal that passes all the way to your long
distance carrier and recordings such as you describe do not supervise.

COCOTs on the other hand guess at supervision. Indeed, it is the
presence of the SIT (special information tones) that will result in
the return of your money in many cases. One major complaint is that
cellular companies do not have SIT in front of the "Not Available"
recording so that calls to mobile phones from COCOTs always charge
whether or not there is an answer (it hears a voice and collects the
money).


        John Higdon         |   P. O. Box 7648   |   [phone]
    [e-mail]      | San Jose, CA 95150 |       M o o !

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

From: [e-mail] (J. Philip Miller)
Subject: Re: Copyrights on Phone Books
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 91 16:12:19 CST


> Compilations of facts are copyrightable if they are selected,
> coordinated or arranged in such a way that the resulting work as a
> whole constitutes an original work of authorship.  The originality
> requirement is not very stringent, requiring only some minimal degree
> of creativity.

I now see why SWBT wants to sell me the opportunity to have my name
printed in script, bold, other distincitive type face - this imparts
some minimal degree of creativity to the process.  In fact, some of
the proposals for methods in which one uses a creative form of one's
name should actually be encouraged by the phone book publishers!
Perhaps we can convince them to pay us a small royalty, the more
creative we are in presenting our listing :-)


     J. Philip Miller, Professor, Division of Biostatistics, Box 8067
     Washington University Medical School, St. Louis MO 63110
         [e-mail] - Internet  [phone]
uunet!wuarchive!wubios!phil - UUCP [phone](FAX)  C90562JM@WUVMD - bitnet

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #964
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa11229;
          25 Nov 91 1:15 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA08856
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 24 Nov 1991 23:29:34 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA28994
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 24 Nov 1991 23:29:12 -0600
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1991 23:29:12 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #965

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 24 Nov 91 23:28:50 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 965

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: The March of Progress (John Higdon)
    Re: Can You Block Outgoing Calls (Dave Niebuhr)
    Screening Calls (Albert M. Berg)
    Self-ID for 818-792? (Bob Denny)
    What About Ring-Back Numbers Instead of ANI Numbers? (Simona Nass)
    Re: ANI Numbers That I Know of (Dale Miller)
    Re: Two Cellular Questions (Alan Boritz)
    Re: Cellular Antennas (Alan Boritz)
    What is IMTS? (was Cellular Antennas) (Bob Denny)
    They're All the Same to Me (Jim Haynes)
    Re: Can I Generate FAKE Out Of Service Message? (Brett G. Person)
    Re: Wasting the Slime's Time (Brett G. Person)
    Non-PacBell Calls in SF Bay Area LATA? (Galloway
    Digital Switch Limitations? (Rudy Maceyko)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 24 Nov 91 11:37 PST
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: The March of Progress


[e-mail] (Floyd Davidson) writes:

> I have no idea if AT&T (or Alascom) or any OCC is required to provide
> a 2.0 second delay.  I also have no idea how that delay is handled in
> AT&T ESS switches.  I do know that Alascom does in fact use the
> default timing of 2.08 seconds.

And I can tell you for a fact that Pac*Bell (and any carriers that I
use therewith) does not have any delay or grace period whatsoever. In
fact, I have seen a situation where a call answered AFTER the caller
had hung up (but before the disconnect delay had timed out) resulted in
a charge. With crossbar if you were quick enough on the draw you could
hang up before billing would begin; not so anymore.

The fact that there was a delay then and none now indicates that this
particular telco is simply pushing the billing capability envelope.
But then, Pacific {Telephone|Bell} has always been exceptional at
that.


        John Higdon         |   P. O. Box 7648   |   [phone]
    [e-mail]      | San Jose, CA 95150 |       M o o !

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

Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1991 16:39:55 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Dave Niebuhr, BNL CCD, 516-282-3093)
Subject: Re: Can You Block Outgoing Calls


In <[e-mail]> John T. Ellis, [e-mail].
com writes:

> Why would you want to control outgoing calls, you may ask?  Well, it
> seems his kids do not realize what kind of costs are involved in
> making phone calls and refuse to stop using the phone.  He would
> rather not rip out the phone since he is interested in receiving
> calls.  However, that has been listed as the last option.  Ideally
> what he wants is this.

> ALL incoming calls are accepted.
> ALL outgoing 312, 0, 911 and 411 calls are accepted.
> ALL OTHER outgoing calls are rejected.

> This situation allows him to be in contact with the world as well as
> make emergency and operator assisted (ie. credit card calls) calls.
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                                 $$$$$$$$$

There's a simple soulution and will possibly save money.  LAY DOWN THE
LAW TO THE KIDS!  Do it in no uncertain terms.  It is the subscriber
who is responsible and make sure the kids know just who is paying the
bill.

Tell them that using the phone costs money, just as in turning on a
light or turning on a faucet.

Maybe I'm in an unusual situation but when I told my kids years ago
why I don't want them to play with the phone (and I'll agree it's fun
sometimes when curiousity gets the better of you) and that it costs me
then they will go along.

I had to lay down the law when it came to utility usage, especially
phone costs, and I told them in no uncertain terms that they were
going to reimburse me for the costs incurred.  The bill came in and
they paid even though it was not in money.  Calls have stopped, cold.

Why should the telco have to go out of its way to stop a situation
that should not have occurred in the first place (I'm no fan of NYTel
but I feel that since the phone is under my control then I should
exercise some rules)?


Dave Niebuhr      Internet: [e-mail] / Bitnet: niebuhr@bnl
Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, NY 11973  (516)-282-3093

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

Date: Sun, 24 Nov 91 18:47 GMT
From: "Albert M. Berg" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Screening Calls


An inquiry:

My wife and I recently moved in to a duplex apartment, where we have
phones all over the joint.  We always screen all of our calls to avoid
tele-scum and to fend off my boss who tends to call to discuss office
matters on evenings, weekends, etc.

What I am trying to find is some sort of device to allow me to screen
calls from a room other than the one where the answering machine is
located.  We have one of those machines that shuts off if you pick up
any extension on the line.

Is there such a device?  If not, I sense a market opportunity here ...


Thanks,

Al Berg            Phone [phone]        No one else wants
NETLAN Inc.        Fax   [phone]        the blame for my
29 W 38th Street   Email [e-mail]      opinions.
NYC  NY  10018

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

From: [e-mail] (Bob Denny)
Subject: Self-ID For 818-792?
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1991 16:08:03 GMT
Organization: Alisa Systems, Inc.


Does anyone know what the number is for my area/exchange (818-792) to
get your phone number spoken back to you? We have 24 lines in our
office, and the installers that originally put in our NEC Mark 2
switch made a mess of it.  I need physically to identify the lines in
order of the hunt group we have with PacBell. Also, we have 2 lines
that have been used for outgoing modem calls only, and noone can seem
to remember the numbers for them!

I hesitated to ask this question till I saw the "ANI numbers that I
know of" discussion, and noticed that nobody seemed to be nervous
about those numbers being talked about.


[Moderator's Note: Don't worry ... you're among phriends here.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Simona Nass)
Subject: What About Ring-Back Numbers Instead of ANI Numbers?
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1991 02:38:37 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC


Years ago, I knew of two numbers: the ANI number, which here in New
York was and is 958, and also a ring-back number, which I think used
to be 611 and was taken over by NYTel's repair service some years ago.

The way it worked was that you'd dial this three-digit number, get a
special tone, dial in your phone number that you wanted rung back, and
hang up. After a few seconds, the phone would ring, and continue
ringing until picked up, at which point you'd get a dial tone.

Do these numbers still exist? What is that number in New York?


([e-mail]    or    {apple,cmcl2}!panix!simona)

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

From: Dale Miller <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: ANI Numbers That I Know of
Date: 24 Nov 91 11:51:35 -0500
Organization: University of Arkansas at Little Rock


Well, I haven't seen any like ours yet.  Central Arkansas (SWBT) uses
828-2222222 (yes, you must dial ten digits; seven does not complete
the call).


Dale Miller - [e-mail]

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

Date: 23 Nov 91 08:55:22 EST
From: Alan Boritz <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Two Cellular Questions


In a message <[e-mail]>, Michael Lyman writes:

> When the phone is just sitting there, it tends to transmit for about
> one oe two seconds every hour or so.  What is it transmitting?  Is the
> cellular switch polling it or is the phone taking it upon itself to
> transmit something?

> This is most likely because the "reregistration" bit is set in the
> overhead signaling stream. This is an option when set by the switching
> operator that changes a bit in the signaling scheme to the phone that
> tells the unit to start a timer. Upon timeout the unit will
> momentarily transmit and send its registration parameters to
> the switch (via the base site of course).

Doesn't this kind of polling activity present a significant RFR risk
for someone using, for example, a Motorola flip-phone?  It's bad
enough to have a live transmitting antenna close to one's internal
organs when a call comes in (from another customer), but regular
transmissions would appear to be an unusually high health risk.


Alan Boritz   [e-mail]

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

Date: 23 Nov 91 08:55:08 EST
From: Alan Boritz <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular Antennas


In a message <[e-mail]> Chris Sattler
!uunet!motcid!sattlerc writes:

> Such a system is all but useless. IF you're seeing two cellular
> antennas, someone has bought a dummy antenna and stuck it up there.
> (Gee, he has TWO phones?) Funny part is, even if the second antenna
> isn;t hooked up, it's likely as not to be fouling the performance of
> the first ... but that's another story.

> The purpose of having two antennas for a cellular phone is to supply
> antenna diversification when receiving a signal.

No, that's not always the reason.  Some people have two or more
discrete radios for simultaneous use.  Diversity RECEPTION really
shouldn't be necessary if the cellular service-provider did his
homework, so to speak.


Alan Boritz   [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Bob Denny)
Subject: What is IMTS? (was Cellular Antennas)
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1991 16:18:18 GMT
Organization: Alisa Systems, Inc.


In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Chris
Arndt) writes:

> Our first mobile phone was a used IMTS we bought for use when we
> travel in our motorhome. (Pac Bell IMTS service Highly recommended --
> includes free follow-me-roaming in all PAC Bell IMTS areas with no
> long distance charges.)

What _is_ IMTS? How does it work (freq's, modulation, multiple access
method, etc.)?


Robert B. Denny        voice: [phone]
Alisa Systems, Inc.      fax: [phone]
Pasadena, CA    ([e-mail], ..uunet!alisa.com!denny)

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

From: [e-mail] (Jim Haynes)
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 91 11:02:15 -0800
Subject: They're All the Same to Me


> [Moderator's Note: You are confusing telemarketers with survey takers.
> There is a difference. Don't paint them with the same brush. Survey
> takers have a hard time convincing people they are NOT (really, not!)
> selling anything. And many of them do provide a valuable service.  PAT]

I paint them with the same brush.  Whether or not they are selling,
they make me interrupt what I am doing to answer their calls.  If they
want me to answer their survey they can mail it and then I will decide
at a time of my own choosing whether to fill it out and mail it back.

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

From: plains![e-mail] (Brett G Person )
Subject: Re: Can I Generate FAKE Out Of Service Message?
Date: 24 Nov 91 23:48:39 GMT
Organization: North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND


What I can't figure out is why it is legal to do telemarketing in the
first place.  I also can't figure out why people would want to BE
telemarketers.

My perspective on this comes from dealing with the group of supposedly
handicapped people who sell outrageously priced light bulbs. These
people -- who were operating locally at the time -- called me exactly
ONCE!  When I explained to them that I was blind and legally consid-
ered disabled, they offered me a job selling the damned things!

I know that some of my associates went to the state to ask that
telemarketing be banned in Minnesota because of these people.


Brett G. Person   North Dakota State University
uunet!plains!person | [e-mail] | [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: There are a large number of people who for whatever
reason, by virtue of a physical impairment or otherwise are unable to
do other types of work. If not for telemarketing, they'd be unemployed
and receiving public assistance. Having a job like this, as undesirable
as it may seem, provides dignity, a legitimate income and sense of self-
worth. Good telemarketers call perhaps 60 numbers an hour; 50 of whom
curse them and hang up the phone; a few of whom waste their time and
then hang up; and one or two who listen to the pitch and buy the
product. Out of all the suggestions made here in the past few days for
ways to annoy and harass telemarketers, none of them -- not one! -- is
original. Long-time telemarketers have seen them all, and believe it
or not, some of them wouldn't want any other type of work.  PAT]

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

From: plains![e-mail] (Brett G Person )
Subject: Re: Wasting the Slime's Time
Date: 25 Nov 91 03:16:51 GMT
Organization: North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND


I once got a call from a tele-sales person on my data line ( un-listed
number).  I told the young lady that she had dialed my computers phone
number and that I would be very haooy to let her talk to my computer.
I then proceeded to bring my modem on-line ( C'mon, we've all done
this, haven't we?)

Eventually, the tele-person got around to dialing my voice line.
When she realized that it was me, she apologized and offered to lock
out my data line, promising never to call it again.  I didn't give
her the number.  It was un-listed.


Brett G. Person
North Dakota State University
uunet!plains!person | [e-mail] | [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Why not give it to her? Time is money for those
people and a phone number known to be disconnected or not in use for
human conversation is not dialed -- if they know its status ahead of
time. You see, its not like anything you do or say is going to make
any real difference. Take a chance -- she'll probably add it to the
list of numbers not to call, and if not, what have you lost since they
rang the modem number anyway.   PAT]

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

From: Curtis Galloway <[e-mail]>
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1991 15:27:19 PST
Subject: Non-PacBell Calls in SF Bay Area LATA?


So does anyone know of a way for a normal person to avoid using
PacBell for calls within the Northern California LATA?  For example, I
tried using 10222 to call from Santa Cruz to San Francisco, but it
still ended up on my bill as a PacBell call.

With the rates PacBell charges, it would be cheaper for me to dial up
a timeshare system in Chicago than one in San Jose.  Surely there's a
cheaper way to go.


Curtis Galloway, The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc.
uunet!sco!curtisg -or- [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: If I meet any normal people I'll ask. :)   PAT]

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

From: "USENET News System" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Digital Switch Limitations?
Date: 23 Nov 91 22:29:02 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh


Recently, there has been some discussion of perceptible call-waiting
differences between analog (1A) and digital (5E, for example) switches.

Here's a different question:

I subscribe to "Answer Call" ("the Bell Atlantic Voice Messaging
Service"), a voice-mail kind-of answering system provided by Bell of
Pennsylvania.  It's "connected" to my telephone service via a busy-
or-don't-answer call-forwarding arrangement.

When I decided to get "Identa*Ring" (single line with separate numbers
and distinctive ringing pattern), the Bell of PA customer service
reps told me the two services were incompatible.

After some checking around, one CSR said that I _could_ have both
services, because I was on a 1A (analog, right?) switch; only 5E
(digital) switches caused the incompatibility.

Am I to believe that the new, modern digital switch has some kind of
limitations not present in analog ones?  That seems counter-intuitive.

I'm sure about the "incompatibility" issue, because everytime I
discuss my telephone set-up with Bell of PA, they always say something
like, "Well, we were told not to sell Answer Call and Identa*Ring for
the same line ... are you sure it works???"


Thanks,

Rudy Maceyko    [e-mail]  University of Pittsburgh
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania   USA


[Moderator's Note: I have both (telco voicemail and distinctive
ringing) on my line and they work fine. And if I call-forward my main
line, that overrides voicemail, but the distinctive ringing number
still rings through and eventually transfers to voicemail anyway.
There is no incompatability here at all.    PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #965
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa16643;
          25 Nov 91 3:46 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA02783
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Mon, 25 Nov 1991 01:18:20 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA12715
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Mon, 25 Nov 1991 01:18:03 -0600
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1991 01:18:03 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #966

TELECOM Digest     Mon, 25 Nov 91 01:17:57 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 966

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    A Humorous Look at Caller-ID and Telemarketing (Several of You)
    Government Phone Books (Nigel Allen)
    Dial Tone After Hangup (Monty Solomon)
    Sprint "QuickConference" Three-Way Call (Linc Madison)
    900 and 976 Billing (Mark Allyn)
    NET Rate Changes (Monty Solomon)
    Phantom Ringing (Steve Thornton)
    Correction: Re: AT&T Billing SNAFU (ROA) (John Higdon)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Larry Appleman)
Subject: A Humorous Look at Caller-ID and Telemarketing
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1991 07:58:39 GMT


Did you see the skit about Caller-ID that was performed on Saturday
Night Live this week (11/23/91)?  Paraphrasing from memory:

CALLER is the sleaziest kind of telescamster, picking numbers out of a
phone book and calling from a rundown fleabag hotel room, telling
VICTIM that she has won a cruise, and he just needs her credit card
number -- "Any credit card will do."

VICTIM:  "Maybe you should give me your phone number first."
CALLER:  "I can't do that."
VICTIM [looking at Caller-ID machine]:  "Oh, that's all right -- I have
         it.  It's 555-xxxx, isn't it?"
CALLER [after hanging up]:  "Hmm. She has my number.  Now I've got
         to KILL HER."
VOICE-OVER:  "At U.S.Fon, we don't have Caller-ID.  Maybe we're right for
         you."


Larry Appleman      P.O. Box 214, Cambridge B, Mass. 02140


[Moderator's Note: My thanks also go to Linc Madison, Steve Thornton
and others who submitted this on Sunday. Steve Thornton recalls the
final lines this way:

   Then the voiceover comes up (it turns out this has been a
   commercial for The Phone Company) and intones, "Now, aren't
   you glad we don't have Caller ID in _your_ area?"

   Well, I thought it was funny. They managed to dig at telemark-
   eting sleaze and deceptive phone company ads at the same time ...


   Steve Thornton / Harvard University Library / [phone]
   [e-mail] / [e-mail]

I'm sorry I missed it ... SNL is usually a pretty funny show. I also
want to remind everyone that the {Chicago Sunday Tribune Magazine} had
a lengthy article this week on telemarketers, including statistics,
comments by people in the industry and the people they call. Robert
Bulmash and his organization were also discussed. If you don't usually
get the {Chicago Tribune} you can get the magazine for this week by
writing to the Chicago Tribune Public Service Bureau, 425 North
Michigan Avenue, Chicago IL 60611. Enclose a couple dollars and ask
them to send you the Sunday Magazine for 11-24-91.     PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Nigel Allen)
Date: 24 Nov 91 (04:25)
Subject: Government Phone Books
Organization: Echo Beach, Toronto


Journalists and others who often need to contact government offices
can save time by using a government telephone directory. I don't know
that much about government bookstores in the U.S., but anyone who
wants a Canadian federal government telephone directory can order one
by mail from the Canadian Government Publishing Centre (Ottawa,
Ontario K1A 0S9) or visit one of several privately- or university-
owned bookstores that stock government publications.

(Actually, there are several federal government phone books for
different geographic areas. The thickest is the one for the National
Capital Region, as the government refers to Ottawa, Hull and their
suburbs.)  Provincial government phone books are generally available
both by mail order and from provincial government bookstores.  In some
cases, individual departments may publish their own directories.  The
Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission does, for
example. Departmental directories are not generally available for
sale, but you may be able to get one free from the issuing department
if you ask nicely.

I don't just use the directories to look up phone numbers, of course.
They're also useful for confirming names and office addresses when I'm
planning to send a letter, and they include some fax listings as well.

If you don't know where to buy a state, provincial or federal
government telephone directory, call the appropriate government
switchboard.  In some cases, you will be directed to a government-
owned bookstore; in other cases, you will be able to buy the directory
at a university or privately-owned bookstore.


Canada Remote Systems.  Toronto, Ontario   NorthAmeriNet Host


[Moderator's Note: For a few years a number of years ago, AT&T
published a directory entitled 'U.S. Government'. It was similar in
appearance to the telephone directory of any medium-sized city except
it covered the entire country, and had both an alphabetical section
and a 'yellow pages', with the back part of the book (the 'yellow
pages') being a classified index by federal department, plus division
and bureau within departments. The introductory pages included an area
code map, and the usual stuff you find there. I think it also had
basic inter/intraagency dialing instructions and an areacode/prefix
locator table for phone numbers of federal offices all over the USA.
There were probably 100,000 listings of individuals of management
level or above, including department heads, etc. For a number of years
now, there have been various private publishers of almost the same
information.  PAT]

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

Date: Sun, 24 Nov 91 05:15:52 EST
From: [e-mail] (Monty Solomon)
Subject: Dial Tone After Hangup

I have recently moved to Framingham, MA and the central office serving
my new location exhibits behavior which I have never experienced
before.

If someone calls me and then hangs up (or gets disconnected) my line
doesn't immediately get a dial tone.  The line stays quiet for a while
and then I get a recording which states that I should hang up the
phone if I want to make a call.

I've reported this problem and they claim that it is working properly
and is probably caused by my answering machine!  They suggested that I
disconnect the answering machine for at least 24 hours to fix the
problem.  I didn't believe them but tried it anyway and it didn't fix
the problem.

Why don't I get an immediate dial tone like I used to?  I have
verified that my former COs still work as I remembered.

If the CO is smart enough to give me a recording, why can't it give me
dial tone instead?

I think that my current CO is of an older vintage since some new
features (Ringmate, Caller ID) are not available here.


Monty Solomon     roscom![e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Well, you gave the answer to your own question. Not
all CO's work the same way. Even some which are otherwise the same
have different generics.  It's not broken, and not your answering
machine at fault.  PAT]

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

Date: Sun, 24 Nov 91 02:46:26 PST
From: [e-mail] (Linc Madison)
Subject: Sprint "QuickConference" Three-Way Call


My parents (in Texas), my brother (in New York), and I (in California)
have been trying to coordinate holiday travel plans.  Rather than make
a near-infinite chain of calls between us, I decided to set up a three-way.

The last time I wanted to do this, I went to the lab on campus, which
has regular three-way calling, and used my MCI "Around Town" feature
to bill the calls to myself with no surcharge.  Since then, two things
have happened: MCI no longer offers "Around Town" card calls without
surcharge, and Sprint now offers "QuickConference" (sm).  The catch is
that you must use your FON-CARD for the call.

The procedure is simple: dial the first call normally (1-800-..., 0 +
AC + number + card number) and then dial *12.  At the stutter tone,
dial the area code and number of the other party.  If they answer,
dial *13 to bridge to three-way; if they don't answer or are busy,
dial *14 to kill the second call and return to the first.  In each
case, hold the * key for at least a full second to be sure the Sprint
switch captures it.

The audio quality was fine -- all three parties sounded like local
calls to one another.

This is one (all too rare!) example of an OCC offering a useful
service that AT&T doesn't.  (AT&T charges person-to-person rates for
three-way calls, resulting in over four times the surcharge.)


Linc Madison  ==  [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: But if your phone has three-way calling, can't you
dial the first number, routing it over 10222, then flash and dial your
second number, routing it the same way, then flash and join all three
parties together? I've noticed here I can make three-way calls with
both of the other parties being long distance *and* being routed over
separate carriers! (Example: 11222 + 0 + number + MCI card number;
wait for answer, then flash, 10333 + 0 + number + Sprint card number;
then flash and all three of us are talking with reasonable clarity.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Mark Allyn)
Subject: 900 and 976 Billing
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 91 20:20:18 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)


I had someone ask me recently and this got me curious:

You call a 976 or 900 type service where you pay for the information.

They bill you through your local BOC. Your BOC acts as a billing agent.

The question is what happens if you simply refuse to pay the portion
of your bill for those services? For example, say you get a bill for
$100.00 and $20.00 is for 900/976 typ services. You pay eighty for the
normal phone bill but you leave out the $20 and write a note that you
don't want to pay for the 900/976 services.

Does the BOC have the right and would they terminate your phone
service?

Is it reasonable to assume that as long as you write a note to them
that the BOC will apply the $80.00 you send to them to the normal
phone charges and would not / can not affect or terminate your phone
service?

What are the legal implications of this? What can the BOC or the
976/900 service do to you? After all, yoo have not signed an agreement
that you would pay for the service. When I signed up for my phone
service with the local BOC, I do not remember signing any agreement
that I would have to pay for any 900/976 calls that I make.


Mark Allyn


[Moderator's Note: Most telcos will let you go without paying for
900/976 calls at least once, and some more often than that. But they
will notify the informtion provider that you were uncollectible, and
in many instances the information provider will then bill you directly
and (depending on the amount at stake) place you with a collection
agency and/or sue you to get their money. One such organization here
in Chicago, the Nine Hundred Service Corporation, was notorious for
getting their money through lawsuits if it came to that point. But
they were selling phone sex, chat lines and other fairly high priced
services, where the amount at stake could easily be a few hundred
dollars if you stayed on the line for an hour or so a few times per
month. If you are going to withhold part of your phone bill, you need
to tell telco which part and why to avoid having the payment
misapplied for something you don't want to pay for.

And if you are like most people, you signed nothing at all where your
phone service is concerned, but you are bound by the tariffs which
apply, one of which in every jurisdiction says that you are to be held
responsible for the use of your instrument. After all, you did not
specifically agree to pay for long distance calls either, or Western
Union telegrams that you place from your phone, at least not in
writing.

Years ago, businesses would place 'yellow pages' advertising orders to
be billed on their phone bill thinking they could refuse to pay
without having their phone cut off -- which was true, they could. But
R. R. Donnelly Company also used collection agencies with vigorous
tactics to collect what was due.  PAT]

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

Date: Sun, 24 Nov 91 16:43:27 EST
From: [e-mail] (Monty Solomon)
Subject: NET Rate Changes


New England Telephone has changed their rates effective 11/15 as part
of a series of rate changes designed to gradually move their prices of
services closer to their actual costs.

They have eliminated message units.  Measured service residence
customers will be billed for local calls on a per message, per minute
basis at 1 cent/call plus 1.6 cents/minute.  Charges are for actual
usage in seconds and are not rounded to the nearest minute.

As part of this change, calls with be billed to three decimal digits
and the total will be rounded.  Direct dialed toll calls within
617/508 will be reduced by 1 cent/minute.

The charge for changing your listing or upgrading your service will
change from $11.60 to $7.60 for residence customers.


Monty Solomon    roscom![e-mail]

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

Date: Sun, 24 Nov 91 23:49:47 EST
From: Steve Thornton <[e-mail]>
Subject: Phantom Ringing


I've been having some wierd stuff going on with my phone lately, and I
wonder if some of you wizards have any ideas. I have a Panasonic Easa-
Phone KXT-4200H cordless phone with builtin answering machine. I
bought it at the same time I moved into a new apartment, so I have no
experience with this phone on another line, nor with my old phone on
this new line.  The line was hooked up remotely using an old jack left
over from a previous tenant; i.e., no wiring had to be done. I have no
special services on my line such as call waiting, etc. Just POTS. I do
have a cheapo Zoom 2400 bps on the line. Both devices are attached at
the same point, with a Y-splitter.

What happens is, I get a lot of phantom ringing. Occasionally just a
single ping, but usually two (not one, not three) normal rings. No one
is there -- just regular dialtone. This has lately been increasing in
frequency. It now happens almost every night at 8:30 pm! Not exactly
at that time, just around then. I also get a lot of wrong numbers.

Tonight, I had the very weird experience of having the phantom ring
_while I was already on the line with the modem_. This was pretty damn
surprising! My modem connection was uninterrupted (it's normally very
unstable, and kicks me off every twenty minutes or so). I was so
surprised I went over to the phone and just stared at it for a few
minutes, then I picked up the handset and switched on -- dialtone, and
a hung modem.

I have tried the usual experiments: a) take the modem off the line:
Still happens. b) replace cordless set with old desk phone: problem
seems to go away. c) have friends call me: rings normally. have
friends call me when the line is known to be busy: no phantom ring.

So what's up? Is my phone screwed up? Should I call Repair? Should I
learn to live with it? Should I just do without a phone entirely?


Steve Thornton / Harvard University Library / [phone]
[e-mail] / [e-mail]

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

Date: Sun, 24 Nov 91 22:24 PST
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Correction: Re: AT&T Billing SNAFU (ROA)


[e-mail] (John Higdon) writes:

> A client of an associate of mine switched from Sprint to MCI Ultra
> WATS and 800 service on T1-delivered circuits.

A self-correction: "Ultra WATS" is a Sprint service, not an MCI
service. Sometimes the mind muddles all the stacks of literature and
orders at 1:35 AM!


        John Higdon         |   P. O. Box 7648   |   [phone]
    [e-mail]      | San Jose, CA 95150 |       M o o !

------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V11 #966
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa02108;
          26 Nov 91 3:36 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA07184
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 26 Nov 1991 01:40:04 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA18151
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 26 Nov 1991 01:39:37 -0600
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1991 01:39:37 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #967

TELECOM Digest     Tue, 26 Nov 91 01:39:06 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 967

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    AT&T Long Distance Calling Plans Script (Lawrence Beck)
    Canadian Radio Spectrum Management Proposals (Nigel Allen)
    Why Covert Surveillance is Wrong (Jim Thomas, CuD Moderator)
    Routing Intra-Lata around the LEC (Pac Bell) (Ed Greenberg)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 25 Nov 91 11:41:11 EST
From: [e-mail] (Lawrence Beck)
Subject: AT&T Long Distance Calling Plans Script


To anybody interested in this:

The following program will determine the best combination of AT&T long
distance calling plans for you based on previous months' bills (you
determine how many months).  It was designed for Reach Out
America/Reach Out New York combinations, but can be modified to
support other AT&T intrastate plans.

Let me know if I let any bugs slip through ...


Larry Beck ([e-mail])


#ifndef lint
static char sccs_ident[] = "@(#)longdist.c    1.1 91/11/25 11:33:55 ";
#endif

/******************************************************************************
**
**    Source File:    longdist.c
**
**    Author:        Lawrence Beck    ([e-mail])
**
**    Creation Date:    11/22/91
**
**    Description:    This file contains a program that calculates the best
**        combination of AT&T calling plans based on past phone
**        bills.  This program was designed to calculate the
**        cost of all direct-dialed long distance calls using all
**        combinations of Reach Out America and Reach Out New York
**        plans.  It prints a matrix of the total cost of all calls
**        using all combinations, and then prints the best
**        combination.
**
**        To use this program, one or more files containing a subset
**        of phone bill information must be specified on the
**        command line.  Each file should contain a month's worth of
**        billing information.  The information should be formatted
**        on separate lines as follows:
**
**        <State>    <Duration>    <Call Type>    <Cost>
**
**        <State> is the 2-letter uppercase state abbreviation.
**        <Duration> is the length of the call in minutes.
**        <Call Type> is DN, DE, or DD for Direct-Night, Direct-
**        Evening, and Direct-Day respectively.
**        <Cost> is the undiscounted cost of the call.
**
**        The rates for Reach Out America and Reach Out New York
**        are specified in two data structures.  They may be
**        modified to accomodate changes in the rate structure or
**        to accomodate a different intrastate calling plan.  If
**        a New York is not the home state, change HOME_STATE to the
**        appropriate 2-letter abbreviation for the desired state.
**
**
******************************************************************************/
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <string.h>

#define TRUE    1
#define FALSE    0

#define DD    0
#define DE    1
#define DN    2

#define NONE        0
#define BASIC        1
#define EVENING    2
#define _24HOUR    3

#define HOME_STATE    "NY"

char *plan[] = {
    "none",
    "basic",
    "evening",
    "24 hour"
};

struct rate_info {
    double
        initial_hour,
        additional_hours,
        evening_discount,
        day_discount,
        intrastate_discount;
};

struct rate_info interstate_info[] = {
    {    0.00, 0.00, 0.00, 0.00, 0.00 },
    {    7.15, 6.60, 1.00, 1.00, 0.95 },
    {    7.80, 6.60, 0.85, 1.00, 0.95 },
    {    8.70, 6.60, 0.75, 0.90, 0.95 }
};

struct rate_info intrastate_info[] = {
    {    0.00, 0.00, 0.00, 0.00, 0.00 },
    {    7.50, 7.20, 1.00, 1.00, 0.00 },
    {    8.20, 7.20, 0.85, 1.00, 0.00 },
    {    8.50, 7.20, 0.85, 0.95, 0.00 }
};

double
    compute_rates();

main(argc, argv)
int argc;
char **argv;
{
    int
        best_i,
        best_j,
        i,
        j;
    FILE
        *fp;
    double
        plan_totals[4][4],
        best_total=0.;

    /* initialize totals for all plan combinations */
    for(i=NONE; i<=_24HOUR; i++)
        for(j=NONE; j<=_24HOUR; j++)
            plan_totals[i][j] = 0.;

    /* process all command line arguments */
    while (argc > 1) {
        argc--;
        argv++;

        /* open the bill file */
        fp = fopen(*argv, "r");
        if (fp == NULL)
            continue;

        /* compute the total for all plan combinations */
        for(i=NONE; i<=_24HOUR; i++)
            for(j=NONE; j<=_24HOUR; j++) {
                (void)fseek(fp, 0L, 0);
                plan_totals[i][j] += compute_rates(fp, i, j);
            }

        /* close the file */
        (void)fclose(fp);
    }

    /* print the matrix of all plan combination totals (save the best one) */
    (void)printf("%20s%-20s\n", "", "interstate plans");
    (void)printf("%20s%-10s%-10s%-10s%-10s\n", "",
           plan[0], plan[1], plan[2], plan[3]);
    for(i=NONE; i<=_24HOUR; i++) {
        (void)printf("%-12s%-8s", "intrastate", plan[i]);
        for(j=NONE; j<=_24HOUR; j++) {
            if (best_total == 0 || plan_totals[i][j] < best_total) {
                best_total = plan_totals[i][j];
                best_i = i;
                best_j = j;
            }
            (void)printf("%-10.2f", plan_totals[i][j]);
        }
        (void)printf("\n");
    }

    /* print the best plan combination */
    (void)printf("\nthe best plan combination for these bills is:\n");
    (void)printf("intrastate plan: %s\n", plan[best_i]);
    (void)printf("interstate plan: %s\n", plan[best_j]);

    return(EXIT_SUCCESS);
}

double
compute_rates(fp, intrastate_plan, interstate_plan)
FILE *fp;
int intrastate_plan;
int interstate_plan;
{
    int
        i,
        intrastate_duration[3],
        interstate_duration[3],
        period,
        duration;
    double
        intrastate_cost[3],
        interstate_cost[3],
        total_cost,
        cost;
    char
        input[80],
        state[3],
        calltype[3];

    /* initialize the durations and costs for all call types */
    for(i=0; i < 3; i++) {
        intrastate_duration[i] = 0;
        interstate_duration[i] = 0;
        intrastate_cost[i] = 0.;
        interstate_cost[i] = 0.;
    }

    /* read all lines from the bill file */
    while (fgets(input, sizeof(input), fp) != NULL) {

        /* extract the billing information from the input line */
        (void)sscanf(input, "%s %d %s %lf",
                     state, &duration, calltype, &cost);

        /* determine the period */
        if (strcmp(calltype, "DD") == 0)
            period = DD;
        else if (strcmp(calltype, "DE") == 0)
            period = DE;
        else if (strcmp(calltype, "DN") == 0)
            period = DN;
        else
            continue;

        /* if the call is intrastate ... */
        if (strcmp(state, HOME_STATE) == 0) {
            intrastate_cost[period] += cost;
            intrastate_duration[period] += duration;
        }
        /* else if the call is interstate ... */
        else {
            interstate_cost[period] += cost;
            interstate_duration[period] += duration;
        }
    }

    /* if using Reach Out America ... */
    if (interstate_plan != NONE) {

        /* calculate the night period cost */
        interstate_cost[DN] = interstate_info[interstate_plan].initial_hour;

        interstate_duration[DN] -= 60;
        if (interstate_duration[DN] > 0)
            interstate_cost[DN] +=
                interstate_info[interstate_plan].additional_hours *
                (double)interstate_duration[DN]/60.;

        /* calculate the other period costs */
        interstate_cost[DE] *=
            interstate_info[interstate_plan].evening_discount;
        interstate_cost[DD] *=
            interstate_info[interstate_plan].day_discount;

        /* apply intrastate discount, if no intrastate plan */
        if (intrastate_plan == NONE) {
            intrastate_cost[DD] *=
                interstate_info[interstate_plan].intrastate_discount;
            intrastate_cost[DE] *=
                interstate_info[interstate_plan].intrastate_discount;
            intrastate_cost[DN] *=
                interstate_info[interstate_plan].intrastate_discount;
        }
    }

    /* if using Reach Out <Your State> ... */
    if (intrastate_plan != NONE) {

        /* calculate the night period cost */
        intrastate_cost[DN] = intrastate_info[intrastate_plan].initial_hour;

        intrastate_duration[DN] -= 60;
        if (intrastate_duration[DN] > 0)
            intrastate_cost[DN] +=
                intrastate_info[intrastate_plan].additional_hours *
                (double)intrastate_duration[DN]/60.;

        /* calculate the other period costs */
        intrastate_cost[DE] *=
            intrastate_info[intrastate_plan].evening_discount;
        intrastate_cost[DD] *=
            intrastate_info[intrastate_plan].day_discount;
    }

    /* return the total cost */
    total_cost =    interstate_cost[DN] +
                interstate_cost[DE] +
                interstate_cost[DD] +
                intrastate_cost[DN] +
                intrastate_cost[DE] +
                intrastate_cost[DD];

    return(total_cost);
}


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

Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1991 03:08:31 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Nigel Allen)
Subject: Canadian Radio Spectrum Management Proposals
Organization: FidoNet node 1:250/438, Echo Beach, Toronto


Since radio spectrum management is a major concern for satellite,
paging and mobile telephone service providers and users, I thought
TELECOM Digest readers might be interested in the latest Canadian
government spectrum management proposals.

The Canadian Department of Communications sent me a press release, but
not the actual discussion paper.  If you would like a copy of the
paper, see the address at the end of this message.

(from a press release from the Department of Communications)

The Canadian Department of Communications has released a discussion
paper entitled Proposals for a Radio Spectrum Policy Framework.

It makes policy proposals in areas related to spectrum allocation and
utilization policies (for more effective and efficient spectrum
utilization), radio system licensing (for more responsive licensing as
well as dealing with competitive licensing approaches), standards
(improved harmonization and reciprocity), research and development
(level of commitments to R&D), revenues and fees (to ensure costs are
recovered), planning (to ensure spectrum resources are available),
public consultation (improved relations with users) and new,
adaptable, approaches to spectrum policy.

Copies of the Policy Proposals Paper may be obtained from:
 Information Services
 Department of Communications
 300 Slater Street
 Ottawa, Ontario
 Canada K1A 0C8
 telephone [phone]
 (no e-mail address given)

For more detailed information:
 Max E. Melnyk
 Chief, Spectrum Policy
 telephone [phone]
 fax [phone]


Nigel Allen - via FidoNet node 1:250/98
INTERNET: [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 25 Nov 91 01:20 CST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Why Covert Surveillance is Wrong


Criticism of Craig Neidorf's report of CPSR's investigation into
Secret Service covert surveillance of net-media, use of informants,
and other intrusive observations justifies law enforcement actions on
several grounds, including:

1) Anything public is fair game for covert surveillance.
2) People with nothing to hide shouldn't worry about what they say in
   public.
3) Computer crime isn't cool, and the government has both the right
   and the responsibility to target evil-doers.  Therefore, law
   enforcement need not have clear policies circumscribing the limits
   of covert intrusion.

First, it is categorically false that *anything* done in public is
fair game for covert surveillance. As anybody from the Chicago area
should know, Judge Getzendammer (US District Court, Northern District)
made it quite clear in several rulings against the Chicago police in
political surveillance cases that lawful activity in public is not to
be tolerated in a free society. Further, anybody with even a high
school civics knowledge of covert surveillance in the US understands
the distinction between legitimate participation in a public event and
participating in that event for the purpose of collecting, analyzing,
and storing information on law-abiding citizens.

Scrounging through Usenet traffic to compile dossiers on people not
under investigation for wrongdoing is as reprehensible as targeting
license plate numbers from cars in a parking lot at an anti-nukes
rally as a way of creating a list of possible "subversives." Frank
Donner's _Protectors of Privilege_ lays out the the historical
consequences of and responses to covert law enforcement surveillance.
Blanket intrusion by agents into Constitutionally protected realms
that include freedom of speech, privacy, and assembly, are not only a
demonstrable threat to democracy -- they are not generally tolerated
by the courts.

Second, while law enforcement agents have every right to read whatever
public document they wish, this misses the point. It is not that
agents subscribe to and/or read documents. The point is what they do
with what they read. A 1977 class action suit against the Michigan
State Police learned, through FOIA requests, that state and federal
agents would peruse letters to the editor of newspapers and collect
clippings of those whose politics they did not like. These news
clippings became the basis of files on those persons that found there
way into the hands of other agencies and employers. The preliminary
CPSR information suggests that the Secret Service is conducting their
investigation in an analogous manner. This has a chilling effect on
free speech that is arguably (judging from court cases) not only
illegal, but dangerous. As somebody wrote in CuD recently:

     The basis of a democratic society rests on the ability of
     citizens to openly discuss competing ideas, challenge political
     power and assemble freely with others.  These fundamental First
     Amendment rights are subverted when, through neglect, the state
     fails to protect them.

Covert collection of information, whether from TELECOM Digest, CuD, or
newspaper editorials, and the subsequent compilation of secret
dossiers moves us from a democracy to a police state.  The issue isn't
whether any specific person has something to hide, but rather whether
somebody might, because of secret information gathering, wish they had
hidden what they had previously said.  We shouldn't have to worry
about whether what we say pleases law enforcement lest we become
entries in some database of undesireables.

Finally, few people disagree with the claim that computer crime is
wrong. But, because a given behavior is wrong hardly justifies carte
blanche to investigate that behavior. The government should have clear
policies about the scope of surveillance because it protects *all*
citizens from the dangers of intrusion by law enforcement into
Constitutionally protected behavior.  Like gravity, specific
limitations on covert intrusion by law enforcement into our lives
isn't just a good idea, it's the law.

Computer-mediated communication is relatively new, and the law has not
caught up with changing technology. CPSR should be commended for its
efforts to track what appear to be clear violations of existing laws
and policies in investigation of "computer crime." There is nothing
noble in acquiescing to the erosion of Constitutionally protected
activity as those who defend the Secret Service actions seem willing
to do.

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

Date: Mon, 25 Nov 91 11:05 PST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Routing Intra-Lata around the LEC (Pac Bell)


[e-mail] writes about routing intra-lata calls around Pacific
Bell.

You're treading on a difficult area ...

The tariffs and laws give the Local Exchange Carrier (LEC) a monopoly
in the area of local (intra-LATA) service.  Therefore, they have the
right NOT to pass your call on to the carrier of your choice when the
area code and prefix indicates a call that they have the "right" to
carry.

Many businesses use dedicated trunks (or a T1) to their Inter Exchange
Carrier (IXC) for long distance.

Some businesses "cheat" and send their intra-LATA traffic down those
trunks, thus going around the LEC, and allowing the IXC to carry the
traffic at lower cost.

As a "normal person" you don't have this option, since your telephone
plant, and long distance volume, don't warrant a dedicated connection
to the IXC.

What some small businesses and individuals do is sign up with an IXC
that gives them access to the network via a 950 number.  Now many
carriers, including the major ones, treat calls dialed on the 950 port
as credit card calls, and impose a surcharge on the call.  Needless to
say, this is not a money saving plan for you, the consumer.

Some smaller IXC's may not charge the surcharge.  They are hoping that
you will honor them with your intra-LATA business, via the 950 port.
My brother-in-law operated a small business, and contracted with a
company called Call America, that actually put a dialer in his
premises that would listen to every number dialed, and then redial it
as a call through it's 950 number.  It was a bit hokey, a bit slow,
but accomplished the purpose intended.  Calls from his city to other
cities in the LATA were noticably cheaper.  (Note that I do not say
"significantly cheaper.")  [Note that John Higdon will (rightly) say
that using a dialer in this nature is a low quality form of telephone
service.  He's right, but it _does_ get the particular job done.]

Now, one problem you will face is getting the carriers to honestly and
knowlegably discuss this issue with you.  If you follow TELECOM
Digest, you've doubtless read of the various forms of doubletalk and
outright ignorance to be found on the other end of the customer
service lines.

Many salespeople for the IXC's will be totally ignorant of these
issues.  Others will tell you anything that they think you want to
hear.

So, if the calling volume is significant, and you are prepared to run
your traffic through a 950 number, or through a dialer, you might shop
around in the second tier of long distance companies ... the next
level down from the national players.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #967
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa07557;
          26 Nov 91 23:48 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA18788
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 26 Nov 1991 21:30:07 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA27706
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 26 Nov 1991 21:29:45 -0600
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1991 21:29:45 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #968

TELECOM Digest     Tue, 26 Nov 91 21:29:37 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 968

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Phantom Ringing (Michael Blackstock)
    Re: Phantom Ringing (Eric W. Douglas)
    Re: Phantom Ringing (Jacob R. Deglopper)
    Re: Phantom Ringing (Michael A. Covington)
    Re: Phantom Ringing (Tony Harminc)
    Re: Two Cellular Questions (John Higdon)
    Re: Two Cellular Questions (Marc T. Kaufman)
    Re: Can You Block Outgoing Calls? (Fred E.J. Linton)
    Re: Can You Block Outgoing Calls? (Steve Forrette)
    Re: Can You Block Outgoing Calls? (Robert J. Woodhead)
    Re: Can You Block Outgoing Calls? (Ken Levitt)
    Re: Can You Block Outgoing Calls? (Ken Abrams)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Michael Blackstock)
Subject: Re: Phantom Ringing
Date: 25 Nov 91 14:06:33 GMT


[e-mail] (Steve Thornton) writes:

> What happens is, I get a lot of phantom ringing. Occasionally just a
> single ping, but usually two (not one, not three) normal rings. No one
> is there -- just regular dialtone. This has lately been increasing in
> frequency. It now happens almost every night at 8:30 pm! Not exactly
> at that time, just around then. I also get a lot of wrong numbers.

I used to get a ping on my phone every night around 10:30.  It was like
clockwork or should I say computer work.  I suspected that it was a
phone company computer checking the line.  I called up the phone
company.  Asked if they had a computer check my line everyday.  They
said yes, and I asked them to stop doing it.  To my surprise the
person I was talking to said that she would take number out of the
calling computer.  I never heard the little ping again.


Michael Blackstock    [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 25 Nov 91 08:08:54 PST
From: [e-mail] (Eric W. Douglas)
Subject: Re: Phantom Ringing


[e-mail] (Steve Thornton) writes:

> Tonight, I had the very weird experience of having the phantom ring
> _while I was already on the line with the modem_. This was pretty damn
> surprising! My modem connection was uninterrupted (it's normally very
> unstable, and kicks me off every twenty minutes or so). I was so
> surprised I went over to the phone and just stared at it for a few
> minutes, then I picked up the handset and switched on -- dialtone, and
> a hung modem.

A friend of mine has had a Radio Shack telephone system ring because
of high power radio equipment in the next room. I doubt that this type
of behaviour would exhibit itself in old Western Electric mechanical
ringers, but looking at piezo-element ringers, I can see where it
would be vaguely possible. You say that the problem happens almost
every night at 8.30? This may be when your neighbor fires up his HAM
radio ... you might try just purchasing a different phone. Also, if
there are no high-powered radio setups near by, it could be that
someone fairly close to you has a cordless phone which operates on the
same frequency, and sometimes produces a digital coding signal which
rings you phone. I'd almost be willing to bet, in either case, that a
non-cordless phone would not exhibit this behaviour.

Good luck!


Eric W. Douglas     Internet: [e-mail]
AppleLink: STUDIO.D     Compuserve: 76170,1472

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

From: [e-mail] (Jacob R. Deglopper)
Subject: Re: Phantom Ringing
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Jacob R. Deglopper)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 91 16:35:34 GMT


In a previous article, [e-mail] (Steve Thornton)
says:

> What happens is, I get a lot of phantom ringing. Occasionally just a
> single ping, but usually two (not one, not three) normal rings. No one
> is there -- just regular dialtone. This has lately been increasing in
> frequency. It now happens almost every night at 8:30 pm! Not exactly

> Still happens. b) replace cordless set with old desk phone: problem
> seems to go away. c) have friends call me: rings normally. have

If I understand you correctly, the problem _only_ happens when the
cordless phone is online.  Most cordless phones have the ringer in the
handset.  Therefore, the ringer is triggered by a radio signal from
the base.  Therefore, a stray radio signal could cause your cordless
handset to ring, even if you were on the phone.  You can try switching
your cordless to another channel, if you have that feature (do any of
your neighbors have similar cordless phones?).  If you have a scanner,
try listening to the cordless channels and see if you hear anything
strange around 8:30 when your phone rings.  Getting a new brand of
phone might make a difference; staying with hardwired phones certainly
would.


   _/acob DeGlopper, EMT-A, Wheaton Volunteer Rescue Squad
   [e-mail] -- Biomedical Engineering '95, Case Western Reserve
   Opinions my own...

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

From: [e-mail] (Michael A. Covington)
Subject: Re: Phantom Ringing
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 91 18:55:01 GMT


Your cordless phone is picking up signals (through the air) from
someone else's cordless phone.

As you know, the cordless handset and base communicate by radio.  One
of the signals that the base can send is a ringing signal.  Presumably
somebody else's base is managing to send this signal to your cordless
phone.


Michael A. Covington, Ph.D.  |  [e-mail]   |  N4TMI
Artificial Intelligence Programs | U of Georgia | Athens, GA 30602

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

Date: Mon, 25 Nov 91 17:25:23 EST
From: Tony Harminc <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phantom Ringing


Steve Thornton <[e-mail]> wrote:

[Description of problem with Panasonic Easa-Phone KXT-4200H cordless
phone with builtin answering machine.]

I think you're thinking along the wrong lines.  Try this experiment:
unplug the phone line from the cordless phone but leave the phone
powered up and ready.  See if you get the usual number of phantom
rings.

In other words I think it probably has nothing to do with your phone
line or its interaction with the phone, and everything to do with the
phone itself.  Possibly you have a neighbour with a similar phone with
the same security code.  This makes particular sense in light of the
wrong numbers.  Or possibly your phone is reacting to some other radio
transmission that it believes indicates a ringing signal.

Next time you get a wrong number try to get the number of the person
the caller was trying to reach.  Call that number and ask them if they
have a cordless phone.


Tony H.

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

Date: Mon, 25 Nov 91 01:52 PST
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Two Cellular Questions


Alan Boritz <[e-mail]> writes:

> Doesn't this kind of polling activity present a significant RFR risk
> for someone using, for example, a Motorola flip-phone?

Sounds as though you have been reading that sensationalistic crap,
_Currents_of_Death_. A Motorola MicroTac would not present an RFR
hazard if you made a call and then swallowed it whole. It has a whole
0.6 watt output. As someone who has worked around RF covering the
spectrum from 500 KHz to 950 MHz from equipment capable of hundreds
and sometimes many thousands of watts for decades, I can tell you that
one of the last things you need worry about is the RF from a cellular
phone.

The truth of the matter is that no one anywhere on the planet has come
up with any scientific evidence that power levels that low, even at
that frequency, cause any detrimental effects to humans. So the answer
to your question is "no, of course not".

> It's bad enough to have a live transmitting antenna close to
> one's internal organs when a call comes in (from another customer),
> but regular transmissions would appear to be an unusually high
> health risk.

Oh? And what do you catch? Technophobia? Sorry for the sarcasm, but
this whole fad of RFR jitters is just another nail in the coffin of
"The New Nonsense" as far as I am concerned. Yes, I know about tissue
heating, but 0.6 watts? Forget it.


        John Higdon         |   P. O. Box 7648   |   [phone]
    [e-mail]      | San Jose, CA 95150 |       M o o !

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

From: [e-mail] (Marc T. Kaufman)
Subject: Re: Two Cellular Questions
Organization: CS Department, Stanford University, California, USA
Date: 25 Nov 91 16:39:23 GMT


[e-mail] (Alan Boritz) writes:

> In a message <[e-mail]>, Michael Lyman writes:

>> When the phone is just sitting there, it tends to transmit for about
>> one or two seconds every hour or so.

> Doesn't this kind of polling activity present a significant RFR risk
> for someone using, for example, a Motorola flip-phone?  It's bad
> enough to have a live transmitting antenna close to one's internal
> organs when a call comes in (from another customer), but regular
> transmissions would appear to be an unusually high health risk.

Please define "unusually high" ... insofar as the effects of a few
milliwatts of RF near the body once per hour are entirely unknown, but
likely less than the effect of wearing a several-watt radio and using
it regularly (as do police, for example).

I am getting concerned with the spreading attitude (in the US, at
least) that anything you don't understand must be bad for you, and if
you have absolutely no clue about how it works, it causes cancer.
Now, while I am not ready to jump to the Indian or Mexican models of
public health, I would have to say that the fears need to be placed in
perspective.  In my experience, anyone who wears a portable phone for
long periods is probably a Type-A personality anyway, and stands more
risk of heart failure due to clogged arteries or high blood pressure
than from ventricular fibrillation induced by RF.


Marc Kaufman ([e-mail])
Safety tip from c.d.t.: Don't strip phone wires with your teeth.

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

Date: 25-NOV-1991 21:54:42.74
From: "Fred E.J. Linton" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Can You Block Outgoing Calls?


In <[e-mail]>, motcid![e-mail] (John T
Ellis) writes of wishing to:

> ... control the ability ... to place outgoing calls.

and the Moderator notes:

> Yes it is possible. ... He can also purchase an
> inexpensive device from Hello Direct (1-800-HI-HELLO) which is
> installed at his end to do the same thing.  PAT]

I have such a device (found at a local flea market for $1.00 (!))
that works very well.  One can program all sorts of permissions/
refusals into it from the dialpad, but, having lost the list of codes
and their effects, I content myself now with its default setting
(which permits: up-to-7-digit other than 0<*>, 1<*> or 976<*>;
1-700-<7-digit>; and 1-800-<7-digit> only); this prevents outsiders
from placing any calls (other than 911) that I could possibly have to
pay for.  I did manage somehow-or-other to remember the permit-anything-
for-the-next-call-only code, so I'm not blocked myself.  [Wish I could
find that list of block/permit codes, though :-) .]


Fred E.J. Linton  Wesleyan U. Math. Dept.  649 Sci. Tower  Middletown, CT 06459
E-mail:  <[e-mail]>     ( or  <fejlinton@{att|mci}mail.com> )
Tel.:         + 1 203 776 2210 (home)      or     + 1 203 347 9411 x2249 (work)

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

Date: Tue, 26 Nov 91 17:37:00 pst
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Can You Block Outgoing Calls
Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA


In article <[e-mail]> John T. Ellis writes:

>Ideally what he wants is this.

> ALL incoming calls are accepted.
> ALL outgoing 312, 0, 911 and 411 calls are accepted.
> ALL OTHER outgoing calls are rejected.

> Now, is this possible to do by just going through the telco (even
> though Illinois Bell has said no)?  If not, is (are) there any
> pheripherals he can buy and add-on to achieve this?

He can always use the "Brady Bunch" solution of installing a payphone.
That way, the kids can decide how long they want to talk based on how
much of their allowance they want to spend ...


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Robert J Woodhead)
Subject: Re: Can You Block Outgoing Calls
Organization: Foretune Co., Ltd.
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1991 02:37:07 GMT


[e-mail] (Dave Niebuhr, BNL CCD, 516-282-3093) writes:

> There's a simple soulution and will possibly save money.  LAY DOWN THE
> LAW TO THE KIDS!  Do it in no uncertain terms.  It is the subscriber
> who is responsible and make sure the kids know just who is paying the
> bill.

And if that doesn't work, either lock up the phone, or use the NYC
approach, and lock up the kids!


Robert J. Woodhead, Biar Games / AnimEigo, Incs.   [e-mail]

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

Date: Sun, 24 Nov 91 17:38:28 EST
From: [e-mail] (Ken Levitt)
Subject: Re: Can You Block Outgoing Calls?


In Telecom 11-958 John T. Ellis writes:

> Why would you want to control outgoing calls, you may ask?  Well, it
> seems his kids do not realize what kind of costs are involved in making
> phone calls and refuse to stop using the phone.

It seems a sad state of affairs when we need a phone company or fancy
technical equipment to control mis-behaving children.  How about some
good old fashoned punishment every time the phone bill comes in?

A cost free way to solve the problem would be to disconnect the tone
pad or dial from every phone in the house but one, and to keep that
one phone locked up.


Ken Levitt - On FidoNet gateway node 1:16/390
UUCP: zorro9!levitt
INTERNET: [e-mail] or [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Re 'good old fashioned punishment' ... obviously
this is the best solution. He should slap the fire out of those kids
every time they even look at the phone. That'll teach them!  :)  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Ken Abrams)
Subject: Re: Can You Block Outgoing Calls?
Organization: Athenanet, Inc.,  Springfield, Illinois
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1991 14:46:48 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> motcid![e-mail]
(John T Ellis) writes:

> This buddy has RESIDENTIAL phone service through Illinois Bell here in
> Chicago.  He has enjoyed service with them for the last 20 odd years
> but now finds himself in a most peculiar situation.  He would like to
> control the ability of his phone (here I refer to the number ie
> 312-xxx-xxxx) to place outgoing calls.  He has contacted Illinois Bell
> on this, and they said they do not offer any such capability.

> Now, is this possible to do by just going through the telco (even
> though Illinois Bell has said no)?  If not, is (are) there any
> pheripherals he can buy and add-on to achieve this?

> [Moderator's Note: Yes it is possible. He might want to include 708 in
> the places to be dialed. He has to get some service rep at IBT who
> knows what they are talking about. That may be the biggest part of the

Although it is technically possible, Illinois Bell does NOT have a
tariff for residential "toll diverting".  There is, however, more than
one way to skin this cat.  Each line is assigned a long distance
carrier via a CIC (Carrier Identification Code).  One of the allowable
CIC choices is NONE.  While this would not completely block the calls,
it forces the user to dial 10XXX to access a LD provider.  Another
option you might persue is contacting your LD provider to see if they
will arrange your account to accept only 0+ calls.  It is technically
possible for them to do this but I don't know if any of the LD
providers will.

On a personal level, I don't have too much sympathy for a person who
can't control his own kids.  A young person who has no respect for the
rules of the house he lives in will have no respect for any other
rules either.  The author's friend is not doing his kid any favors by
allowing this situation to continue.


Ken Abrams                     nstar!pallas!kabra437
Springfield, IL                [e-mail]
                               (voice) 217-753-7965


[Moderator's Note: In my original response posting, I think I
overlooked the fact that he is dealing with residential rather than
business service. In fact, all the applications I've ever seen or
heard about where esoteric forms of restrictions were on the line were
invariably in business situations. Thanks for the correction.  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #968
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa08907;
          27 Nov 91 0:38 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA21519
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 26 Nov 1991 22:19:34 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA16938
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 26 Nov 1991 22:19:12 -0600
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1991 22:19:12 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #969

TELECOM Digest     Tue, 26 Nov 91 22:19:03 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 969

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: The March of Progress (Dave Niebuhr)
    Re: The March of Progress (David G. Lewis)
    Re: GEnie and the Internet (Robert J. Woodhead)
    Re: Sprint "QuickConference" Three-Way Call (Linc Madison)
    Re: Non-PacBell Calls in SF Bay Area LATA? (John Higdon)
    Re: Intercept Recordings: Comments and Questions (Andy Sherman)
    Re: Shared Area Codes (Colin Plumb)
    Re: Legitimate Reasons For Ringing My Phone (Ed Greenberg)
    Re: Why Covert Surveillance is Wrong (David G. Lewis)
    Re: Why Covert Surveillance is Wrong (Monty Solomon)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1991 9:00:56 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Dave Niebuhr)
Subject: Re: The March of Progress


[e-mail] (John Higdon) writes:

[e-mail] (Floyd Davidson) writes:

>> I have no idea if AT&T (or Alascom) or any OCC is required to provide
>> a 2.0 second delay.  I also have no idea how that delay is handled in
>> AT&T ESS switches.  I do know that Alascom does in fact use the
>> default timing of 2.08 seconds.

>> And I can tell you for a fact that Pac*Bell (and any carriers that I

> hang up before billing would begin; not so anymore.

 ... text deleted ...

> The fact that there was a delay then and none now indicates that this
> particular telco is simply pushing the billing capability envelope.
> But then, Pacific {Telephone|Bell} has always been exceptional at
> that.

Pac$Bell is not the only telco that charges immediately; add NYTel to
the list.  I had a lot of zero minutes calls on a recent bill and the
number I called had an answering machine and I didn't leave any
message other than "Call Dad at Home".

$.08 adds up quickly.  The going rate is $.102 for the first minute
and it takes about 50 seconds for that little message.


Dave Niebuhr      Internet: [e-mail] / Bitnet: niebuhr@bnl
Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, NY 11973  (516)-282-3093

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

From: [e-mail] (david.g.lewis)
Subject: Re: The March of Progress
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1991 16:28:31 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Floyd Davidson) writes:

> However, apparently in some places (perhaps all?) regulations require
> at least 2.0 seconds of off hook supervision before billing begins.  I
> don't keep up with regulations, but the DMS-200 documentation states
> that the parameter is set by default to be 2.08 seconds to comply with
> any such 2.0 second regulation.  (The parameter may be set from .16
> seconds to 40.8 seconds in .01 second increments on a DMS switch.)

I hate when people ask questions that peak my interest, because then I
feel obligated to go digging through references looking for answers ...

Anyway.  To quote "Notes on the BOC Intra-LATA Networks -- 1986" (I
don't have the '91 version, sorry ...), Section 4.06, subheaded "Charge
Delay":

"When the called customer answers, an off-hook signal is transmitted
toward the calling end to the office where automatic charging control
takes place.  For charging purposes, the answer off-hook signal is
distinguished from off-hook signals of shorter duration by the
requirement that it must be continuous for a minimum interval ranging
from two to five seconds.  The present value stated in the LSSGR for a
minimum off-hook signal that should be recognized as an answer signal
for charging and supervision purposes is two seconds."

English translation: an off-hook signal must be two seconds long or
longer to be recognized as an "answer" signal.  The office doing the
recording can not begin charging until the answer signal is
recognized.

At least, that's the requirement for BOC switches.  Even though I work
for Bell Labs, I don't know what the requirement for AT&T switches
is ...

David G Lewis    AT&T Bell Laboratories
[e-mail]  or  !att!houxa!deej      ISDN Evolution Planning

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

From: [e-mail] (Robert J Woodhead)
Subject: Re: GEnie and the Internet
Organization: Foretune Co., Ltd.
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1991 09:08:55 GMT


[e-mail] (Mikel Manitius) writes:

> There have been several rumors recently about an Internet gateway for
> email on GEnie. Last night I noticed a survey on GEnie which asks
> questions such as how many messages one would send/receive, and how
> much one would be willing to pay (in a flat monthly fee) for the
> service.

Coincidentally, I sent feedback to GEnie last night on this very topic
(I hadn't noticed the survey).  I told them that hordes of people
would desert "another service" for GEnie's flat rate if they added
Internet connectivity.  I also said, in all honesty, that they ought
to charge a fee per kilobyte with a per-letter minimum (I suggested 1c
and 5c respectively), in order to discourage people from abusing the
flat rate and having tons of newsgroups emailed to them.

I also suggested that, if possible, they ought to gateway some
newsgroups into their BBoard structure (would this really be anything
different than what WELL or UUNET does?).

We shall see what happens.


Robert J. Woodhead, Biar Games / AnimEigo, Incs.   [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 25 Nov 91 01:27:36 PST
From: [e-mail] (Linc Madison)
Subject: Re: Sprint "QuickConference" Three-Way Call
Organization: University of California, Berkeley


In article <[e-mail]> I wrote about Sprint's
"QuickConference" three-way call feature, accessible from any
touchtone phone, as long as you use your FON-CARD.

PAT adds:

> [Moderator's Note: But if your phone has three-way calling, can't you
> dial the first number, routing it over 10222, then flash and dial your
> second number, routing it the same way, then flash and join all three
> parties together? ...

Perhaps this wasn't clear because I mentioned having previously used
the campus phone with regular three-way calling, but my home phone
does not have three-way calling.  The advantage of the Sprint feature
is that I can make a three-way call from any touchtone phone for only
the cost of the calling card surcharges.

If my phone had three-way calling, I could do it all 1+ with no
surcharges, but I'd have to pay Pac*Bell's monthly charge for a
feature I use about once a year.  (The other great time to do this is
Mother's/Father's Day -- get both kids on the line at the same time
for a mini-reunion.)


Linc Madison  ==  [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 25 Nov 91 02:22 PST
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Non-PacBell Calls in SF Bay Area LATA?


Curtis Galloway <[e-mail]> writes:

> So does anyone know of a way for a normal person to avoid using
> PacBell for calls within the Northern California LATA?  For example, I
> tried using 10222 to call from Santa Cruz to San Francisco, but it
> still ended up on my bill as a PacBell call.

You cannot use this method to make intraLATA calls because Pac*Bell
controls the local switch and will not allow you to use competition by
dialing a company code. This is what the current action before the
CPUC is all about: intraLATA competition.

> With the rates PacBell charges, it would be cheaper for me to dial up
> a timeshare system in Chicago than one in San Jose.  Surely there's a
> cheaper way to go.

Absolutely. If you make a LOT of intraLATA calls there are several
options open to you. One thing you might look into is any carrier that
offers "950" access. To make a call, you dial a number that looks like
950-XXXX and when you hear a tone you dial your authorization code and
the number. Since this call is being handled entirely by the carrier's
switch, Pac*Bell cannot block your intraLATA call. There are several
carriers that offer this type of access, two of which are Cable &
Wireless and ComSystems. Although they are prohibited from telling you
that their systems can be used to make intraLATA calls, they in fact
can and the rates they charge are about half of the standard daytime
Pac*Bell toastem rate.

If you make a LOT of calls, then you need to simply order direct WATS
lines (delivered via T1) and use them to make your calls, inside or
outside the LATA. Rates on these lines are even lower than the 950
access. The reason for this is that you make the calls directly on the
carrier's switch without even going through Pac*Bell's CO switch. This
means that the carrier does not have to pay that particular access
charge and can pass the savings on to you. The downside of this type
of arrangement is that there is a monthly charge for the T1 of between
$300 and $500. I doubt that you would make enough calls to justify
that type of baseline charge.

I advise virtually all of my clients to bypass and do it myself. I
used to subscribe to the Pac*Bell line that in the interests of
affordable service intraLATA toll would have to subsidize local
rates -- that is until the company went clammoring to the CPUC to get
permission to compete with the other carriers for this traffic. This
action has made me feel much less like contributing to Pac*Bell's
stockholders' pockets.

You as a customer are violating no tariffs by bypassing Pac*Bell for
intraLATA traffic. The applicable rules apply only to the carriers and
allow for "incidental" traffic. In other words, the PUC does not
expect that carriers will have to ability to block such calls and
therefore effectively looks the other way. The tariffs do prohibit
IECs from advertising or "holding out" the ability to make intraLATA
calls and dictate that if the customer inquires about such service,
the carrier must respond with "Such calls (1) may not lawfully be
placed over their networks and (2) should be placed over the
facilities of the local exchange carriers without any further advice
being given." (D.  84-06-113, p.72a)

So much for what the carriers can tell you. I, on the other hand, will
be happy to give you full and complete details on how to bypass and
save big money as a result!


        John Higdon         |   P. O. Box 7648   |   [phone]
    [e-mail]      | San Jose, CA 95150 |       M o o !

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 91 08:18:24 EST
Subject: Re: Intercept Recordings: Comments and Questions
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories - Murray Hill, NJ


In article <[e-mail]> you write:

> Finally, if I start an answering machine message with the appropriate
> three-tone sequence, can my number then be called long-distance with
> no charge?  If not, why not?

Even if you put the intercept bongs at the beginning of your tape, it
is a billable number, because the network doesn't give a damn about
what transpires on your line after answer supervision.  If your number
is a valid number, answer supervision is passed back to the
originating switch as soon as it goes off-hook.  After that, the meter
starts running.

But you realize that if a brain-dead switch allowed this to work, what
you propose is both dishonest and illegal.  If somebody calls your
answering machine long distance to leave a message, up to three phone
companies are entitled to be paid for the service, unless it is a
person to person call.  (three companies = originating LEC, IXC,
terminating LEC).

It pains me to see a proposal to defraud my employer (and reduce *my*
compensation, a piece of which depends on profits) coming from a
military site.  I can only imagine what your employer would say if my
colleagues and I started publically speculating on ways to cheat on
one's taxes.


Andy Sherman/AT&T Bell Laboratories/Murray Hill, NJ
AUDIBLE: [phone] READABLE: [e-mail] or
att!ulysses!andys What? Me speak for AT&T?  You must be joking!

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

From: [e-mail] (Colin Plumb)
Subject: Re: Shared Area Codes
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1991 10:03:15 -0500
Organization: Array Systems Computing, Inc., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Lauren
Weinstein) writes:

> The time has long since passed around here when dialing 1 + 10D meant
> anything at all in terms of whether or not there would be a charge for
> a call.

Actually, some places are keeping 1+ = toll, and I rather like it.
The recent dialling instructions for the 416/905 split that's underway
direct one to dial:

- In-area, local call: nxx-xxxx
- Other area, local call: 416-nxx-xxxx/905-nxx-xxxx
- Long distance: 1-416-nxx-xxxx/1-905-nxx-xxxx

They aren't assigning the 905 or 416 prefixes, although as long as no
905 phone (in practice, exchange) has both (416) and (905) 416- in its
local calling area, local calls would still be unambiguous.

Unfortunately, both 416-nxx-xxxx and 905-nxx-xxxx to our modem line
produce an intercept.  (And it soulds like a tape player with low
batteries- the speed wanders up and down the scale!)  I agree with the
desire for context-free phone numbers, at least withing as country.
Ideally, 00-1-416-736-0900 from any phone in the world would reach our
front desk.


Colin

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

Date: Mon, 25 Nov 91 09:16 PST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Legitimate Reasons For Ringing My Phone


[e-mail] (Wolfgang Zenker) writes:

> As a side note: Here in Germany any unsolicited calls on phone, fax or
> telex are considered unfair trade practice and illegal, unless the
> caller and called party already have some business relations.
> Telemarketing calls during night-time would break an additional law
> that prohibits disturbing noise between 10 pm and 7 am.

You know, we here in the states, who are all fired up looking for laws
to regulate telemarketers, should consider this excellent example of
the opposite extreme.  You know, Germany is considered a "democracy"
although they have very strict laws governing many areas of life that
US residents take for granted.  For instance, when naming your baby,
the name you choose must be acceptable to the birth registrars, or
they will not accept the registration.

Do you really want to have your own life as restricted as German
citizens seem to accept?

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

From: [e-mail] (david.g.lewis)
Subject: Re: Why Covert Surveillance is Wrong
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1991 14:13:44 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:

> ... As anybody from the Chicago area
> should know, Judge Getzendammer (US District Court, Northern District)
> made it quite clear in several rulings against the Chicago police in
> political surveillance cases that lawful activity in public is not to
> be tolerated in a free society.

I think you meant to say that "_covert surveillance of_ lawful
activity in public is not to be tolerated in a free society"...

What is it with Chicago that leads to slips like this?  I'm reminded
of Mayor Daley's famous "The policeman isn't there to create disorder,
the policeman is there to preserve disorder ..."


David G Lewis         AT&T Bell Laboratories
[e-mail]  or  !att!houxa!deej      ISDN Evolution Planning


[Moderator's Note: I wish I knew 'what is it with Chicago ...' The
city I grew up in and knew for twenty years has now been gone for
almost that long. Out-of-towners simply have no idea how thin are the
threads which still hold this town together ... barely.   PAT]

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

Date: Tue, 26 Nov 91 13:39:16 EST
From: [e-mail] (Monty Solomon)
Subject: Re: Why Covert Surveillance is Wrong


> First, it is categorically false that *anything* done in public is
> fair game for covert surveillance. As anybody from the Chicago area
> should know, Judge Getzendammer (US District Court, Northern District)
> made it quite clear in several rulings against the Chicago police in
> political surveillance cases that lawful activity in public is not to
> be tolerated in a free society.

What is wrong with tolerating lawful activity in public?

Why don't you sign your name to your messages?


Monty   roscom![e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: The sentence in particular was mis-stated by the
original writer. (I have double checked; it was not a typo created on
this end in digest processing.) He meant to say that SPYING ON LAWFUL
ACTIVITY is not to be tolerated. I would disagree with him on when or
at what point observing becomes spying, but that's not the point. As
far as names are concerned, in the Digest version of the message, the
author's name "Jim Thomas, CuD Moderator" appeared in the index of
articles. His e-address is quite common, there was no attempt to hide
his identity.   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #969
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa11509;
          27 Nov 91 2:21 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA17756
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 26 Nov 1991 23:31:25 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA17208
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 26 Nov 1991 23:31:03 -0600
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1991 23:31:03 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #970

TELECOM Digest     Tue, 26 Nov 91 23:30:43 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 970

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Local Telephone Company Assigns Same Number to 2 Households (P. Turner)
    Re: Does Each Long Distance Carrier Have It's Own 800 Service? (M. Harriss)
    Re: US West: BBSs are Businesses (Peter Marshall)
    Re: What About Ring-Back Numbers Instead of ANI Numbers (Dave Niebuhr)
    Re: They're All the Same to Me (Henry Mensch)
    Re: What is IMTS? (Chris Arndt)
    Re: Telemarketers and My Neighborhood (Chris McEwen)
    Re: 'Easy' Numbers, Teleslime, Wrong Numbers, etc. (Ron Dippold)
    Re: Credit Card Number Wars [Steve Forrette]
    Re: Self-ID For 818-792? (Patton M. Turner)
    Re: Talk About Pushy! (Alan Boritz)
    Re: Government Phone Books (Graham Toal)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 25 Nov 91 09:04:01 CST
From: Patton M. Turner <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Local Telephone Company Assigns Same Number to Two Households


Barry Ornitz writes:

> The repair service did
> send a lineman by our house on Saturday to check our line. He told my
> wife it was IMPOSSIBLE for two pairs to be assigned the same number.

> I was told
> that there are occasional legitimate reasons for having two pairs
> assigned the same number, so the "processor" did not flag the problem.

This is exactly what is done to create an OPX (off premise extension).
This allows the service to be setup in software.  At least a few years
ago an unnamed REA sub'ed telco still used scotchloks to create OPX's
even on SPC switches.

REA = Ripoff Enhancement Artists


Pat Turner    [e-mail]     KB4GRZ @ K4RY.AL.USA

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

From: [e-mail] (Martin Harriss)
Subject: Re: Does Each Long Distance Carrier Have It's Own 800 Service?
Reply-To: bdsgate![e-mail] (Martin Harriss)
Organization: Beechwood Data Systems
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 91 18:39:39 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> John Higdon <john@zygot.
ati.com> writes:

> NO! 1-800-abc-defg is "Hooked on Phonics" Obviously, you do not listen
> to network radio much!

But I obviously do, because I've heard this ad.  (For the uninitiated,
"Hooked on Phonics" is a reading course.)

What I can't understand is why they choose to advertise the number in
this fashion for prospective customers who can't read?


Martin Harriss  uunet!bdsgate!martin

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

Subject: Re: US West: BBSs are Businesses
From: [e-mail] (Peter Marshall)
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 91 10:44:35 PST


[e-mail] (Randy Bush) writes:

> ole!rwing![e-mail] (Peter Marshall) writes:

>> Sysop Wagner, says the article, "objected, saying he never had charged
>> for access to his board, called 'First Choice Communications.' Extra
>> lines are needed because he's regional ... coordinator for FidoNet ...
>> One of additional lines was for TDD, Wagner said."

> a - TW is not FidoNet RC.  TW is the regional echo hub.

> b - He does run commercial systems.  He is the support system for a
>     commercial product, D'Bridge, from which he derives income.

> c - He receives income from those systems for providing echomail.

> d - The honest people in similar circumstances in the area pay
>     business rates for similar use.

> e - As Portland has a very wide free calling area, and the telcos have
>     been very liberal with BBSs, TW's actions can only make things
>     worse, not better.

> One person's greed can harm us all.

Randy Bush's oft-repeated boilerplate comments in various forums about
this situation miss the mark by deliberately ignoring the purported
policy statements on BBSs re: res.-bus. classification made publically
by two US West personnel. Thus not only does his assertion that the
Oregon BBS in question is a "commercial system" lack relevance to the
primary issues presented by US West, such an assertion further tends
to set up Mr. Bush himself as the interpretor of the relevant Oregon
tariff.

To make matters worse, Mr. Bush again makes a number of other
statements with little or nothing to back them up; e.g., his
again-repeated assertion that this sysop's actions can only make
things worse for Oregon BBSs.  Luckily, some Washington sysops viewing
these same US West statements do not seem to share Randy's
perspective.


Peter Marshall

  The 23:00 News and Mail Service - [phone] - Seattle, WA USA
                          PEP, V.32, V.42bis
                  +++ A Waffle Iron, Model 1.64 +++

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

Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1991 14:23:17 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Dave Niebuhr, BNL CCD, 516-282-3093)
Subject: Re: What About Ring-Back Numbers Instead of ANI Numbers


[e-mail] (Simona Nass) writes:

> Years ago, I knew of two numbers: the ANI number, which here in New
> York was and is 958, and also a ring-back number, which I think used
> to be 611 and was taken over by NYTel's repair service some years ago.

> The way it worked was that you'd dial this three-digit number, get a
> special tone, dial in your phone number that you wanted rung back, and
> hang up. After a few seconds, the phone would ring, and continue
> ringing until picked up, at which point you'd get a dial tone.

> What is that number in New York?

611 is Repair Service now.

The number in area code 516 (Long Island) is 660-XXXX where XXXX is
the last four digits of the phone you are calling from.

Depress the hook switch for about one second, hear a different tone,
hang up, wait for the ring and pick up the phone then hang up.  The
tone will be the same as after depressing the hook switch.

The above courtesy of Larry Niebuhr, my 11 year-old son (as Art
Linkletter used to say on the 'House Party' TV show: "Kids Say the
Darndest Things")


Dave Niebuhr      Internet: [e-mail] / Bitnet: niebuhr@bnl
Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, NY 11973  (516)-282-3093

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

From: [e-mail] (Henry Mensch)
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 91 11:32:26 -0800
Subject: Re: They're All the Same to Me
Reply-To: [e-mail]


[e-mail] (Jim Haynes) wrote:

> [Moderator's Note: You are confusing telemarketers with survey takers.
> There is a difference. Don't paint them with the same brush. Survey
> takers have a hard time convincing people they are NOT (really, not!)
> selling anything. And many of them do provide a valuable service.  PAT]

 ... I'm inclined to agree with Jim Haynes; they're interrupting my
life for their purpose, and unless the survey-taker is providing a
service to me (highly unlikely) I'm not disposed to spend much time
dealing with them.


# henry mensch / advanced decision systems / <[e-mail]>

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

From: [e-mail] (Chris Arndt)
Subject: Re: What is IMTS?
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1991 20:44:11 GMT


IMTS is the original telco operated dial-in, dial out mobile telephone
service. (The original mobile service was MTS for Mobile Telephone
Servie. The 'I' is for Improved.)

It started in the 60s, I believe, and was (and still is) a dial-pulse
(not tone) service. The original control heads for the radios even had
real bells in them to ring when you got a call.

IMTS is operated by the wireline phone companies on 11 VHF (150 M)
full duplex frequency pairs or 12 UHF (450 MHZ) freq pairs.

One terminal serving one geographical area can have six or seven
frequencies assigned to it. This can get congested real fast in an
area like LA.

Our local area has only one channel.

The phones are large and powerful compared to a cellular. Mine puts
out about 45 watts and has an RF package the size of a small brief
case connected by cable to a control head about the size of a Trim
Line phone.

It takes more skill to operate an IMTS than a cellular, because, as
you travel from area to area, you have to program your phone for the
new channels. Also, here in Pac Bell areas, if you use the free
Follow-Me-Roaming, you have to tell the switch everytime you change
areas.

For those of you that miss it on cellular, IMTS also lets you draw a
dial tone after the ANI exchange.

Any other questions?


Chris     [e-mail]

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

Date: 24 Nov 91 13:58:12 GMT
Organization: The Graphics BBS (2D,3D,GIF,Animation) +1 908/469-0049
From: [e-mail] (Chris McEwen)
Subject: Re: Telemarketers and My Neighborhood


> [Moderator's Note: You are confusing telemarketers with survey takers.
> There is a difference. Don't paint them with the same brush. Survey
> takers have a hard time convincing people they are NOT (really, not!)
> selling anything. And many of them do provide a valuable service.  PAT]

PAT has a point. I worked for a subcontractor to Gallop when I was in
college. I remember going house-to-house, many times in the toughest
areas (either due to 'local conditions' or remoteness) to get the
opinions of the residents. Though we were occassionally commissioned
to do market research, I was usually assigned to political surveys and
I can assure you the questions were not slanted in the slightest -- at
least on the surveys I was assigned to.

Point: these surveys gave people a chance to have their opinions heard
and due to statistical sampling, actually amplified. And as PAT said,
my biggest problem was convincing the folks I wouldn't sell them
anything. I just wanted to hear what they had to say.


Chris McEwen    Internet: [e-mail] | The Computer Journal
Editor, TCJ  uucp: ..!att!nsscmail!gnat!cmcewen | PO Box 12
                      GEnie: c.mcewen -or- TCJ$ | S Plainfield NJ 07080
The Spirit of the Individual Made This Industry | [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Ron Dippold)
Subject: Re: 'Easy' Numbers, Teleslime, Wrong Numbers, etc.
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1991 00:28:13 GMT


motcid![e-mail] (Wilson Mohr) writes:

> AHHH, but if you look at the normal touch-tone(tm) phone, these last
> four digits are the corners of the pad. Your local "dialing without a
> cause" individual picks the number probably because of the pattern.
> There are other numbers like this that are frequently (ab)used. i.e

This reminds me of those in college who on some nights when they had
nothing better to do would think up obscene or offensive words of
seven characters and then dial the 1-800 number associated with this
to see what they got.

Now obviously, anyone with 1-800-EAT-S*** or 1-800-F***-YOU would
figure out quickly what was going on (those are always the first
numbers they tried), and I doubt that the phone company would give out
a number with 7448 or 3825.  However, the ingenuity of the bored is
usually greater than the phone company imagined.  You'd be surprised
at what they managed to get numbers for (they would report to everyone
on the floor ... sheesh).

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

Date: Mon, 25 Nov 91 18:04:14 pst
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Credit Card Number Wars
Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA


In article <[e-mail]> David Ofsevit writes:

> Is this correct?  Why would AT&T bother changing the number?
> It seems clear that telephone credit card operations has become
> independent of actual phone use accounts, so there is no logical
> tie-in between card and phone numbers; but AT&T is going to lose
> business over this because people like to have an easily-remembered
> credit card number.

Nobody is going to lose business because of the card number change.
If you place an intra-LATA call, the local company is going to carry
the call and receive the revenue, regardless of whether you use the
NET number associated with your phone number, or the AT&T card.
Similarly, an inter-LATA call is going to be carried by AT&T
regardless of which card you use.  And, unless you specifically
request from AT&T to be direct-billed, your AT&T charges will still
appear on your NET bill.  But, most important, His Honor will be able
to sleep well ...


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 25 Nov 91 20:33:09 CST
From: Patton M. Turner <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Self-ID For 818-792?


Bob Denny asks about a line ID number for identifying office lines.

When you have a legitimate reason such as this the operator will
nearly always give you a line ID.  Don't try to guess the "magic
phrase", but instead give a clear, professional explanation of why you
need the ID.  This has almost always worked for me, although a few
times they will call you back on a listed number to give you the
information.

If this fails after calling a few operators, ask for a repair person
to call you back.  They are more likely to understand your reasoning.


Pat Turner    [e-mail]     KB4GRZ @ K4RY.AL.USA

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

Date: 25 Nov 91 21:38:24 EST
From: Alan Boritz <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Talk About Pushy!


In a message <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:

> He insisted that she would save a great deal over AT&T. She replied
> that she was very happy with her current arrangement. "But wouldn't
> you like to pay less money for your phone service?" Mom: "I'm happy
> with what I have now."

> This guy kept badgering. "Why don't you switch, and if you don't
> like it you can switch back?" Good old Mom was finally moved to say,
> "My son is in the telephone business and he set up what I have now."
> The reply?  "Do you always do whatever your son says?"

Oh, this was a great story to read after a particularly terrible
day. :-)

Speaking of MCI, I came across an article about MCI in today's {Wall
Street Journal} (of course I wouldn't have it handy right now:) about
the MCI Family and Friends promotion.  It seems that ANYONE could find
who was on your Family and Friends list (name and phone number) and
they didn't have to identify themselves when they called 1-800-FRIENDS.

After MCI had their csreps ask for a street address and phone number,
WSJ was still able to get the 'Friends list for several MCI officials.
MCI explained that it was an operator that wasn't properly broken-in
on the new procedures.

After reading the article, I called to check what numbers were on my
"list," and all the csrep asked for was my phone number and street
address (I was calling from a friend's phone, so they didn't have my
ANI).  Looks like they still haven't learned their lesson.  You
wouldn't have Charlie Brown's street address and home phone number,
would you? :-)


Alan Boritz    [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Graham Toal)
Subject: Re: Government Phone Books
Date: 26 Nov 91 03:28:59 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: MCGV Stack @ EUT, Eindhoven, the Netherlands


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Nigel Allen) writes:

> Journalists and others who often need to contact government offices
> can save time by using a government telephone directory. I don't know
> that much about government bookstores in the U.S., but anyone who
> wants a Canadian federal government telephone directory can order one
> by mail from the Canadian Government Publishing Centre (Ottawa,
> Ontario K1A 0S9) or visit one of several privately- or university-
> owned bookstores that stock government publications.

Anyone who wants one in Britain is in danger of being locked up for
breaking the Official Secrets Act :-(


[Moderator's Note: Interestingly, although no laws are broken here by
calling direct to a government official, often times they panic at
receiving a phone call from a 'regular citizen' instead of another
hack like themselves. "How did you get my number," they demand to
know. "Who told you to call me," is their other chant. They get really
hung up with the idea that a citizen got through to them rather than
getting buffered or screened several layers earlier. When someone with
an internal phone directory from the White House many years ago posted
a message on the net with excerpts from said directory including one
entry: Reagan, Ronald ..... 456-2591, the highly-placed flunkies who
buzzed around him all day almost had apoplexy.  What a pity! :)  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #970
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa12208;
          27 Nov 91 2:52 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA06159
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Wed, 27 Nov 1991 00:21:48 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA29650
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Wed, 27 Nov 1991 00:21:29 -0600
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1991 00:21:29 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #971

TELECOM Digest     Wed, 27 Nov 91 00:21:23 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 971

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Routing Intra-Lata Around the LEC (Pac Bell) (John Higdon)
    Re: The Future of Printed Books (Jack Decker)
    Re: Sneaky! Michigan Bell Pulls a Fast One on Everybody (Fred R. Goldstein)
    Re: Local Telephone Company Assignes Same Number to 2 Households (Forrette)
    Re: How Illinois Bell Really Chose AC 708 (Robert J. Woodhead)
    Re: USWEST Voicemail Problem (Ken MacLeod)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 26 Nov 91 02:21 PST
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Routing Intra-Lata Around the LEC (Pac Bell)


[e-mail] writes:

> [Note that John Higdon will (rightly) say
> that using a dialer in this nature is a low quality form of telephone
> service.  He's right, but it _does_ get the particular job done.]

Also note, however, that he will suspend his normal condemnation of
FGB access when it is useful for intraLATA bypass. As a matter of
fact, I have clients who use exactly this method to save on intraLATA.
The trick is to find an IEC that puts no surcharge on 950 access.

As far as I am concerned, dialers are out. Those clients using FGB to
bypass use PBXes that are equipped with ARS. No one should put the
routing of his calls in the hands of a device programmed by the
carrier.

> Now, one problem you will face is getting the carriers to honestly and
> knowlegably discuss this issue with you.

As with abortion and federally funded clinics, the carriers are gagged
by tariff restraints. They literally are forbidden to offer to carry
intraLATA traffic. Pac*Bell even tries to get customers to rat on
their carriers if they suspect violations of these rules. I have some
amusing letters from Pac*Bell to some clients "warning" them about the
"illegality" of using anyone other than Pac*Bell for intraLATA
traffic. Now what would make Pac*Bell think that anything was going
on?  Just because the Pac*Bell WATS lines were disconnected and there
is no intraLATA DDD traffic anymore ... :-)

> Many salespeople for the IXC's will be totally ignorant of these
> issues.  Others will tell you anything that they think you want to
> hear.

The knowledgeable ones will tell you that they cannot block intraLATA
traffic carried on certain circuits and that it is YOUR responsibility
as the customer to make sure that no intraLATA traffic is presented to
the IEC. Yeah, yeah, yeah ...

> So, if the calling volume is significant, and you are prepared to run
> your traffic through a 950 number, or through a dialer, you might shop
> around in the second tier of long distance companies ... the next
> level down from the national players.

With FGB access, this figure can be very low. Those companies that
specialize (if you know what I mean) in 950 bypass have no minimums,
surchares, or monthly fees.


        John Higdon         |   P. O. Box 7648   |   [phone]
    [e-mail]      | San Jose, CA 95150 |       M o o !

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

Date: Mon, 25 Nov 91 22:10:59 CST
From: Jack Decker <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The Future of Printed Books


In a message dated 18 Nov 91 15:26:45 GMT, [e-mail].
com (24411-sohl,william h) writes (in response to a message that I
had written):

> Two points need to be refuted here:

> 1 - The Bells had long ceased charging for extension phones prior
> to divestiture.

WHERE did you get THAT idea?  I can't speak for any other state, but
in Michigan they were charging some piddly extra charge per extension
(something around sixty cents per month) for CUSTOMER-SUPPLIED
extension phones.  That's right ... even after the order came down
permitting customers to attach their own phones to the network
(something the Bells fought very hard against -- remember Carterfone?),
Michigan Bell still felt that for some reason they were entitled to
charge an extra monthly charge for each extension that the customer
supplied (assuming, of course, that you either called the business
office to give them the "FCC registration number" or they detected
more ringers than you were "supposed" to have on your phone line,
although in the latter case you could avoid the charge if you said you
had an extension RINGER on the line.

Under the tariff then in effect, they couldn't charge extra for
ringers, just phones!).  I'm pretty sure this charge was still in
effect around 1985 (I KNOW it was still in effect for a time after
divestiture) and perhaps even for a couple of years after that; but I
think that Michigan Bell finally dropped the charge as part of a rate
increase request (in part because both they and the MPSC were getting
a lot of flak from customers for charging for something when no
additional service was being provided).

And it goes without saying that even today, in areas where you can
still lease phones from the phone company, you'll pay an additional
amount for each extension, so the statement that the Bells "stopped
charging for each extension" is incorrect ... they only stopped
charging when they weren't allowed to offer CPE any more, and even
THAT didn't stop them here in Michigan for a time!

> 2 - There already was a competitive arena for long distance (MCI,
> Sprint, et al) prior to divestiture.

Yes, but you'll recall that these other carriers did not have "equal
access" prior to divestiture. That means no "Dial 1" access and no
positive answer supervision.  How competitive do you think they could
really have been under those circumstances?

Pat (the Moderator) also noted, in part:

> ..... But to allow MCI, Sprint et al to compete with
> AT&T is not the same thing as smashing AT&T into pieces. The *only*
> legitimate thing Judge Greene could have done was to order AT&T and
> the Bell Companies to interconnect in an even-handed and arm's length
> way with the new competitors. He should have ruled the competitors
> were permitted to string wires, set up exchanges, solicit customers
> and compete in every way -- both at the local and long distance level
>  -- with the Bell System, with the assurance their customers would be
> able to connect with Bell System customers. PERIOD. END OF COURT ORDER.

I'm not sure about that, Pat.  While I agree that this sounds like the
way to go, you have to remember that you were dealing with AT&T here,
which IN MY OPINION has never failed to use any underhanded method
they could possibly to keep monopoly control of the telephone system,
and failing that, to make life as difficult for competitors as
possible.  Perhaps Judge Greene did have some sort of "grudge" against
AT&T, but I can assure you that he wasn't the only one.

It is like sitting at a sporting event and watching one team constantly
pull unfair tricks that the referees aren't always able to catch ...
pretty soon you start rooting AGAINST that team and hope that an
underdog will come along and beat them.  When I was in my late teens,
it seemed like AT&T was the company that EVERYONE loved to hate
(comedienne Lily Tomlin's career took off when she started doing
Ernestine, and the reason that bit was so popular was because many
folks thought that Ernestine's attitudes DID, to some extent, mirror
the real-life attitude that the phone companies had toward their
customers).

I just don't think that the Judge really believed that, given the size
of AT&T, they would have been inclined to "play fair" if placed on a
"level" playing field, so it "tilted" it a bit in the competitor's
favor.  Whether he tilted it too much is a bit of a judgment call,
but personally I think he had a lot more wisdom than a lot of people
give him credit for.  Whether there may have been another approach
that would have fostered competition equally well (or better) is
certainly open to debate, though, and in this case there is room for a
diversity of opinions!


Jack Decker           : [e-mail]              : FidoNet 1:154/8


[Moderator's Note: I'll agree the Tomlin-like employees of the old
Bell System did as much as anyone to contribute to the breakup. All
one had to do was stand in a stinky, nasty urinal of a phone booth;
lose a quarter due to the malfunctioning instrument and dial the
operator to complain about it only to have it ring seventeen times
before she came on the line long enough to sass back at you and then
abruptly disconnect ... and you'd want to see them smashed also. The
early success of the competition was due more to people wanting to
'get something over on Ma Bell' than it was any sort of superior
service offered by the competitors.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Fred R. Goldstein)
Subject: Re: Sneaky! Michigan Bell Pulls a Fast One on Everybody
Date: 26 Nov 91 20:27:56 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(david.g.lewis) writes ...

> I don't know if I'd go so far as to say "almost no relation", but I
> agree that price of local telephone service and cost of local
> telephone service are rather weekly related.  There is a reason for
> this, however; it's referred to by the regulatory agencies as "the
> public interest, need, and necessity."

> Usage-based pricing is part of a general trend towards cost-based
> pricing; It recovers costs based on the use of resources in way which
> is generally deemed by regulators to be fair and equitable, and the
> usage of those resources is relatively easy to measure.

This is the telco party line, but it's buncombe.  While it's true that
some tiny teeny amount of the telco's cost is related to local USAGE,
it probably costs them more to measure it than the usage itself costs.

What the telcos have is a monopoly.  They notice telephone usage per
line rising, and they know you can't get it from anyone else.  So they
want to raise its price.  The cost of hauling a LOCAL call usually
ranges from about a penny a minute (in the highest-cost places) down
to a small fraction of a mil per minute.  So the proposed rates are
literally ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE higher than the costs!

Is this FAIR?  Of course not.  It's heavy usage subsidizing light
usage.  Does your property tax or rent get set on how many times you
open the door of your house or apartment?  Do you rent your
refrigerator based on a price per each time you open the door?  (Hey,
dieters would benefit!)  OF COURSE NOT.  They aren't monopolies.  Cost
comes into the equation.  They can't get away charging too much for
what's almost free.

The FCC's "access" (CALC) monthly charges are an attempt to move
towards cost-based pricing, by charging a fixed price for fixed costs
(previously paid by LD usage).  Usage-sensitive local service is a
move away from cost-based pricing, as further proof of the extreme
monopoly power of the local telephone carriers.

If they want to charge based on COST, let them.  I'll pay a penny a
call and a mil per minute, peak hour, half-price off-peak.  Anywhere
in the Metro area.  They'd still be ahead of the game.


Fred R. Goldstein   [e-mail]
or [e-mail]   voice:  [phone]

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

Date: Tue, 26 Nov 91 18:02:56 pst
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Local Telephone Company Assignes Same Number to Two Households
Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA


In article <[e-mail]> Sharon Crichton writes:

> In my case, I'm mad at Ohio Bell. I don't how long the number sat
> unused before they gave it to me, but the 1991/92 phonebooks still
> have us listed at our old addresses. So I don't know if the number was
> unused for a day, a week, a month, or longer.

Here's what I know of about Pacific Bell's policy, followed by an
amusing story:

Old Pacific Bell way:

Referral for old customer until new directory comes out, thus no
re-assignment until there's a new directory.

New Pacific Bell way:

Three months of referral free, regardless of directory cycle, then
$12.50/quarter for the referral.  Numbers could be reassigned as soon
as three months.

Now what I don't know is if the computer is smart enough to assign the
least-recently-used number for new service.  This of course would
vary depending on exchange, but I would imagine that there would be a
new prefix added to an office well before this length of time got very
short.

Now, my story: Several months ago, our bankcard processing center's
customer service center changed long distance carriers, and thus
changed its 800 number.  They had no referral put on it -- they just
sent out a letter telling merchants about their new number.  Of
course, they are not listed in 800 Directory, so if you misplace the
letter, there's no way to contact them.

Having mislaid the letter, I was trying to locate their new number,
and tried the old one just in case a referral had been added.  A woman
answered "hello", and I asked if this was the bankcard center.  She
said "No!", and that a lot of people had been calling.  Apparently,
this poor woman got this number assigned to her as her PERSONAL 800
number that rang through to her home.  As such, she had no way to
ignore the calls, lest she miss someone dialing her regular number.

She had been told by her carrier that it had been "at least a year"
since the number had been used.  I informed her that that just wasn't
correct, as I had spoken to the bank at that number not more than
three months prior.  So, the moral of the story is, never believe the
telco when they tell you how long the number has been out of service.


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]     I do not speak for my employer.

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

From: [e-mail] (Robert J Woodhead)
Subject: Re: How Illinois Bell Really Chose AC 708
Organization: Foretune Co., Ltd.
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1991 02:47:21 GMT


[e-mail] (Ihor J Kinal) writes:

> There's another aspect that I haven't seen mentioned, but it came to
> my attention when Northern New Jersey split its area code recently:
> the cost of printing up NEW business cards, letterheads, etc.  And
> apparently these costs are fairly substantial. [ Think about it -- you
> hardly want to send out correspondence with your old phone number on
> it, even during the optional phase -- so fairly quickly, all of this
> becomes obsolete].

Ah, but that twas a mere bag of shells compared to the bonanza for
printers when, in order to allow for more phone numbers in Tokyo (1
area code), a "3" was added to the front of all the numbers that
didn't start with 5 (which were already four digit prefixes).  The
phone company spent billions of yen reminding people (using, since it
was to occur on January 1 of the Year of the Ram, a cute fluffy
ramlet) of the change.

Of course, the Japanese had faced a similar problem when Emperor
Hirohito died; they had to redo all the calendars and official
documents to handle the new year numbering system, since it all
depends on the number of years in the reign of the current Emperor.

Amusingly, my Sony Palmtop (a hand-held organizer that recognizes
handwritten kanji input) not only can display the date in both Western
and Japanese format, but has a provision for entering the starting
date and name of the next Emperor's dating system.


Robert J. Woodhead, Biar Games / AnimEigo, Incs.   [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 26 Nov 91 00:39:06 -0500
From: bitsko![e-mail]
Subject: Re: USWEST Voicemail Problem
Organization: Bitsko's Bar & Grill, Public Access, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (C.A.)
writes:

>> It seems that whenever someone pauses the next couple of words
>> are lost.

> Every voicemail system I've come across has some algorithm for editing
> out silences over a certain duration.

  To anyone building a better mousetrap, how about using a 1/4 second
buffer so that by the time you've figured out that something is going
on the important stuff is still there.

  Also, as feeping creatureism, let _me_ decide at what quality to
record.  I rarely have over two minutes out of the seven available and
those two minutes sound worse than the average tape machine.

  Digital Tip: recording the announcement remotely sounds a lot better
than the built-in microphone.


Ken MacLeod    [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #971
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa14598;
          27 Nov 91 4:09 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA20765
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Wed, 27 Nov 1991 01:41:01 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA05700
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Wed, 27 Nov 1991 01:40:20 -0600
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1991 01:40:20 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #972

TELECOM Digest     Wed, 27 Nov 91 01:40:15 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 972

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Telemarketers and My Neighborhood (Chris McEwen)
    Re: Telemarketers and My Neighborhood (Gil Kloepfer Jr.)
    Telemarketer Gall (John Higdon)
    Why Can't I Hang Up On Them? (Norman Soley)
    Re: Telescum Targeting Families of Vietnam MIAs (Thomas Eric Brunner)
    Re: How Does The Law Handle Crank Calls? (Andy Sherman)
    How to Handle Unwanted Sales Calls - SNET Land 203 (Howard Pierpont)
    Re: Copyrights on Phone Books (Peng H. Ang)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Chris McEwen)
Subject: Re: Telemarketers and My Neighborhood
Date: 24 Nov 91 13:58:12 GMT
Organization: The Graphics BBS (2D,3D,GIF,Animation) +1 908/469-0049


> [Moderator's Note: You are confusing telemarketers with survey takers.
> There is a difference. Don't paint them with the same brush. Survey
> takers have a hard time convincing people they are NOT (really, not!)
> selling anything. And many of them do provide a valuable service.  PAT]

PAT has a point. I worked for a subcontractor to Gallop when I was in
college. I remember going house-to-house, many times in the toughest
areas (either due to 'local conditions' or remoteness) to get the
opinions of the residents. Though we were occassionally commissioned
to do market research, I was usually assigned to political surveys and
I can assure you the questions were not slanted in the slightest -- at
least on the surveys I was assigned to.

Point: these surveys gave people a chance to have their opinions heard
and due to statistical sampling, actually amplified. And as PAT said,
my biggest problem was convincing the folks I wouldn't sell them
anything. I just wanted to hear what they had to say.


Chris McEwen    Internet: [e-mail] | The Computer Journal
Editor, TCJ  uucp: ..!att!nsscmail!gnat!cmcewen | PO Box 12
                      GEnie: c.mcewen -or- TCJ$ | S Plainfield NJ 07080
The Spirit of the Individual Made This Industry | [phone]


[Moderator's Note: The legitimate survey people have one hell of a
hard time on phone calls as a result of the telesleaze. A very
reputable firm here hires high-grade, intelligent people with
backgrounds in psychology, etc to do personalized interviews for their
clients with members of the public. The first phone call is merely to
set up an appointment at the convenience of John Q. Public to
establish a time when a *second phone call* -- a detailed interview --
can take place. And yet people misunderstand what it is all about and
keep waiting for 'the pitch', which of course never comes.  PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 25 Nov 91 21:39 CST
From: [e-mail] (Gil Kloepfer Jr.)
Subject: Re: Telemarketers and My Neighborhood
Organization: Southwest Systems Development Labs, Houston, TX


In article <[e-mail]> the Moderator notes:

> [Moderator's Note: You are confusing telemarketers with survey takers.
> There is a difference. Don't paint them with the same brush. Survey
> takers have a hard time convincing people they are NOT (really, not!)
> selling anything. And many of them do provide a valuable service.  PAT]

Well, if the survey takers are providing me with a VALUABLE survice,
then they should provide ME with some of the VALUE (for the time they
wish to take up on the phone).

Here's an example of a service I would GLADLY do.  Basically, several
people I know got letters from the A.C. Nielsen Company (yes, the ones
who do the TV ratings).  They offer to send you a device called a Scan
Track, which is basically a portable computer with a bar-code scanner
and built-in modem.  They want you to scan the barcodes of everything
you buy with this portable data acquisition device.  Once a week, you
call their 800 number and hold the device up to the phone and download
the results.

Their basic rule is that YOU don't have to pay for anything -- all you
contribute is your time.  With this, they guarantee that they will not
sell your name and phone number to any other organization, and that
they will pay for all the equipment and calls you will need.  They
provide incentive "prizes" for continuing to help with their market
research.  They send a monthly newsletter to show the basic results of
some of their research (I'm sure not all of it, they sell that to
other companies) and how market research works.

They like you to stay-on for at least a year ... but when approached
like this, by mail, I really think it's a class operation.  I would
rather have an intrusion like this than an intrusion on my phone while
I'm napping or trying to eat my dinner (when I get up for the phone,
my kitten will often try (sneak) to enjoy MY dinner ...).


Gil Kloepfer, Jr.            [e-mail]     ...!ames!limbic!gil
Southwest Systems Development Labs (Div of ICUS)       Houston, Texas

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

Date: Tue, 26 Nov 91 19:26 PST
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Telemarketer Gall


It really takes nerve for a telemarketer to preface a call with a
mechanical, "Please hold; I have a call for this number."

I got one of those tonight. As if I am going to be bothered by someone
selling me something and actually hold the line waiting for the
"valuable message"! I immediately hung up without waiting to see what
sleazoid would have that kind of gall. Too bad!

At least the {San Jose Mercury} in all of its glory had a live person
on the line by the time I picked up the receiver. This business
tonight tells me that the telemarketer in question values the time of
his "agents" more than he does that of his victims. Well, come to
think of it, that makes sense.


        John Higdon         |   P. O. Box 7648   |   [phone]
    [e-mail]      | San Jose, CA 95150 |       M o o !


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

From: [e-mail] (Norman Soley)
Subject: Why Can't I Hang Up On Them
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: 26 NOV 91 12:10:45


I recently got a call from one of THOSE telemarketing machines ...

"Hello this is Dial-a-Loan at 403-inaudiable calling to ... Call
1-(416)-976-XXXX"

I was unable to hang up on this call until they finished their pitch.
I'm taking this up with TPC and the CRTC and will report later what,
if anything is accomplished by this.

I'm kinda curious though, why is the calling party able to hold the
line open like this, is there a technical or regulatory reason why
this is the case? I would have though that my going on hook would have
signalled the local CO to drop the call but I guess I'm wrong.


Norman Soley, Specialist, Professional Software Services, ITC District
Digital Equipment of Canada                   [e-mail]
Opinions  expressed are  mine and do not necessarily  reflect those of
Digital Equipment Corporation or my cat Marge.


[Moderator's Note: If you keep going off hook every five or ten
seconds to see if *they* are gone yet, they won't be. Stay off the
line for 30-45 seconds so the central office can detect the disconnect
and tear it down.   PAT]

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

From: practic![e-mail] (Thomas Eric Brunner)
Subject: Re: Telescum Targeting Families of Vietnam MIAs
Date: 26 Nov 91 23:12:32 GMT
Reply-To: practic![e-mail] (Thomas Eric Brunner)
Organization: Practical Computing Inc., Sunnyvale


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dave
Niebuhr 516-282-3093) writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 941, Message 2 of 12

A brief description of yet another way to target a group of people,
omitted.

> [Moderator's Note: Yes, by all means give us a bit more background on
> these creeps ... and *anyone* who would dare to speak up to or solicit
> the family of a missing vet with some kind of commercial nonsense *is*
> a creep. You've got my word on it.   PAT]

Well Pat, "anyone who would dare to speak up to or solicit the family
of a missing vet with some kind of commercial nonsense" covers a lot
of ground. Let me recommend this month's {Atlantic Magazine} with an
article which is germaine, and remark in passing that the telescum
cited are hardly the largest exploiters of the families of servicemen
reported MIA in south east Asia.


#include <std/disclaimer.h>   Eric Brunner 4bsd/RT Project
uucp: uunet!practic!brunner or [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: I'll look for the article, thanks. And yes, there
are various and sundry strains of sleaze in the world, but the com-
bination of *dishonest* telemarketer and military vet ranks near the
top in my estimation.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Andy Sherman)
Subject: Re: How Does The Law Handle Crank Calls?
Date: 25 Nov 91 21:09:51 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Andy Sherman)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories - Murray Hill, NJ


In article <[e-mail]>, john@zygot (John Higdon)
writes:

> But here is where I believe we diverge in our attitudes. The security
> of my system is MY responsibility, not the FBI's, not the Secret
> Service's, not the Sheriff's Office's, nor that of the police. It is
> up to me to make sure that all logins are adequately passworded and
> that they are changed regularly. If I detect any hacking attempts, it
> is up to me to take evasive action.

But after I catch the #$%#@@ what do I do with him/her?  Believe me,
they'd be better off with the cops than the sleep-deprived sysadmins
who tracked them down.

> I do not feel that breaking down the doors of kids' homes, holding
> them at gunpoint, confiscating everything they own, and theatening
> them with thirty-year sentences helps in the slightest. "Hacker laws"
> are a waste of time and resources. They protect no one and prevent
> nothing and I think you know that.

Actually, one reason why they are ineffectual is that judges still
consider hacking a victimless crime.  Certainly Robert Morris got off
with a slap on the wrist.

> And let us keep it all in perspective. Even if someone broke into my
> system and simply looked around, what WAS the damage? No, I would not
> like it and would be pissed as hell, but if no files were damaged and
> none of my intellectual property was taken, so what?

If somebody got into some systems I know of (none of them on the
Internet, thankfully) and snooped around, I'd have to assume that the
privacy of many AT&T customers was compromised.  And I'd have to
assume that unless I could *PROVE* that the records were *NOT*
modified that they would have to be reloaded/rebuilt from backups.

On other systems I would have to assume that all source code (for some
product or another) was compromised and reload/rebuild from backups.
My obligation to our customers is such that I would pretty much have
to assume that the system was compromised and take everything back to
the state on trusted backups.  That is a real economic cost.  All work
done since the trusted backup is lost.  Much time and effort is used,
not just in tracking down the intruder, but in fallback and recovery.
Believe my, I'd want a pound of flesh or ten in compensation.

> No, "burglar" and "burglary" are inappropriate words to use. We are in
> a new age and we need to expand our vocabulary. Breaking into a
> computer system cannot be compared to the more traditional physical
> "breaking and entering" because nothing is "broken".

Anything fixed between a trusted backup and intrusion is broken.

> And entering a
> computer system is not the same as physically entering a home or
> office. Therefore, using the ancient descriptions of common crimes is
> inaccurate at the least and at most inflammatory.

I think that snooping around my computer files is exactly the same as
snooping around my file cabinet.  Nobody who doesn't work here is
welcome.

> In some countries hacking is not a crime. Is it not peculiar that
> there is no evidence that there exists a rampant computer security
> problem in those countries? No, ironically, hackers in those countries
> prefer to explore around in the US via phone line, probably because
> computer owners here are so lax about security.

Ah, I see you haven't had the Dutch hackers on your system.  They tend
to start by hopping through a few stolen accounts in their own country
before they cross the pond.  Yes security is lax on this side,
although companies and universities seem to detect intrusions much
quicker than the military.  They tend to be surprised when they get
called, too.  However, I think that hacking at the U.S. Army may be
intrinsically more interesting to some of these creeps than hacking at
the Dutch Army.

> I, for one, would much rather rely on technical means and normal
> prudence to keep interlopers out of my system than on laws enforced by
> Keystone Kops.

But what will you do with the people you catch?

While I don't think it is necessary to put children in jail, scaring
them doesn't hurt, just as it didn't hurt kids of Pat's generation to
have a beat cop put the fear of G-d in them for boosting a candy bar.
Society *does* have to send kids the message that anti-social behavior
will not be tolerated, preferably before it goes too far.

However, a college or graduate student is no kid.  They are old enough
already to know what stealing is.  Cliff Stoll's nemesis was old
enough to know that he was committing espionage.  (Ditto some of the
Dutch boys who broke into the army during Desert Storm).  They need to
be held accountable, just as the system admins who do not zealously
guard confidential or classified data need to be held accountable.


Andy Sherman/AT&T Bell Laboratories/Murray Hill, NJ
AUDIBLE:  [phone]
READABLE: [e-mail]  or att!ulysses!andys
What? Me speak for AT&T?  You must be joking!

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

Date: Mon, 25 Nov 91 15:49:16 PST
From: Howard Pierpont, Digital Equipment Corp.
Subject: How to Handle Unwanted Sales Calls - SNET Land 203

>From the 1990 copy of the SNET Telephone Directory covering
203-774/779 and a number of other locals in the wilds of Northwest CT:

Consumer Safety and Protection

How to Handle Unwanted Sales Calls

1. If you do not want to talk with a person selling a product or
service by telephone, firmly say, "No thank you," and hang up.

2. If you do not want to get another call from the company, ask the
caller to remove your name and number from their list.

3. If you want to reduce the number of at-home telephone sales calls
from national companies, write to:

    Telephone Preference Service
    Direct Marketing Service
    6 East 43rd Street
    New York, New York 10017

   Request that your name be put on a list of people who do not want
to receive unsolicited telephone sales calls. You must send your
complete name, address and telephone number.

                          --------

This is also included in the new 1991 directory that takes effect on
11/27.

Howard Pierpont    All standard disclaimers apply.
[I do computers full time, telecomm the rest.]

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

Date: Tue, 26 Nov 91 10:25 EST
From: "Peng_H.Ang" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Copyrights on Phone Books


Many thanks to Gary Russell and Charles McGuiness for their summaries
on phone book copyrights.

The ruling does seem to have implications beyond the phone books though.

> While Rural has a valid copyright in the directory as a whole ...
> there is nothing original in Rural's white pages. The raw data are
> uncopyrightable facts, and the way in which Rural selected,
> coordinated, and arranges these facts is not original in any way.

Right away, it seems that bibliographies would not be protected.
Neither would databases that merely reproduce such compilations. Nor
would databases that reproduce articles be protected. Which means that
one merely needs permission from the original publishers/writers,
download the database, tweak things a little so the interface looks
different and, voila, one is an information service provider.
Something's wrong here.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #972
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa04812;
          28 Nov 91 8:19 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA15040
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 28 Nov 1991 06:44:30 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA28484
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 28 Nov 1991 06:44:17 -0600
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 1991 06:44:17 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #973

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 28 Nov 91 06:43:29 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 973

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Tom Harpur on Telemarketing (Toronto Star via David Leibold)
    Bell Canada Microlink Service (David Leibold)
    List of Country Codes With Area Codes Underway (David Leibold)
    Rochester Telephone to Buy Computer Consoles (Dem & Chronicle via C. Reid)
    AT&T Model 4600 Cordless Phone Problem (Brett G. Person)
    Hacker Convicted (Newsday via Dave Niebuhr)
    Phone Outages Expected to be Tied to Typing Mistake (WSJ via T. Coradeschi)
    Library of Congress is Connected (was Network Info and Access) (S. Donelan)
    Some Additional Thoughts About ANI (Tim Gorman)
    Very Short Answer Supervision (Tim Gorman)
    AT&T Files With FCC to Carry Calls to Vietnam (VIET-NET via Herb Jellinek)
    AT&T Charges Big For Local Call (Steve Kass)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 26 Nov 91 19:38:15 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Tom Harpur on Telemarketing, {Toronto Star} 24 Nov 91


Tom Harpur, a former Anglican priest turned newspaper columnist, wrote
in the {Toronto Star} about his experience with telemarketers,
including the ADADs (Automatic Dial Announcing Devices). He reports
that the CRTC approves these as "an allowable and legal
sales/soliciting strategy".  He also reports that the ADADs won't go
away after ten seconds of hanging up on them (as required by CRTC
regulation). Reference was also made to the fact that while Sunday
commerce is restricted, the telemarketers can go right in any day of
the week (although the CRTC also restricts the times they can do this
 ... at least on paper).

Harpur continues, "Bell says they will notify all the ADAD users to
take my name off their lists. At the same time, I'm told they can't
prevent my name from getting back on the same lists a few weeks
later!" Another choice quote: "One (call) was from an outfit called
Dial-a-Loan. (I wish they'd leave my dial alone!) The other wanted to
tell me how I could make a fortune at home by using my own phone to
make a similar sales pitch to other unsuspecting victims."  Harpur
concludes by suggesting that the public write to Bell Canada and the
CRTC to complain about this.

One flaw in the article was Harpur's statement that the public was not
consulted about ADAD regulations. In fact, there was a process where
the CRTC was developing ADAD guidelines some years earlier, and Bell
included inserts describing the proceedings. Otherwise, this was
something of a public trouncing of telemarketing practices.


[e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 26 Nov 91 19:50:12 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Bell Canada Microlink Service


Bell Canada is introducing another ISDN service geared towards small
and medium businesses, plus Centrex customers. There is the equivalent
of two channels for voice or data available (2B+D?) on the new
Microlink service. Cost is roughly double the Centrex voice rate.
Otherwise, the ISDN link is designed to connect to all sorts of
existing Bell services, voice and data.

The previous ISDN offerings appeared to be quite expensive
undertakings, things like 24B+D services. This appears to be another
step towards ISDN in the home.


[e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 26 Nov 91 20:09:59 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: List of Country Codes With Area Codes Underway


[e-mail] and I have been compiling lists of country codes with
their area codes for some time now. Some countries have been completed
so far, while others have only the bits of information as contained in
telephone directory descriptions of country STD/area codes.

The intention is to have every area code represented (not necessarily
every place name within a country) for each country code. At this
point, full area/STD code lists for Germany (both West +49 and East
+37 portions), Japan, Mexico and the UK are being sought. We already
have partial lists for these (from phone book excerpts) but these are
subsets of the full range of area/STD codes.

Please mail submissions to [e-mail] and [e-mail],
and not to the Digest or its Moderator.

For those with information from other countries, please inquire first
as we may already have complete lists of certain countries (for
instance, we have a complete set for Switzerland).


[e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1991 19:09 EDT
From: "Curtis E. Reid" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Rochester Telephone to Buy Computer Consoles


This was published in Rochester, NY's {Democrat_and_Chronicle} last
Thursday in the Business Section:


       ROCHESTER TELEPHONE TO BUY COMPUTER CONSOLES SYSTEM

          Computer Consoles Inc., 97 Humboldt St., said Rochester
Telephone Corp. has agreed to buy its trademarked Line Information For
Enhanced 911 (LIFE 911) system to deliver emergency number services to
a four-county area around Rochester.

           The contract calls for complete replacement of an earlier CCI
emergency number system that Rochester Tel has been using since 1986.

           CCI, based in Rochester, has 1,000 employees and annual
revenues in excess of $120 million.  The company is part of Northern
Telecom Europe, an operating unit of Notern Telecom Ltd.

                             -----------

Curtis E. Reid
[e-mail]  (Bitnet)
[e-mail] (Internet)

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

From: plains![e-mail] (Brett G Person)
Subject: AT&T Model 4600 Cordless Phone Problem
Date: 27 Nov 91 06:21:40 GMT
Organization: North Dakota State University, Fargo


    My parents have an AT&T 4600 cordless.  Tonight, I picked it up
and hit the "on" button only to have the thing beep, go on-ine for a
split-second, beep twice, and then go off-line again.

I couldn't find the manual, as usual.  Any idea what's wrong with the
thing?


Brett G. Person
North Dakota State University
uunet!plains!person | [e-mail] | [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1991 7:45:25 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Dave Niebuhr, BNL CCD, 516-282-3093)
Subject: Hacker Convicted


I read an article in today's {Newsday} about a person convicted of
computer crime.  The entire article is:

                       "Hacker Pleads Guilty"

"A 24-year-old Denver hacker who admitted breaking into a sensitive
NASA computer system pleaded guilty to a felony count of altering
information.

In exchange for the plea Monday, federal prosecutors dropped six
similar counts against Richard G. Wittman Jr., who faced up to five
years in prison and a $250,000 fine.  Authorities said the government
will seek a much lighter penalty when Wittman is sentenced Jan. 13.

Both sides have agreed on repayment of $1,100 in collect calls he
placed to the computer system, but they differ on whether Wittman
should be held responsible for the cost of new software.

Wittman told U.S. District Judge Sherman Finesilver that it took him
about two hours on a personal computer in his apartment to tap into
the space agency's restricted files.  It took NASA investigators
nearly 300 hours to track Wittman and an additional 100 hours to
rewrite the software to prevent a recurrance, prosecutors said."

Well, I guess computer crime pays.  Wittman will spend no more than
$1,100; the government paid hourly salaries of the investigators and
programmers working on the problem.  A very, very conservative
estimate of the final cost would be over $20,000 when one stops to
consider that the word "investigators" was used which implies more
than one person.  They gave away the store.

I oculd probably say more but I'm too disgusted.


Dave Niebuhr      Internet: [e-mail] / Bitnet: niebuhr@bnl
Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, NY 11973  (516)-282-3093


[Moderator's Note: Yeah, isn't it disgusting how they are making him
pay $1100 for his 'research'? Even being arrested and brought to trial
has probably traumatized him and stunted his intellectual curiosity
and growth. And to think they are harassing him further by telling him
he has to pay for a portion of what he stole!  :)   PAT]

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

Date: Wed, 27 Nov 91 9:21:02 EST
From: Tom Coradeschi <[e-mail]>
Subject: Phone Outages Expected to be Tied to Typing Mistake
Organization: Electric Armts Div, US Army ARDEC, Picatinny Arsenal, NJ


DSC Communications - Phone outages expected to be tied to typing mistake
The Wall Street Journal, 25Nov91, p.B4.

  A final report that may be presented to the Federal Communications
Commission this week is expected to conclude that a mistyped character
in software from DSC Communications Corp. resulted in several
local-telephone service outages last summer. The report, compiled by
Bell Communications Research Corp., also will show that the software
didn't cause the failures alone. Faulty data, failure of computer
clocks and other triggers led to a chain of events that caused the
outages, according to the {Dallas Morning News}, which said it obtained
a copy of the report.

The newspaper said the report will conclude that none of the "trigger"
events were caused by computer hackers. The disclosure echoes
testimony before Congress last July, in which DSC officials admitted
that three bits of information in a huge computer program were
incorrect, omitting computational procedures that would have stopped
DSC's signaling system from becoming congested with messages.

A spokesman for DSC, which makes the signal transfer point that
carries signals to set up a call, but not the call itself, confirmed
that a "6" in a line of computer code should actually have been a "D."
That one error caused the equipment and software to fail under an
avalanche of computer-generated messages. The error was in an April
software modification for the signal transfer point systems. The
spokesman said the company won't distribute final copies of the report
until Bellcore, as the research consortium of the Baby Bells is known,
presents a copy to the FCC and a congressional telecommunications
committee, possibly this week.

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

From: [e-mail] (Sean Donelan)
Subject: Library of Congress is Connected (was Network Info and Access)
Date: 25 Nov 91 00:16:27 CST
Organization: Data Research Associates, St. Louis MO


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Jacob R.
Deglopper) writes:

> LoC itself is not currently on the Internet at all.

The general telephone number for the Library of Congress is (202)
707-5000, or for the information office [phone].  The WHOIS
record for the Library seems to be inaccessible on the new NIC
(otherwise I would have said look it up there).

The NSF was coordinating efforts of various government agencies to
connect to the Internet at one time.  So they may have a better idea
than some of the agencies as to an agency's connected status.

Now to correct a bit of misinformation.

The Library of Congress does have an Internet connection, or rather
some parts do.  The Library is a big place, and like any bureaucracy
one department may not be aware what other departments are doing.
Most of the departments currently connected seem to have more to do
with research and planning rather than with public service.

Try [e-mail] for more information.

As far as I know there is currently no general public access to the
Library's computers via the Internet (although I heard they were
experimenting with some remote access).  Also the Library does sell
copies of its databases, and several vendors include the Library's
records in their databases.  For example in the for-profit world
CompuServe, Dialog, and in the not-for-profit world OCLC, RLG are
searchable for various fees.

And of course, for no charge, researchers can telnet to dra.com (with
vt100 emulation and some limitations on how you can search) to search
a copy of what the Library calls their "Complete Service."  Copies of
the records can also be found in some form in hundreds of other
library catalogs on the Internet.

Maybe the AOS's should start providing operator services for the
Internet?


Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO
Domain: [e-mail], Voice: (Work) [phone]

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

Date: 25 Nov 91 09:23:18 EST
From: tim gorman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Some Additional Thoughts About ANI


Pat,

Several people have given several good explanations of the
philosophical differences between ANI and Caller ID. Let me throw in
some information that has not yet been covered.

The statement that ANI is used for billing is correct. It is used for much
more than that, however. Depending on the call classification (FG C, FG D,
etc.) there are one or two information digits included which are used to
classify either the ANI type or station class. For instance:

              00 = VALID ANI
              01 = Operator ID required
              02 = ANI Failure
              07 = Special Screening Station

There are several more, some of which are valid only on FG D calls.

A typical MF transmitted ANI string looks as follows:

  KPx + II + (3/7/10D)ANI + STx    (II designates the info digits)

Depending on the call type and ANI protocol in use the KP and ST
signals are used to indicate things ranging from whether 1+ or 0+/0-
was dialed, whether the station is coin or non-coin, whether the
originating station is touchtone or rotary dial, and whether 10XXX +
0/1 or just 0/1 was dialed.

The receiving office uses all of this information to correctly process
the call as well as bill it.


Tim Gorman - SWBT
* opinions are my own, any resemblence to official policy is coincidence*

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

Date: 25 Nov 91 09:23:04 EST
From: Tim Gorman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Very Short Answer Supervision


TELECOM Digest V11 #952:

> The structure code on the CR's is 10002 and the call types are 34.
> I've traced this through our switch documentation and found that
> particular call type to translate to "Signaling Irregularities".

This record should be made when answer supervision is received from
the called end but the calling end hangs up before the minimum charge
duration timing is satisfied (e.g. two seconds).


Tim Gorman - SWBT
* opinions are my own, any resemblence to official policy is coincidence*

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

Date: Mon, 25 Nov 91 09:37:07 PST
From: [e-mail] (Herb Jellinek)
Subject: AT&T Files With FCC to Carry Calls to Vietnam


[From the SEANET-L (SouthEast Asia Net) Bitnet mailing list]

From: LYDIA FISH <uunet!pucc.PRINCETON.EDU!FISHLM%SNYBUFVA.BITNET>
Subject: Long distance calls to Vietnam

Forwarded from VIET-NET

AT&T FILES WITH FCC TO CARRY CALLS TO VIETNAM

    WASHINGTON, Nov 22, Reuter - American Telephone & Telegraph Co
said it filed with the U.S. Federal Communications Commission to carry
calls to and from Vietnam.

    The company said it would use 210 circuits on undersea cable,
microwave, and international satellites, linking Vietnam and the U.S.
via two separate communication pathways.

    AT&T said the filing is in anticipation of when and if the U.S.
government lifts the current ban, under U.S. policy, on calls to and
 from Vietnam.

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

Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1991 18:29 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: AT&T Charges Big For Local Call


Not long ago, I carelessly hit # to make a followup call on my AT&T
Calling Card for what I forgot was a local call.  It went through, and
here's what I got on my bill:

NO.  DATE   TIME        PLACE        AREA-NUMBER RATE  MIN  AMOUNT

 5. OCT 11 1018PM  TO BROOKLYN   NY 718 624-xxxx
                      FR NEW YOR NY 212 674-9888 EC    10       1.99
                                                NY STATE TAX     .31

(The amount comes from 80c for setup, about 12c/minute, and 16% tax.)

The call normally requires a quarter deposit, and if I had been out of
change, I could have placed it through NYTel for about 65 cents.

I don't remember where the payphone was, but the distance can't have
been more than five miles.  Needless to say, the cost was a big
surprise (and since it was intrastate, my ROA discount didn't apply).

Questions:

  Are Brooklyn and Manhattan in the same LATA?
  Can AT&T handle all intraLATA and intrastate calls?
  Who approves the tariffs for this kind of call?
  Could I have done this intentionally with 0+10288+ ?


Steve Kass/ Math&CS/ Drew U/ MadisonNJ07940/ 2014083614/ [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #973
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa06757;
          28 Nov 91 9:57 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA03798
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 28 Nov 1991 08:18:18 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA19370
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 28 Nov 1991 08:18:06 -0600
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 1991 08:18:06 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #974

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 28 Nov 91 08:18:01 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 974

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Rolm Devises Phone Answering System for Deaf in Offices (Curtis E. Reid)
    Sprint Voice-Activated Calling Cards (John L. Shelton)
    Newest FAX Machine? ([e-mail])
    Pseudo-Area Code 311 (Nigel Allen)
    Capacity Limits of Digital CO Switches (John Nagle)
    Control Tone Frequencies (Joseph Chiu)
    ITT 3100 B2.3C PBX For Sale (Jason Scott)
    Help Me Wire an Aviation Headset to a Cellular Phone (Howard Page)
    Digital Mobile Radio (Peter Decker)
    Poster on Telephones - Old and New (Jim Haynes)
    Call Counter and Automatic Router Wanted ([e-mail])
    Coinless Public Phone Class of Service (Ed Greenberg)
    Alabama Gets CNID (Scott Hinckley)
    Strange Chat Line Number (Jack Decker)
    Preparing for ISDN ... How? (Steve Rezsutek)
    Information Wanted on Qualcom Terminals (Chris Arndt)
    Dial Tones on Answering Machine (Christopher Walton)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1991 19:14 EDT
From: "Curtis E. Reid" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Rolm Devises Phone Answering System for Deaf in Offices


This was published in Rochester, NY's {Democrat_and_Chronicle} last
Friday in the Business Section:

         ROLM DEVISES PHONE ANSWERING SYSTEM FOR DEAF IN OFFICES

         Phone equipment maker Rolm Co. has announced what it calls
the first phone answering system for offices that can be used by the
deaf, hard of hearing or speech-impaired people.

           The system allows these people to communicate with phone
message-recording systems through TDD terminals, the typewriterlike
devices that are a a commom means of phone communication for the deaf.

           TDD terminals translate typed words into tones, which can be
sent over the phone.  The system requires a companion TDD terminal at
the receiving end to translate the tones back into printed words.

           Rolm said it has devised a phone system that can record these
tones in a recipient's voice "mailbox," used by some phone systems to
record messages when the recipient is not in.

                          ---------

Curtis E. Reid
[e-mail]       (Bitnet)
[e-mail]  (Internet)

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

Date: Mon, 25 Nov 91 20:30:10 -0800
From: [e-mail] (John L. Shelton)
Subject: Sprint Voice-Activated Calling Cards


I've been playing around with one of these for the last few weeks, and
find it seems to work reasonably well, though I've only placed a
handfull of calls with it.

The system works as follows:

Sprint has assigned a bank of 800 numbers for use with the voice card.
You don't use the 800-877-8000 number (which means that for now, those
hotels that charge you $0.75 for calls into Sprint don't know about it.)

You dial your 800 number.  Sprint answers and prompts for your ID
number, which is a specified digit followed by your SSN.  The first
time in, they ask you to speak it several times to get your
voice-print figured out.  Subsequent calls have only required me to
speak the number once.

After identifying, you are prompted to dial a number.  At this point
you can say "call office" or "call home", and the system will dial a
pre-registered number for you.  Or, you can use the tone-pad to enter
a number in the normal manner.

I had a friend try my number, and Sprint challenged him, so the
voice-print ID isn't totally hokey.  I haven't tested it thoroughly.

Plusses:

* Bypass the sprint main number, saving money in some hotels.

* No need for tone phone to call two pre-registered numbers.

*  Fun to show off.

Drawbacks:

* Instead of remembering your 14 digit number, you have to learn a new
800 number and a check digit.

* I bet it's going to have trouble when you have a cold.

*  It's slower than dialing the normal way.

Oh, by the way, they include, in the test plan I'm enrolled in, voice
messaging.  If the number you call doesn't answer in N rings, Sprint
offers to take a message for later delivery.  I haven't tried that
option yet.


=John=

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

Subject: Newest FAX Machine?
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 91 23:07:27 -0800
From: [e-mail]


And I thought I had seen everything.  From the Hammacher Schlemmer
Christmas catalog:

FAX-SENDING ELECTRONIC ADDRESS BOOK [with a picture of one of those
handhelp, pocket sized electronic organizer, with a QWERTY keyboard.]
 ...is the most complete telephone convenience tool we've found for
the business person or traveler -- a compact mini-computer [SIC] ...
lets you send clear, message faxes from anywhere.

Type in your message onto the unit's liquid crystal, dot-matrix
display (10 lines x 44 characters) -- then, simply press the "send
fax" button.

Two methods of fax transmittal are available: a built-in acoustic
coupler (sends message by simply holding the unit up to the mouth-
piece of almost any Touch-Tone telephone.)  ...

I'm not sure why it has to be a touch tone phone for it to
acoustically couple ... now the drug dealers can get their touch-tone
boxes from Radio Shack, a pocket FAX machine, their pager and be all
set :-).

What next????


Malcolm


[Moderator's Note: What is the other method for transmittal? You only
mentioned one (acoustic) above.   PAT]

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

Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1991 03:32:24 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Nigel Allen)
Subject: Pseudo-Area Code 311
Organization: Echo Beach, Toronto


I saw a message on Fidonet's FCC echo from Roger Stark (1:125/28)
saying:

> The AT&T Phone Home card (whereby college kids can phone home free
> and ask for money) uses 311 as an access code.  It's 311 + A/C + local
> phone + four-digit passcode.

Is this true? The only time I've seen 311 is in movies and advertisements
when a fake area code was needed for a phone. I thought Call-Me card
calls were dialed in the same way as regular calling card calls.

Roger Stark continues:

> The 211 so far seems to be a COPT/COCOT number for coin credits and
> such, but this is probably simply an internal number which doesn't
> actually get dialed on a real phone line.

As other TELECOM Digest readers have noted, the 211 code is used for
different purposes by different telephone companies. Bell Canada
doesn't seem to use it at all.


Nigel Allen - via FidoNet node 1:250/98
INTERNET: [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Many years ago, the old Bell System always had the
number 311-555-2368 shown on the dial of phones in advertisements and
display windows, etc. I think this would have been 1960-ish. I think
his information on Call-Me cards is wrong. To dial one of those calls,
one merely dials 0 + AC + number, wait for bong, four digit PIN, #.
When dialing the number to which a card is assigned -- at least under
the old ATT/local Bell combine card system -- one needs merely to zero
plus the number and add the PIN when requested. Appending the pound
sign (#) to the end speeds the processing since this indicates your
dialing has been completed. A bit set in a database somewhere said if
the PIN did not match to that specific phone number, to deny the call.
Is the new system (separate AT&T cards) different?  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (John Nagle)
Subject: Capacity Limits of Digital CO Switches
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 91 17:50:28 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)


A question arises, are current-generation switches (5ESS, DMS100,
etc.)  non-blocking?  Does the TDMA bus that is the main switching
mechanism in a 5ESS actually have one time slot per line?

      Are 5ESS switches configured differently for use in mostly-
business line installations, to reduce blocking?  Are there standard
configuration recommendations in this area?  References to documents
would be appreciated.


John Nagle

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

From: [e-mail] (Joseph Chiu)
Subject: Control Tone Frequencies
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1991 14:59:03 GMT


Can anyone tell me the frequency/timing specifications for the
intercept three-tone sequence?  I'm putting together a project (a
self-contained exchange :-) and would like to emulate the
look-and-feel (or is that sound-and-feel?) of The Real Thing.

Actually, if you can provide the information for other not-so-common
tones, I'd appreciate it, too.  (I seem to remember a very fast
hi-lo-hi-lo-hi-lo once ... and I'd like to know the stutter-dial tone
timing, while we're at it.)

It's amusing what a little bit of code and an ADC can do ... I just
simulated a complete dial-up and connect of a Bell 103 modem last
night ... (What next?  A revival of the Cat's Meow program?  Naaah,
too much trouble with the Feds ... ;-)

Thanks.


Joseph Chiu, Dept. of Computer Science, P-NP non-equivalence project, Caltech.
1-57 California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California 91126

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

From: [e-mail] (Jason Scott)
Subject: ITT 3100 B2.3C PBX For Sale
Date: 26 Nov 91 13:50:55 GMT
Organization: University of Western Ontario


I have an ITT3100 Compact for sale.  It has 44 ports and is equipped
for numerous station/trunk configurations.  Comes complete with all
documantation.  Includes 10 MET sets (2x20 and 8x10) plus spares in
various condition.  Asking $5000 CDN or best offer.  Thanks ...


[e-mail] (Jason Scott)
The Western Business School BBS  --  London, Ontario

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

Date: Tue, 26 Nov 91 09:49:10 EST
From: [e-mail] (Howard Page)
Subject: Help Me Wire an Aviation Headset to a Cellular Phone
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


Would anyone know how to wire a David Clark 10/40 headset to a
cellular phone? I don't have any specs on the microphone, but the
earphones have a 600 ohm impediance. Thanks!


Howard G. Page   [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Peter Decker)
Subject: Digital Mobile Radio Mailing List Being Started
Organization: RBI - RWTH Aachen
Date: 26 Nov 91 15:29:11 GMT


This is an announcement for a new mailing list about Digital Mobile
Radio.

The contents should be about e.g.

 - mobile communication
 - digital cellular and future phone systems
   e.g. GSM, PCN, DECT, UMTS, ... :-)
 - radio channel models
 - channel coding, FEC, ARQ protocols
 - speech-codec
 - modulation technics
 - media access protocols
 - higher level protocols and internetworking
 - short message exchange applications

If you want write an article, mail to:

    [e-mail]

If you would like to be considered, please send your address to:

    [e-mail]

I hope there will be a hot discussion.


Peter Decker  - Lehrstuhl Kommunikationsnetze, RWTH Aachen,
        Kopernikusstr. 16, D-5100 Aachen,Telefon: [phone]
e-mail        - [e-mail]

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

From: Jim Haynes <[e-mail]>
Subject: Poster on Telephones - Old and New
Date: 26 Nov 91 19:08:51 GMT
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz


This was in the AT&T shareholders quarterly, and is submitted not as a
commercial solicitation but because somebody might be interested.

"A colorful 22-by-28-inch poster that traces the development of the
telephone from Bell's first model to the latest high-technology
feature phone can be purchased for $12.  To order, send a check to
Poster, AT&T Archives, WV A102, 5 Reinman Road, Warren, NJ 07059-0647.
(Telephone [phone].)"


[e-mail]    [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail]
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Tuesday, 26 Nov 1991 16:54:56 EST
Subject: Call Counter and Automatic Router Wanted


Is there any device that can keep a log of all the incoming calls.
Allso looking for automatic router. The function is simple: A
custormer will place a call to a 800 or a reguler number and the call
will be routed to the next avilabel rep. The problem is the rep's will
be siting in there own homes miles a part.

Thanks in advance.


jay

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

Date: Wed, 27 Nov 91 09:19 PST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Coinless Public Phone Class of Service


Seems to me that this class of service is severely underutilized.  For
instance, this would be the perfect COS to give a hotel guest user
that wants to dial 0+.  The telco and all the IXC's are smart enough
to realize that they can't charge the call to the calling phone.
10xxx works; so does 950, 911, 0 alone, etc.  You could allow access
from the hotel room via dial-7+ (assuming 9+ for [hopefully free]
local calls, and 8+ for charge-to-room long distance) or, using least
cost routing tables, route all 0+ or 10xxx+ calls to those lines.

Perhaps the fellow who wants the telco to control his kids could use
this class of service too.

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

From: [e-mail] (Scott Hinckley)
Subject: Alabama Gets CNID
Date: 27 Nov 91 18:41:48 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]


I just recieved a call from my South Central Bell rep saying SCB had
decided to take the AL PUC up on its go-ahead for CNID. Touchstar
services which will be available are: Call Return, Call Trace, Repeat
Dial.

The rep was not clear on whether CNID boxes would be offered. The rep
was likewise unclear on the rulings for Per Call Block, Line Block,
and (Block Block?).


scott

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

Date: Wed, 27 Nov 91 20:20:08 CST
From: Jack Decker <[e-mail]>
Subject: Strange Chat Line Number


I just saw an ad on a Canadian TV station (I live about five city
blocks from the river that forms the border up here) for a chat line
on 1-809-544-CHAT.  The fine print said that charges would vary
according to time of day and province of origin.  I gather this number
is in the Carribean somewhere, but wonder how they are making anything
off the number and why they are specifically targeting their ads to
Canadians.  Just thought you might find this interesting.


Jack Decker   [e-mail]   FidoNet 1:154/8


[Moderator's Note: The proprietor(s) of those (always) international
chat/horoscope/tarot/hot phone sex lines make their profit from
kickbacks they get from the big $$ made by the telco carrying the
traffic. I suspect its the same outfit in each case. There is one in
the Netherland Antilles aimed at gays in the USA, one in New Jersey
aimed at people in Spain who practice Tarot ... and many more.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Steve Rezsutek)
Subject: Preparing for ISDN ... How?
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1991 20:06:03 GMT


A friend of mine recently purchased a "fix-me-up" house, and will be
pulling wires (phone, CATV, etc.) throughout. Assuming that it is even
feasable at this time, what sort of wiring [number of conductors,
connectors, etc] would be needed for him to be "ISDN ready" (in the
sense that he could take full advantage of all that it promises to
offer)?

Is there a document somewhere that specifies all this?

Thanks.

Steven Rezsutek


[Moderator's Shameless Advertising: In about three to four weeks,
Digest reader Fred Goldstein's new book, "ISDN In Perspective", will
be out of the printers.  It's published by Addison-Wesley, is
paperback with a price of (I think) $25 or so, and is about 270 pages
long.  I think some Digest readers will like it.  I'll tell you more
about it once I've read my copy.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Chris Arndt)
Subject: Information Wanted on Qualcomm Terminals
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1991 20:52:27 GMT


An article on Steve Roberts of Bikelab fame (he's the one with the
BEHEMOTH, the bike and trailer he has multi-computers and radios on)
said that he has Internet access on the road through a satellite
terminal on the bike.

I emailed Steve about this. He says its a Qualcomm (?) terminal and a
Cellblazer modem. How do I get more info on the Qualcomm terminal?
I've never heard of them.

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

From: [e-mail] (Christopher Walton)
Subject: Dial Tones on Answering Machine
Date: 27 Nov 91 19:45:40 GMT
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station


I have had a wierd occurence happen lately, several times.  I would
get home and check my answering machine only to hear a click, and then
a dialtone.  The dialtone plays for a while until I get the tone that
happens when you have the phone off the hook for too long.
(Fast-reorder???)  Then the phone hangs up and the answering machine
continues.

Does anyone have any idea what this may be???  It has happened several
times.


[e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #974
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa16098;
          28 Nov 91 17:18 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA30446
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 28 Nov 1991 15:41:17 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA14098
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 28 Nov 1991 15:41:07 -0600
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 1991 15:41:07 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #975

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 28 Nov 91 15:41:04 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 975

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Handicapped Telemarketers (Gordon Burditt)
    History of Area Splits (Carl Moore)
    Making Annoying Calls *To* Telemarketers! (Mark Terribile)
    Long Range Cordless Phones Question (Miroslaw Tadeusz Sochanski)
    Help Needed With Satellite Dish ([e-mail])
    CTG/Vodavi Key Telephone System For Sale (Steve Pozgaj)
    Congress Restricts Autodialers (Arun Baheti)
    Touch Tones on Videotapes? (Yanek Martinson)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Gordon Burditt)
Subject: Handicapped Telemarketers
Organization: Gordon Burditt
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1991 06:48:31 GMT


> [Moderator's Note: There are a large number of people who for whatever
> reason, by virtue of a physical impairment or otherwise are unable to
> do other types of work. If not for telemarketing, they'd be unemployed
> and receiving public assistance. Having a job like this, as undesirable
> as it may seem, provides dignity, a legitimate income and sense of self-
> worth.

A local TV news station here (Dallas/Fort Worth) had a news item
called "Selling Sympathy".  It described the tactics of some
"handicapped sales firms".  They are not charitable organizations but
they try to imply that they are.  The sales firms hire only
handicapped individuals, however, as one reporter found out when she
applied for a job, the definition of handicapped varies a lot.  The
reporter had no obvious handicap, but eventually qualified with
"urinary tract infection".

Other handicaps included being on parole from prison (I guess that's a
"moral handicap"), poverty, and some complicated term that sounded
like it meant "being of mixed racial origin", or maybe it meant "being
of non-white racial origin".  Former employees described the way they
were supposed to mention their specific handicap, and use a hard-sell
approach, even on people who were worse off than they were (e.g. a
widow barely living on Social Insecurity).  Some ex-employees and
other handicapped people felt that the approach used was insulting to
handicapped people everywhere.  Different firms being described used
different tactics. For example, the reporter was not told to
specifically mention her urinary tract infection. These are not
necessarily the tactics used by all "handicapped sales firms".

For those who don't like the term "handicapped", that's the term the
news item used.

I think that such tactics are disgusting and borderline illegal, due
to misrepresentation.  These firms are on the really scummy end of the
spectrum of live telemarketers.  Most live telemarketers that call and
try to sell me something (as opposed to ask for a charitable
contribution, which can get sneakier) may use misleading tactics to
prevent me from easily screening them out, but once they get through,
I don't think they lie about the firm they are working for or about
the service or product they are selling.  Most of them are selling
something like carpet cleaning, newspaper subscriptions, air
conditioning servicing, Time-Life Books, or credit cards.  Chances are
if I ordered something, I'd get it.  Maybe the credit card would have
a 190% interest rate, but if I didn't ask, that's my fault.  Many of
them don't even use a hard sell.  Sure, there are the occasional
vacation scams and ones that want you to call a 900 number.  I get
those by mail, too.

(Sure they are annoying and interrupt what you are doing.  Right now,
that isn't a crime.  And it's not the only bad thing they can do.)

I believe there are firms that employ primarily handicapped people
that don't use tactics like this.  As usual, there seem to be a few
rotten apples in almost every barrel.

> original. Long-time telemarketers have seen them all, and believe it
> or not, some of them wouldn't want any other type of work.  PAT]

Is that a mental handicap?


Gordon L. Burditt   sneaky.lonestar.org!gordon


[Moderator's Note: As you point out, there are rotten apples in every
barrel, and more than a few in telemarketing. But my earlier reference
was to reputable firms (i.e. your example of Time-Life); I'll also
include Signature (Montgomery Ward's telemarketing operation; ie auto
club, credit card promotions) which routinely hire handicapped people
for phone work without making any announcement of it. One in that
category hires visually handicapped people (but not exclusively) ...
who are *forbidden* to mention it on the phone for the reasons you
cite: they are not selling or trading on sympathy; they're selling
educational home-study programs to adults who did not finish high
school. In fact it is an arms-length operation of a major university;
but you aren't supposed to know that!  PAT]

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

Date: Wed, 27 Nov 91 10:47:11 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: History Of Area Splits


[Moderator's Note: This is a revised version of an earlier article
which appeared in the Digest under the same name. This article will
also be a file in the Telecom Archives.  PAT]

                         ---------

These areas have N0X/N1X prefixes, which are put in service as an
alternative to splitting an area which has had only NNX up to this
point.  As a result, long distance from these areas is dialed like
this:

  7D or 1+NPA+7D within area (can no longer use 1+7D)
  1+NPA+7D to other areas (can no longer use NPA+7D)
  For all 0+ calls from these areas, try 0+NPA+7D.

I believe these requirements will become universal when area codes
must generalize from N0X/N1X to NXX; deadline for this is July 1995.
But since the first batch of NNX area codes will be of NN0 form, some
areas might be able to keep 1+7D for intra-NPA long distance by
disallowing prefixes of NN0 form; I do not know if this will be
affected by use of 52x codes -- x not necessarily 0 -- for Mexico.  It
is unclear how generalizing area codes to NXX would affect the policy
of not using N0X/N1X prefixes until NNX starts running short.

213, California, July 1973
 (7D on all calls within it)
 (later 213/818, now 213/310/818)
 (this area continued to publish 0+7D instruction for
  within-NPA 0+ calls)

212, New York, some days after 24 Nov 1980
 (7D on all calls within it)
 (now 212/718, to become 212/917/718)

312, Illinois, Oct 1982 -- but got 1st N0X/N1X spring 1983?
 (7D on all calls within it)
 (now 312/708)

201, New Jersey
 (7D on all calls within it; also applies to 609)
 (now 201/908)

214, Texas, 1986 or 1987 (by July 1987)
 (1+NPA+7D on all toll calls; also applies to 817,
  at least in Fort Worth area)
 (now 214/903)

301/202/703, Maryland/DC/Virginia, 1987, due to DC area growth
 (1+NPA+7D on all toll calls)
 (301 now 301/410)

415, California, Feb 1989?
 (7D on all calls within it)
 (now 415/510)

404, Georgia, Oct 1989?
 (1+NPA+7D on all toll calls; optional in 912)
 (to become 404/706)

919, North Carolina, 2 Mar 1990
 (1+NPA+7D on all toll calls; also applies to 704)

416, Ontario, 3 Mar 1990
 (1+NPA+7D on all toll calls)
 (to become 416/905)

602, Arizona, 1 July 1990
 (1+NPA+7D on all toll calls)

313, Michigan, 1990?
 (1+NPA+7D on all toll calls)

512, Texas, 9 Sept 1990
 (1+NPA+7D on all toll calls)
 (to become 512/210)

205, Alabama, Dec 1990
 (1+NPA+7D on all toll calls)

215, Pennsylvania, 20 May 1991
 (7D on all calls within it)

206, Washington, 12 Jan 1992
 (1+NPA+7D on all toll calls)

713, Texas, 8 Mar 1992 (permissive dialing 8 Dec 1991)
 (1+NPA+7D on all toll calls)

Areacode splits:

Early splits for which no date appears may not have been announced
publicly due to lack of direct-dial facility at the time, and can only
be guessed at with the following guidelines: If an areacode is of form
N1X, it is in a state or province with more than 1 areacode. (The
reverse, if it was ever true, is now obsolete.)  If an areacode is in
a state or province with only 1 areacode, it is of form N0X.  (The
reverse, if it was ever true, is now obsolete.)

what?/209 California
what?/707 California
what?/805 California
305/813 Florida
404/912 Georgia
what?/309 Illinois
502/606 Kentucky
504/318 Louisiana
616/906 Michigan, sometime before Nov(?) 1960
612/507 Minnesota
402/308 Nebraska
what?/607 New York
704/919 North Carolina
405/918 Oklahoma
901/615 Tennessee
what?/806 Texas
206/509 Washington
what?/608 Wisconsin
what?/705 Ontario
what?/807 Ontario
201/609 New Jersey, late 1950s
415/408 California, 1960
305/904 Florida, July 1965
703/804 Virginia, 24 June 1973 at 2:01 AM
714/619 California, Nov 1982
713/409 Texas, Mar 1983 (full cutover 90 days later)
213/818 California, Jan 1984
212/718 New York, 2 Sept 1984 (full cutover 31 Dec 1984)
    Brooklyn, Queens, Staten Island became 718;
    Manhattan & Bronx stayed in 212;
    Bronx to switch from 212 to 718 by July 1992
303/719 Colorado, 5 Mar 1988
305/407 Florida, 16 Apr 1988
617/508 Massachusetts, 16 July 1988
312/708 Illinois, Nov 1989 (full cutover 9 Feb 1990)
202 District of Columbia & vicinity, 1 Oct 1990
    This behaved somewhat like a split despite no new area code.
    202 area code, previously useable for all but the outermost
    Maryland and Virginia suburbs, was restricted to DC proper.
    (Use 301 or 703, as the case may be, to reach the suburbs.)
    As a result, government offices (now including the Pentagon)
    using zipcodes starting with 200,202,203,204,205 and located
    in Md. or Va. can no longer be listed in area 202.  Prefixes
    in the Pentagon, which is in Virginia, were previously in area
    202 (not 703), and in 1990 were moved to area 703.  (Local
    calls across area code border changed from 7D to NPA+7D.)
214/903 Texas, 4 Nov 1990 (full cutover 4 May 1991)
201/908 New Jersey, 1 Jan 1991 (full cutover 8 June 1991)
415/510 California, 2 Sept 1991 (full cutover 27 Jan 1992)
301/410 Maryland, 1 Nov 1991 (full cutover 1 Nov 1992)
213/310 California, 2 Nov 1991 (full cutover 3 May 1992)
    (all GTE plus some PacBell goes into 310)
404/706 Georgia, 3 May 1992 (full cutover 2 Aug 1992)
512/210 Texas, 1 Nov 1992 (full cutover 1 May 1993)
212/917 New York, 1992 or 1993? (details not yet available)
714/909 California, Nov 1992
    (Riverside and San Bernardino counties go into 909;
     Orange County remains in 714)
416/905 Ontario, 4 Oct 1993 (full cutover Jan 1994, no exact
    date yet)

On Feb 1, 1991, area codes 706 and 905, which had been used in the
U.S. for calling parts of Mexico, were discontinued and thus became
available for use elsewhere.  Country code 52 is to be used for calls
to Mexico.

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

Date: Thu, 28 Nov 91 01:12:09 -0500
From: mole-end![e-mail]
Subject: Making Annoying Calls *To* Telemarketers!


> Out of all the suggestions made here in the past few days for
> ways to annoy and harass telemarketers, none of them -- not one! --
> is original.  PAT]

I don't recall anyone asking this, so here goes:

It's illegal to make a telephone call and harass with silence, heavy
breathing, sexual suggestions, etc.

What about ANSWERING an unsolicited call in that way?  If I were to
switch to heavy breathing when I discovered that I had been called by
a stockbroker, or ask about the individual's intimate life, would I be
breaking any laws?  Or, for that matter, if I just cut loose with a
scream, which is what I'm more likely to do?  What if I were to
impersonate an employee of the U.S.  Government: ``Oh, Bogosity
Brokerage!  Hey, did you know we're investigating twenty-four
complaints against you?  You'll hear from us at the SEC sometime next
week.  Or maybe from the Department of Justice.''  What if I asked
what he thought about the disembowelling in the latest slasher movie,
or a sex scene from some sleazy flick?

I know I'd get a bad reputation with SOMEBODY, but with whom?  Would
it matter?


(This man's opinions are his own.)  Mark Terribile
uunet!mole-end, Somewhere in Matawan, NJ


[Moderator's Note: I'd recommend only two things: one being you should
NEVER claim to be employed by the government or 'the telephone
company' if you are not so employed; and two, insure that the caller
is in fact a 'junk-caller' and not a person -- even if his identity is
not immediatly known to you -- who has a legitimate business reason
for calling, i.e. payments on your accounts; a legal matter, etc.  PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 25 Nov 91 23:38:25 CST
From: miroslaw tadeusz sochanski <[e-mail]>
Subject: Long Range Cordless Phones Question
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations


I need to buy for use in Poland a cordless, *not* cellular phone that
has an effective range of about two miles. I was able to find a gray
market store in Chicago that sells phones like that made by MCE or
TAMAGAWA. I am not sure about spelling of that last company name.
Price range was from $250 to $700 for the phone with a range 40km.
Anyone familiar with those phones, brands??  Any advice where and what
to buy??

Thanks,


Mirek

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

Date: Monday, 25 Nov 1991 17:08:20 EST
From: D P <[e-mail]>
Subject: Help Needed With Satellite Dish
Organization: York University


I am trying to figure out how to change the RF modulation from the
output of the dish to transmit on a channel other than 3 or 4.  Also,
I wish to be able to view different channels on each of my TV sets at
home using one dish. Is it possible?

Any help is muchly appreciated ... e-mail if possible.

tx

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

From: [e-mail] (Steve Pozgaj)
Subject: CTG/Vodavi Key Telephone System For Sale
Organization: Digital Media Networks, Toronto, Canada
Date: Thu 28 Nov 1991 15:00 CST


Due to rapid corporate expansion, our current telephone key system is
for sale.  The system is a CTG VC50103/1648 key system, made by
Vodavi.  It has a capacity of 16 phone lines and 48 extensions.  Some
of the salient features include:

    -23 regular sets and 8 sets with display option
    -circuit cards to handle 32 extensions and 16 lines
    -battery backup unit for power outage operation of ~2hrs
    -a single-line interface (DTMF) card
    -full-featured operator's console

The approximate cabinet measurements (hxwxl) and weight are 38cm x
80cm x 30cm (15in x 31in x 12in), 34kg (16 lbs), and the attendant
power supply/backup unit is 28cm x 31cm x 20cm (11in x 12in x 8in),
18kg (8 lbs).

Service contracts are readily available ($800-1,200/yr), but the high
reliability caused us to drop service after the first year.  Since
purchase, we have had absolutely no problems with this system.

Although it has many features, they are very intuitive to learn and
use.  In the three years we've had it, some of the more obviously
useful ones are:

-extremely simple conferencing, allowing any internal/external mix
 of up to 9 parties
-programmable night-line operation, by set
-programmable zoned paging
-speed dialing, both system wide and per set
-full handsfree operation
-line queuing (which we use on low-rate US dial lines, particularly)

We paid $17,000 for the system in October, 1988.  We will entertain
all serious bids.  Of course, we have user manuals and overall system
manuals as well.  Please reply via email to the author.  Phone
inquiries can be made to [phone], or FAXes to [phone].


Steve Pozgaj

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

Date: Thu, 28 Nov 1991 13:19 CDT
From: Arun Baheti <[e-mail]>
Subject: Congress Restricts Autodialers


Congress yesterday acted to ban autodialing sales attacks and auto-
mated messaging for sales.

Excerpts from today's (New York Times) ...

"Riding a wave of popular annoyance over telephone sales calls,
Congress today approved and sent to President Bush a bill that would
ban the use of automated dialing devices that deliver prerecorder
messages to the home.  The measure would also allow consumers to block
calls from human salespepople by placing their names on a "do not
call" list.

  ...the measure would instruct the FCC to either oversee the creation
of a national "do not call" list or issues rules ordering companies to
maintain their own lists.

"Finally, the bill would ban unsolicited "junk fax" messages ...

"During hearings on the issue earlier this year, Sen. Daniel K.
Inouye, Democrat of Hawaii, noted irritably that he had been summoned
to the telephone only to hear a recorded sales message about winning a
trip to Hawaii."


Rep. Edward Markey, Democrat of Massachusetts, was the principle
sponsor.

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

From: Yanek Martinson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Touch Tones on Videotapes?
Date: 28 Nov 91 15:43:25 GMT
Organization: University of Miami Department of Mathematics & Computer Science


When I rent videotapes, in the beginning and end of tape, when I turn
up the volume I can hear somethign that sounds like rapid touch-tone
dialing. What is it?


[e-mail]    [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #975
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa17617;
          28 Nov 91 18:31 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA02027
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 28 Nov 1991 16:55:11 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA30076
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 28 Nov 1991 16:55:01 -0600
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 1991 16:55:01 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #976

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 28 Nov 91 16:54:57 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 976

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    SWB Seeks Coin Call Blocking by Time of Day (William Degnan)
    Bell Canada to Offer Caller-ID "Alternate Number" Option (Nigel Allen)
    Yet Another High Speed Modems Posting (Brendan G. Hoar)
    Answering Machines For Hearing Impaired (was Rolm devises...) (L Weinstein)
    MCI Friends and Family: How Bad Does it Get? (Andrew Klossner)
    Pac Bell Voicemail - This is Progress? (Syd Weinstein)
    Re: USWEST Voicemail Problem (Alan L. Varney)
    Re: USWEST Voicemail Problem (Lazlo Nibble)
    Re: Can You Block Outgoing Calls? (John Higdon)
    Re: Can You Block Outgoing Calls? (Joe Stein)
    Re: Calling Card Wars (Christopher Walton)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (William Degnan)
Date: 28 Nov 91  13:16:03
Subject: SWB Seeks Coin Call Blocking by Time of Day


Southwestern Bell Telephone has file a waiver with the Texas PUC
seeking permission to perform time-of-day (most probably from 2300 to
0500) blocking of originating calls from SWBT owned payphones located
in high crime areas.

At the request of site owners or law enforcement agencies (and subject
to the approval of the waiver) SWB would perform blocking during
specified time periods. Calls to 911 will be permitted. SWB states
that blocking would be a last resort prior to removal of a public
telephone.

This would modify Sub Rule 23.55(g) requiring access to operators and
911 on a 24-hour basis. Also 23.55(i) requiring that access to ICs by
various dialing codes not be blocked.

In its filing, SWB indicates the requested waiver is in response to a
request from its customer, National Convenience Stores, Inc. to
disconnect certain of its phones located in high crime areas.
Apparently they seek to discourage undesirable individuals from
congregating.


William Degnan,  Communications Network Solutions
-Independent Consultants in Telecommunications-
P.O. Drawer 9530       | ARPA: [e-mail]
Austin, TX 78766-9530  | ![e-mail]  | Voice [phone]


[Moderator's Note: So the very people who must use payphones outside
convenience stores in bad neighborhoods get shafted again. Illinois
Bell is trying a variation on this where certain coin phones won't
accept money during overnight hours. Who thinks up these incredible
schemes? What you do about 'undesirable individuals congregating' is
you ask the police to disperse them in a constitutionally acceptable
manner. You don't shut off the telephone service!  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Nigel Allen)
Date: 28 Nov 91 (02:10)
Subject: Bell Canada to Offer Caller-ID "Alternate Number" Option
Organization: Echo Beach, Toronto


Bell Canada says it "intends to file, before the end of the year, a
tariff for the provision of an alternate number option (i.e. where the
calling number is replaced by a fictitious number assigned to the
calling party). The Company will also propose that this option be made
available at a reduced rate to customers who subscribe at a reduced
rate and to customers who subscribe to non-published number service."

This comes from a Bell Canada letter to the Canadian Radio-Television
and Telecommunications Commission dated November 26 about its proposal
to offer Caller-ID to Centrex customers.

If you would like to receive a copy of Bell's application to offer the
"alternate number" option when it is filed, contact:

 Mr. Peter J. Knowlton
 General Counsel, Ottawa-Hull
 Bell Canada
 105 Hotel-de-Ville Street, 6th Floor
 Hull, Quebec
 Canada J8X 4H7
 telephone [phone]
 fax [phone]

You can write to the same address if you would like more information
about any other Bell Canada regulatory initiative.


Canada Remote Systems.  Toronto, Ontario    NorthAmeriNet Host

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

Date: Thu, 28 Nov 1991 15:23:28 -0500 (EST)
From: Brendan Gallagher Hoar <[e-mail]>
Subject: Yet Another High Speed Modems Posting


I'm in the market for a high speed EC/DC 9600 baud modem ...

I've found an Okidata 9600 v.32/v.42bis modem for $269.99 plus
shipping, but the source is the Damark catalog of all places and I
feel odd ordering technology items from them.  Its got the AT command
set (this is good!)  :) Its factory new and has a manufacturer's
warranty.

Is this a good price?  Can I get a similar modem for about the same or
less from other outfits?

And what's this I hear about v.32bis?  Can I get a modem equipped with
that, (whatever it is!) for a comparable price?  I guess I kind of
need info on this.

BTW, I can't afford an HST Dual Standard.  I wish I could though.

Please reply via email as I do not read this group.

Thanks.


Brendan G. Hoar        Until purged: [e-mail]
1641 Mt. Eagle Pl.   Ferrets Unite!: [e-mail]
Alexandria, VA 22302  [phone] (8657/8032 if needed) <space><ctrl-c>

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

Date: Thu, 28 Nov 91 11:36:46 PST
From: [e-mail] (Lauren Weinstein)
Subject: Answering Machines For Hearing Impaired (was "Rolm devises...")


Greetings.  I couldn't help but chuckle over the item where Rolm makes
a big deal about their "new" system to use voicemail for recording TDD
devices (keyboard/display units for the hearing impaired).

Just in case Rolm tries to file a patent on this topic, let me get it
on the record that there is plenty of prior art in this area.  I've
built simple interfaces for ordinary answering machines for hearing
impaired friends with TDDs -- and they work just fine.  Since TDDs
operate at quite low speeds using simple modulation techniques, most
modern answering machines are quite capable of recording their tones
accurately.

All that is needed is a simple audio interface (even acoustic coupling
will work in many cases).  You can even put a TDD outgoing message on
the machine (usually after a voice message if the line is also used
for voice calls) if you wish.

Whether or not a standard voicemail system will work for this depends
largely on the quality of the digitized messages, but in practice most
should work just fine.  You should be able to just place the handset
into the TDD and recover messages directly in most cases.


 --Lauren--

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

From: [e-mail] (Andrew Klossner)
Subject: MCI Friends and Family: How Bad Does it Get?
Date: 27 Nov 91 20:41:45 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Tektronix, Wilsonville, Oregon


Aw heck.  My mother, without asking me first, gave my unlisted home
phone number to MCI as part of a Friends and Family solicitation, and
I got my first dinner-time junk phone call since I went unlisted.  The
solicitor was unusually rude.

Is MCI now going to distribute my number on marketing lists?  What do
I have to look forward to -- is it time to get a new unlisted number
(and not give it to my mother)?


Andrew Klossner  ([e-mail]) (uunet!tektronix!frip.WV.TEK!andrew)

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

From: [e-mail] (Syd Weinstein)
Subject: Pacbell Voicemail - This is Progress?
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 91 16:30:23 EST
Reply-To: [e-mail]


Ok, I just called someone's home number in PacBell land, and after
several rings, it hit the 'Pacific Bell Voice Messaging System' ...

It said: "Please enter the phone number of the person you are calling,
followed by the pound key"...

Great, an answering machine that makes you type the phone number over
again?  This is progress?

After I entered the phone number, I then got the 'answering machine
message' for the people I called and left a message.

Something's not working right here, it sound like ...


Sydney S. Weinstein, CDP, CCP          Elm Coordinator - Current 2.3PL11
Datacomp Systems, Inc.                 Projected 2.4 Release: Early 1992
[e-mail] or dsinc!syd      Voice: [phone], FAX: [phone]

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

Date: Wed, 27 Nov 91 08:48:40 CST
From: [e-mail] (Alan L Varney)
Subject: Re: USWEST Voicemail Problem
Organization: AT&T Network Systems


In article <[e-mail]> bitsko![e-mail]
writes:

> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (C.A.)
> writes:

>>> It seems that whenever someone pauses the next couple of words
>>> are lost.

>> Every voicemail system I've come across has some algorithm for editing
>> out silences over a certain duration.

>  To anyone building a better mousetrap, how about using a 1/4 second
> buffer so that by the time you've figured out that something is going
> on the important stuff is still there.

   If PAT will permit a borderline commercial message ...

AT&T offers the AUDIX system (I can't find a Trademark on my Quick
Guide!)  off of both PBXs and COs -- lots of features, etc., but most
importantly, the recording quality is very good, with any DETECTABLE
cut-off of words.  I don't know if it has the additional capabilities
a LEC might need to convert it to a PUBLIC Voice Mail System, but it
is excellent as a PRIVATE one.

   I ran a few brief tests from my office ISDN set (background noise
is just the early-morning low-level office noise -- I shielded the
microphone as much as possible).  Speaking quietly and quickly, I
spoke single numbers spaced at 8 - 12 seconds apart.  The "eight"
seemed to be the worst quality, but obviously an "eight" if I was
expecting a number.

   By using a couple of other capabilities, even the 8 was
unambiguous.  Using the "4" button a couple of times raised the volume
to the point where the "breathlessness" of the 8 sound was not a
problem.  Then I used the "8" button a couple of times to digitally
"slow down" the playback -- I think it just changes the D/A conversion
timebase.  With these two controls, the 8 sound was not a problem to
understand.  Again, there was no DETECTABLE cut-off of these sounds.

   Since this isn't an ad, I won't put down any contact numbers.  But
I am a very satisfied AUDIX user, who reluctantly gave up a private
answering machine two years ago.  AUDIX is much better, although it is
not as convenient as a private secretary.


Al Varney, AT&T Network Systems, Lisle, IL

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

From: [e-mail] (Lazlo Nibble)
Subject: Re: USWest Voice Mail Problems
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 91 22:00:52 GMT
Organization: Gizmonic Institute -- Cleaning-Up-After-Frank Division


asuvax!anasaz![e-mail] (Bob Maccione) writes:

[About his voice mailbox clipping words from incoming messages.]

Just so nobody thinks that this is a problem with *all* USWest voice
messaging, I'm subscribed to the service in Albuquerque, NM (884
exchange) and don't have this problem.  About one out of every dozen
messages I get has compressed "silence" in it and I've never noticed
any clipping.  I agree with the other folks who say that your CO's
voicemail system is just poorly tuned or poorly designed.

I used to have a "real" answering machine, but they don't do much good
when you spend as much time on the modem as I do; I like the service
because it shunts calls off to the voicemail system instead of giving
a busy signal.  It's definitely cheaper than the alternative -- paying
for another line to go to my apartment.


Lazlo ([e-mail])

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

Date: Tue, 26 Nov 91 22:18 PST
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Can You Block Outgoing Calls?


On Nov 26 at 21:29, TELECOM Moderator writes:

> [Moderator's Note: Re 'good old fashioned punishment' ... obviously
> this is the best solution. He should slap the fire out of those kids
> every time they even look at the phone. That'll teach them!  :)  PAT]

My parents used a slightly different approach. I was educated early on
that phone calls cost money. At the tender age of four I had been
instructed on the use of the phone. When my "learn by doing kicked in"
and I passed the time calling all the numbers in my mother's address
book, the foot came down.

This was fine until I was about twelve years of age, when a new
problem surfaced: my insatiable desire to connect gadgets and goodies
to the telephone line. My parents' solution was, shall we say,
unusual. I was forbidden to touch the family telephone, its lines,
instruments, or any thing associated with it. I was, however, given
the opportunity to order my own service. This I did. My parents
cosigned, but I was 100% responsible for paying the bill.

I could then use the phone all I liked, but with the knowledge that
the bill would show up with my name on it. I could attach any and all
devices to the line, but if there was any trouble with "the phone
company", the family telephone would be saved from disconnection. This
"special status" (not being able to use the family telephone) did not
apply to my siblings; only to me. But then, they were much more
conventional in their relationship with the telephone.  And an
advantage was that when it became time for me to get my own service at
my own address, I had ABSOLUTELY no problem getting Pacific Telephone
to give me all the service I wanted without any deposit.

I am of the firm opinion that giving someone the responsibilty for
something is the best incentive for growth. If kids make expensive
calls, let them pay. Sure, my parents were legally responsible for my
phone line, but it was never looked at that way. They made sure that
*I* was responsible. Until I had a checking account, I even had to
take the bill and the cash to the Pacific Telephone payment office.

So rather than putting blocking devices on the phone, make the phone
freely available. Get another phone and make it available. And then
show them what a bill is. The sooner people understand how life works,
the better.


        John Higdon         |   P. O. Box 7648   |   [phone]
    [e-mail]      | San Jose, CA 95150 |       M o o !

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

From: [e-mail] (Joe Stein)
Subject: Re: Can You Block Outgoing Calls?
Organization: TECHbooks of Beaverton Oregon - Public Access Unix
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 1991 06:18:06 GMT


> [Moderator's Note: In my original response posting, I think I
> overlooked the fact that he is dealing with residential rather than
> business service. In fact, all the applications I've ever seen or
> heard about where esoteric forms of restrictions were on the line were
> invariably in business situations. Thanks for the correction.  PAT]

When I originally had my telephone line installed, I had "Total Toll
Restriction".  This cost me $3.50 per month (I live in Beaverton
Oregon and have General Telephone Enemies Northwest for carriers).  It
blocked all 1+ and 0+ calls.  They also offered several other "Toll
Restriction" blocks for the same $3.50 per month.


Joseph W. Stein - Just another Beavertonian strutting his stuff.
[phone]   [e-mail] -or- [e-mail]
My opinion is that I have no opinion but my own ... So there!

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

From: [e-mail] (Christopher Walton)
Subject: Re: Calling Card Wars
Date: 27 Nov 91 19:04:25 GMT
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Simona
Nass) writes:

> At least here in New York it is. I just got a notice from NYTel that
> AT&T would no longer be able to use customers' home phone number as
> part of their calling card. NYTel offered to allow customers ("How
> many plastic cards would you like?") to keep the same number (home
> phone) and PIN from their AT&T card, but with it under NYTel's
> jurisdiction.

Yes, this is quite funny.  I recently got a card, that I did NOT ask
for from the local GTE folks, and it just so happened that the number
on it was the EXACT same number as my AT&T card.  I gave no one
permission to solicit my AT&T information to GTE, and I did not order
any GTE card.  One can see a risk in this, since someone could have
stolen it from my mail, and I would not even have known it, since I
was not expecting it, and in using it, it would have most likely been
billed to AT&T.

My question is, is this common practice?  I never have liked GTE, for
the cheap service they offer.  (Cheap not meaning not-expensive!)  For
a further example of garbage for service, when you order call waiting
as a "custom calling feature" you also have to order cancel call
waiting if you want to be able to turn it off.  You are being charged
TWICE, for something I think goes hand in hand.


[e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #976
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa18830;
          28 Nov 91 19:28 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA13322
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 28 Nov 1991 17:53:29 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA03802
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 28 Nov 1991 17:53:19 -0600
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 1991 17:53:19 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #977

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 28 Nov 91 17:53:16 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 977

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Legitimate Reasons For Ringing My Phone (Anthony E. Siegman)
    Re: Legitimate Reasons For Ringing My Phone (Tom Olin)
    Re: Telemarketers and My Neighborhood; News From Congress (Ron Greenberg)
    Re: Telemarketer Gall (Mikel Manitius)
    Re: 'Easy' Numbers, Teleslime, Wrong Numbers, etc. (Guy R. Berentsen)
    Re: 'Easy' Numbers, Teleslime, Wrong Numbers, etc. (Ed Hopper)
    Re: Intercept Recordings: Comments and Questions (Dennis G. Rears)
    Re: Intercept Recordings: Comments and Questions (Andy Sherman)
    Re: Pending "Modem Tax" in Portland, OR (Peter Marshall)
    Re: US West Customers Can Start Service Themselves (Peter Marshall)
    Re: Sprint "QuickConference" Three-Way Call (Dave Levenson)
    Multiway Calling (Mikel Manitius)
    Re: Michigan Bell Pulls a Fast One (Tim Gorman)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 27 Nov 91 09:13:08 PST
From: Anthony E. Siegman <[e-mail]>
From: [e-mail] (Anthony E. Siegman)
Subject: Re: Legitimate Reasons For Ringing My Phone
Organization: Stanford University
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 91 17:13:06 GMT


>> As a side note: Here in Germany any unsolicited calls on phone, fax
>> or telex are considered unfair trade practice and illegal, unless the
>> caller and called party already have some business relations.

> Do you really want to have your own life as restricted as German
> citizens seem to accept?

   Yes, in this particular instance I very much DO; and I hope the
majority of my fellow citizens will agree with me, and democratically
impose suitable (and fairly stringent) restrictions on telemarketing.

   Junk mail is fine -- serves a socially useful purpose AND doesn't
do me personal damage.  Junk phone also serves a socially useful
purpose -- I assume; otherwise it wouldn't continue -- BUT it does me
significant damage also, AND the socially useful purposes could be

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

Date: Wed, 27 Nov 91 11:27:48 EST
From: adiron![e-mail] (Tom Olin)
Subject: Re: Legitimate Reasons For Ringing My Phone


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
implies that German laws regulating telemarketers should be discounted
because Germany has many laws that most Americans would consider
restrictive.  He concludes by asking:

Do you really want to have your own life as restricted as German
citizens seem to accept?

Mr. Greenberg, I presume Germany has laws against murder, too.  Would
you argue that we should oppose similar laws here in the US?

Argue the merits of any particular law, if you want to, but don't
assign guilt by association, be it of laws or of people.


Tom Olin    [e-mail]    uunet!adiron!tro    [phone] Ext 638
PAR Technology Corporation * 220 Seneca Turnpike * New Hartford NY 13413-1191

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

Date: Wed, 27 Nov 91 16:05:18 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Ronald Greenberg)
Subject: Re: Telemarketers and My Neighborhood; News From Congress
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park, College of Engineering


>> [Moderator's Note: You are confusing telemarketers with survey takers.
>> There is a difference. Don't paint them with the same brush. Survey
>> takers have a hard time convincing people they are NOT (really, not!)
>> selling anything. And many of them do provide a valuable service.  PAT]

> PAT has a point. I worked for a subcontractor to Gallop when I was in
> college. I remember going house-to-house, many times in the toughest
> areas (either due to 'local conditions' or remoteness) to get the
> opinions of the residents. Though we were occassionally commissioned
> to do market research, I was usually assigned to political surveys and
> I can assure you the questions were not slanted in the slightest -- at
> least on the surveys I was assigned to.

> Point: these surveys gave people a chance to have their opinions heard
> and due to statistical sampling, actually amplified. And as PAT said,
> my biggest problem was convincing the folks I wouldn't sell them
> anything. I just wanted to hear what they had to say.

Well, *sometimes* the survey takers can be doing something useful, but
often they are as much of a nuisance as telemarketers.  If they are
doing market research, it is usually benefits their company much more
than me.  What is really annoying is when you get suckered into saying
ok, you'll do the survey and then it's long and the person doing the
survey is incompetent.  I once got somebody who couldn't read all the
words in her script and who read me things that were instructions to
her instead of just the questions she was supposed to ask me.

> From the Nightline program a couple weeks ago, it sounded like
Congress was supposed to act soon on a few bills relating to
telemarketing.  I didn't have time to call congressmen to find out
what was going on, and I haven't heard what happened.  Does anybody
have any news?  Hopefully, after Congress goes back in session, I'll
have a chance to make some phone calls.


Ronald I. Greenberg    (Ron)  [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 27 Nov 91 11:31:52 EST
From: [e-mail] (Mikel Manitius)
Subject: Re: Telemarketer Gall
Organization: American Automobile Association, Heathrow, FL


Ha! The best part is when they don't even know you're already their
customer!

I received a call from the "Orlando Slantinel" that went like this:

TM: Hello? Mr. Man?@#%??s?

ME: (great, a telemarketer) sigh, yes?

TM: This is (jane) from the Orlando Sentinel, we would like to know if you
    are currently subscribing to the Sentinel.

ME: What? You mean you don't know?

TM: Well, uh, no.

ME: You mean I've been paying for a subscription for over two years, and you
    don't even know I'm a customer of yours?

TM: Well ... no.

ME: I think I'm going to cancel my subscription! ... <click!>


Mikel Manitius   [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 27 Nov 91 17:35:30 EST
From: [e-mail] (Guy R Berentsen)
Subject: Re: 'Easy' Numbers, Teleslime, Wrong Numbers, etc.
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


> Now obviously, anyone with 1-800-EAT-S*** or
                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
At one time dialing this number connected to a recording soliciting
calls for 1-900-EAT-S*** .

(I had dialed the 800 number on the assumption that it couldn't
possibly be in service, and a friend had just handed me that bumper
sticker line, "If you don't like my driving dial ...." )

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

Subject: Re: 'Easy' Numbers, Teleslime, Wrong Numbers, etc.
From: [e-mail] (ED HOPPER)
Date: 28 Nov 91 10:01:26 GMT
Organization: Ed Hopper's BBS - Houston, TX - 713-997-7575


In article, [e-mail] (Ron Dippold) writes:

> Now obviously, anyone with 1-800-EAT-S*** or 1-800-F***-YOU would
> figure out quickly what was going on (those are always the first
> numbers they tried), and I doubt that the phone company would give out
> a number with 7448 or 3825.

Ah ... not so.  Some years ago, while working for the late Mountain
Bell, I received a phone call from a local radio station.  They wanted
a new "info" number.  It would go to answering machine with concert
information, etc.  Did they want a number like XXX-[call letters]?, I
asked.  No, a regular old number would be fine.  Now since I was in
marketing and not the business office, I did not have a list of phone
numbers from which to assign new connects.  So, I called Dial
Assignment and asked for a number. They gave me XXX-3825. I called the
station and told them the number. They called back a few minutes later
and said "We can't take that number, do you know what it spells?"  I
stared at the phone touch pad for a moment and figured it out.
"Ohmigod, I understand. I'll change it" was my reply.

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

Date: Wed, 27 Nov 91 08:43:37 EST
From: [e-mail] (Dennis G. Rears)
Subject: Re: Intercept Recordings: Comments and Questions


[e-mail] writes:

> It pains me to see a proposal to defraud my employer (and reduce *my*
> compensation, a piece of which depends on profits) coming from a
> military site.

  I did not contribute to this subject at all and agree with your
viewpoint.  I do object to the phrase "coming from a military site."
It is common knowledge that the default is posters do not represent
the views of their employers.  Why should folks posting from a .mil or
.gov site be treated any differently?  I have accounts on and can post
from a military, educational, or commercial site.  Do I have to limit
my posting because of the site I post from?

> I can only imagine what your employer would say if my
> colleagues and I started publically speculating on ways to cheat on
> one taxes.

  I really don't think they give a damn, unless some form of the media
were to sensationalize it.  Personally, with the way Congress and the
President have mismanaged the federal government's fiscal resources, I
don't think there is morally anything wrong with cheating on one's
taxes.  Disclaimer: I can't cheat on my taxes as I have never itemized.


Dennis

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

From: [e-mail] (Andy Sherman)
Subject: Re: Intercept Recordings: Comments and Questions
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 91 11:36:51 EST


In a discussion of whether intercept tones on answering machines
could defeat answer supervision, I wrote:

>> It pains me to see a proposal to defraud my employer (and reduce *my*
>> compensation, a piece of which depends on profits) coming from a
>> military site.

To which Dennis G. Rears <[e-mail]> (a/k/a TelecomPriv
Moderator) replied in part:

> I did not contribute to this subject at all and agree with your
> viewpoint.   I do object to the phrase "coming from a military site."
> It is common knowledge that the default is posters do not represent the
> views of their employers.  Why should folks posting from a .mil or .gov
> site be treated any differently?  I have accounts on and can post from
> a military, educational, or commercial site.  Do I have to limit my
> posting because of the site I post from?

Mea Culpa.  You are correct.  In my defense I will say that, not being
a civil servant basher, that I would hope that people who work for the
government have high standards of probity.  Alas, as in the private
sector, it takes all kinds and you find all kinds represented.
Incidentally, the original poster claims to have been misunderstood.


Andy Sherman/AT&T Bell Laboratories/Murray Hill, NJ
AUDIBLE:  [phone]
READABLE: [e-mail]  or att!ulysses!andys
What? Me speak for AT&T?  You must be joking!

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

Date: Tue, 26 Nov 91 11:11:53 PDT
From: [e-mail] (peter marshall)
Subject: Re: Pending "Modem Tax" in Portland, OR


Tad Cook's 10/20 reply post on this topic in issue 850 is correct in
pointing out some inaccuracies about this situation in an earlier post
by Andrew Klossner; however, Tad's reply is no shining example of
accuracy itself.  Given US West statements that BBSs are businesses,
period, and thus subject to business rate classification, notwith-
standing the absence of OR tariff language that can reasonably be so
construed; this is not, as Mr. Cook tries to suggest, "one particular
incident in Portland."

In fact, the sysop PUC complaint in question here asks the PUC to
clarify the applicability of residential rates re: OR telcos for all
BBSs located in residences that do not charge users.

Notwithstanding the possibility that this sysop is, as Tad suggests,
"spreading a lot of misinformation," that is not all that counts here,
even as Mr. Cook seems to indulge in some "misinformation" himself.
One example of same might be Mr. Cook's less than relevant attempt to
haul out that tired old chestnut as to residential service priced
below cost and "subsidized" by the higher business rates.


Peter Marshall ([e-mail])
"Lightfinger" Rayek's Friendly Casino: 206/528-0948, Seattle, Washington.

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

Date: Tue, 26 Nov 91 10:57:14 PDT
From: [e-mail] (peter marshall)
Subject: Re: US West Customers Can Start Service Themselves


Re: a 10/24 query on this topic in issue 848; Randy's information
seems correct.  Automated service ordering is being tested, if not now
actually in place, in Bellingham, WA, via US West's so-called
"Bellingham Project," headed by an Executive Director of "Technology
Assessment."  So much for customer service representatives, it would
seem. Of course, this is apparently not all this project is up to.


Peter Marshall ([e-mail])
"Lightfinger" Rayek's Friendly Casino: 206/528-0948, Seattle, Washington.

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

From: [e-mail] (Dave Levenson)
Subject: Re: Sprint "QuickConference" Three-Way Call
Date: 27 Nov 91 13:04:15 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Linc Madison) writes:

> My parents (in Texas), my brother (in New York), and I (in
> California) have been trying to coordinate holiday travel plans.
> Rather than make a near-infinite chain of calls between us, I decided
> to set up a three-way.

> ... Sprint now offers "QuickConference" (sm) ...

> This is one (all too rare!) example of an OCC offering a useful
> service that AT&T doesn't.  (AT&T charges person-to-person rates for
> three-way calls, resulting in over four times the surcharge.)

> [Moderator's Note: But if your phone has three-way calling...

Your phone almost certainly doesn't have three-way calling, unless you
pay for it -- every month.

The nice thing about Sprint QuickConference is that you don't have to
pay every month for three-way calling if you only use it now and then.
A pay-per-call rate for a seldom-used feature would seem like an
excellent idea.  Way-to-go, Sprint!

(Just watch out, on normal two-party calls via Sprint, for end-to-end
DTMF signals.  It sounds as though a long * on the conversation could
be interpreted by their switching systems as a flash request.)


Dave Levenson      Internet: [e-mail]
Westmark, Inc.      UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave
Warren, NJ, USA      Voice: 908 647 0900 Fax: [phone]

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

Date: Mon, 25 Nov 91 18:23:36 EST
From: [e-mail] (Mikel Manitius)
Subject: Multiway Calling


In response to recent postings regarding three way calling:

A little known service is AT&T's Alliance Teleconferencing.

The number is 0 + 700 456-1000.

It's all touch-tone so you don't have to talk to anyone, and you can
get up to 20 or so people together without having to schedule a
conference call and wait.

I don't know the exact rates, but I've used it on a few occasions and
found that it wasn't much more expensive than the sum of the calls.


Mikel Manitius    [e-mail]

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

Date: 27 Nov 91 12:26:12 EST
From: tim gorman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Michigan Bell Pulls a Fast One


[e-mail] (Fred R. Goldstein) writes in TELECOM
Digest V11 #971:

> While it's true that some tiny teeny amount of the telco's cost is
> related to local USAGE, it probably costs them more to measure it than
> the usage itself costs.

> The cost of hauling a LOCAL call usually ranges from about a penny a
> minute (in the highest-cost places) down to a small fraction of a mil
> per minute.  So the proposed rates are literally ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE
> higher than the costs!

Exactly the same equipment, facilities, etc. are used on toll calls,
both intraLATA and interLATA. Technically, there is no difference
between the costs for an interLATA carrier and an LEC to provide their
network switches.  Facility milage, of course, has a much wider range
but many interLATA toll calls are no longer than intraLATA toll calls.

Would you thus apply the same logic to toll calls? Is it a ripoff that
they are priced based on usage?


Tim Gorman - SWBT
* opinions are my own, any resemblence to official policy is coincidence*

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #977
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa21050;
          28 Nov 91 21:19 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA21043
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 28 Nov 1991 19:44:21 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA14707
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 28 Nov 1991 19:44:12 -0600
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 1991 19:44:12 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #978

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 28 Nov 91 19:44:10 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 978

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: CPSR FOIAs U.S. Secret Service (Gregory G. Woodbury)
    Re: CPSR FOIAs U.S. Secret Service (Randal L. Schwartz)
    Re: Why Covert Surveillance is Wrong (Eric Florack)
    Re: Copyrights on Phone Books (Nigel Allen)
    Re: Copyrights on Phone Books (Charles McGuinness)
    Re: The March of Progress (Chris Arndt)
    Re: The March of Progress (Jack Decker)
    Re: Dial Tone After Hangup (Dave Levenson)
    Re: Cost of Area Code Split (Stan Krieger)
    Re: Why Can't I Hang Up On Them (David G. Lewis)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: wolves![e-mail] (Gregory G. Woodbury)
Subject: Re: CPSR FOIAs U.S. Secret Service
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 91 20:19:40 EST
Organization: Wolves Den UNIX


In article <[e-mail]> is written:

>> Another possibility is that this may have been a bulletin board set
>> up by the Secret Service for a sting operation.  Such a bulletin board
>> was established for an undercover investigation involving pedophiles.

> I think that's an admirable goal ... investigating pedophiles.

Just wait until they accuse you of running a pedophile organization
with the Digest simply being a "front" to cover up the addresses and
databases you have to keep track of your "stable" of little kids that
you share with some of the folk via the "digest" mails.

It is true enough that Usenet news is a "public forum" and there is no
reasonable expectation of privacy to anyone who thinks about how news
works.  Unfortunately, we all know how little the "average" person
knows about how anything is delivered to their consumption.

The first paragraph is *intended* to be somewhat humorous, but unfort-
unatly it could end up being real!


Gregory G. Woodbury @ The Wolves Den UNIX, Durham NC
UUCP: ...dukcds!wolves!ggw   ...duke!wolves!ggw           [use the maps!]
Domain: [e-mail]     [e-mail]
<standard disclaimers apply>


[Moderator's Note: Well ... (pained look on face) ... somehow I don't
think your scenario is realistic. I guess we could paraphrase Martin
Neimoeller here: first they came for the Usenet people, and I didn't
complain because a lot of them were nuts anyway ... :) then they came
for the sysadmins, and since I don't have root privileges anywhere, I
wasn't too concerned. And then .... and then you would probably add,
they came for the Moderators ... maybe you're right. I guess that
would be a real test of my intellectual honesty, eh?   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Randal L. Schwartz)
Subject: Re: CPSR FOIAs U.S. Secret Service
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Randal L. Schwartz)
Organization: Stonehenge; netaccess via Intel, Beaverton, Oregon, USA
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1991 18:23:12 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, telecom (TELECOM Moderator)
writes:

> Since the Internet is a government-owned and managed resource in
> cooperation with numerous publicly funded institutions and others, it
> is fair game for anyone who wishes to 'monitor' its traffic, provided
> that traffic is intended for public consumption and display, as are
> the various e-journals and newsgroups.

Please stop equating "the Internet" with "the NSFNET backbone".  There
are other major players in the US, not to mention the international
Internet.

My packets out of this machine travel along the Alternet, which is a
member of CIX, a consortium of US IP-traffic providers that receive
*no* support from the government bodies.


Randal L. Schwartz, Stonehenge Consulting Services [phone]
on contract to Intel's iWarp project, Beaverton, Oregon, USA, Sol III
[e-mail] ...!any-MX-mailer-like-uunet!iwarp.intel.com!merlyn

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

Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1991 05:59:07 PST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Why Covert Surveillance is Wrong
Reply-To: [e-mail]


> 1) Anything public is fair game for covert surveillance.

Huh? Come again? How can ANYTHING that is already publicly observed be
also covertly observed? Somehow this doesn't compute. Seems to me you
are bending the definition structure when you come up with statements
such as this.

> Further, anybody with even a high school civics knowledge of covert
> surveillance in the US understands the distinction between legitimate
> participation in a public event and participating in that event for
> the purpose of collecting, analyzing, and storing information on
> law-abiding citizens.

Insulting, to say the least. I certainly have such education, and
think the ruling to which you refer was issued from below the belt.
(I'll give you a second to think about that one. Hint: Think Chili)

> The basis of a democratic society rests on the ability of citizens
> to openly discuss competing ideas, challenge political power and
> assemble freely with others.  These fundamental First Amendment rights
> are subverted when, through neglect, the state fails to protect
> them.

How is monitoring someone, stopping their activity in ANY way? Logic
dictates that if it DID stop someone from pursuit of their political
goals, and that if, as you surmise, such monitoring was to catch
people engaging in such activity, that such monitoring would be
counter-productive, from the point of view of the people doing the
monitoring ... they'd NEVER get any information, because nobody would
be able to DO anything.

> We shouldn't have to worry about whether what we say pleases law
> enforcement lest we become entries in some database of undesireables.

I don't flatter myself with the illusion that the government could be
worried about ANYTHING I might say. And, God knows, writing a computer
column, running a couple BBS's which contain 'slam dance' debates, and
being in broadcasting for 15 years before starting at Xerox I've said
enough to get my buns in the cooker by now. You'll notice, however, if
you check out the address line this is not being sent from any jail ...

> Finally, few people disagree with the claim that computer crime is
> wrong. But, because a given behavior is wrong hardly justifies carte
> blanche to investigate that behavior.

I stand on the street corner, and publicly brag that I've killed
several people. The cops would investigate this, no? Why should they
NOT investigate statements of criminal activity or indications
thereof, when such statements are made in a public electronic forum?
Sorry, I don't see the difference between these.

I find it intreresting, as an aside, that those who are so convinced
that the rule of law should prevail, are also so interested in
castrating the agencies entrusted to enforce that law.

Standard disclaimers about my employer's opinions perhaps not matching
my own apply, of course.


[Moderator's Note: The thread is digressing too far from telecom to
continue here, but thanks to everyone who has written.   PAT]

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

Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1991 03:37:32 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Nigel Allen)
Subject: Re: Copyrights on Phone Books
Organization: FidoNet node 1:250/438, Echo Beach, Toronto


Gary L. Russel quotes {The Wall Street Journal}, 11/20/1990

> Amid the plains of Nevada, Iowa, Dun & Bradstreet Corp. workers sit
> copying telephone listings into a computer.  It may not be the world's
> most glamorous work, but it's the foundation of a $200 million
> business that sells lists of consumers to marketing companies.

A list prepared from printed phone books will be out of date by a few
months, and will also be missing apartment numbers, so that many of
the addresses in downtown areas will be incomplete.

Tele-Direct (Publications) Inc., Bell Canada's directory subsidiary,
will happily rent you lists taken directly from the directory
database.  Several BOCs in the U.S., or their directory affiliates,
also rent out their name lists to direct mail companies.

For more details on the types of mailing lists direct marketing
companies can rent, you can look through the monthly directory of
mailing lists (its exact name escapes me) published by Standard Rate &
Data Service.  A local library may have a copy.

Direct mail companies might be particularly interested in people who
have subscribed for telephone service within the past month or two,
because that usually indicates that someone has just moved, and may be
interested in buying new household goods.

I get a lot of direct mail, and I can often identify which mailing
list a particular company is using.  {Telephony} magazine rents out
its mailing list more often than {Telecommunications} magazine, for
example.  And it seems that the only direct mail I receive that I can
trace to Tele-Direct comes from American Express, which tries to
persuade me that I need one of their cards.


Nigel Allen - via FidoNet node 1:250/98
INTERNET: [e-mail]

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

From: Charles McGuinness <jyacc![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Copyrights on Phone Books
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 91 13:40:37 EST


In TELECOM Digest V11 #972, Peng H.Ang comments about the Supreme Court
ruling that phone books cannot be copyrighted:

> Right away, it seems that bibliographies would not be protected.
> Neither would databases that merely reproduce such compilations. Nor
> would databases that reproduce articles be protected.

Perhaps more of the Supreme court opinion would be useful:

"Factual compilations, on the other hand, may possess the requisite
originality.  The compilation author typically chooses which facts to
include, in what order to place them, and how to arrange the collected
data so that they may be used effectively by readers."

"This protection is subject to an important limitation.  The mere fact
that a work is copyrighted does not mean every element of the work may
be protected. ... accordingly, copyright protection may extend only to
those components of a work that are original to the author."

I would guess that bibliographies would be protected, as the author
has had to exert some creativity in choosing what books to include in
the list.  I would guess that databases of articles could not claim
any rights to the articles within.  I would also guess that I am not a
lawyer. ;-)

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

From: [e-mail] (Chris Arndt)
Subject: Re: The March of Progress
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 91 6:51:10 PST


In the 1991 American Radio Relay League Handbook, in a section on
telephone interfacing, it indicates the following (paraphrased):

FCC Rules Part 68 cover Customer Provided Telephone Equipment. One of
the technical parameters is 'billing protection'. Billing protection
is a two second delay after the answering device seizes the line,
before the phone company begins to bill the call. NO SIGNAL greater
than -55 dbm may be sent during that two second period.

If someone has access to part 68, this is in subpart D.

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

Date: Wed, 27 Nov 91 20:23:02 CST
From: Jack Decker <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The March of Progress


In a message dated 19 Nov 91 08:06:00 GMT, [e-mail] (John
Higdon) writes (regarding the past practice of delaying the start of
billing for two to five seconds after the actual start of a call):

> This was a technical limitation in the old mechanical (including
> crossbar) switches. It took up to several seconds for such equipment
> to recognize supervision from the far end and as such would take that
> long to start the billing record. This was not done as a courtesy or
> to provide a "grace period". It was merely a technical limitation.

Not always.  I met my wife when we were both working for General
Telephone of Michigan (in my case it was a brief and very
unsatisfactory term of employment, but that's another story) and she
was a toll operator.  This was in 1975 and they still had the
old-style corded toll boards (long after the surrounding Bell areas
had gone to TSPS) and still used the old style mechanical clocks with
a handle on each side and (supposedly) computer-readable cards to
manually time calls (the OPERATOR had to do the calculations and then
fill in the proper spaces on the card with dark pencil) ... but I
digress.

Point is, they had to knock off a certain amount of time from each
call, which varied depending on whether the call was interstate or
intrastate.  If I recall correctly, the delay was five seconds for
interstate and fifteen seconds for intrastate, so if you placed an
operator-assisted call within the state that lasted for two minutes
and fifteen seconds, the operator would fill in the box(es) on the
card indicating that your call lasted two minutes rather than three
minutes.  This certainly wasn't a "technical limitation" since it was
all done manually!


Jack Decker   [e-mail]    FidoNet 1:154/8

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

From: [e-mail] (Dave Levenson)
Subject: Re: Dial Tone After Hangup
Date: 27 Nov 91 12:57:04 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Monty
Solomon) writes:

> I have recently moved to Framingham, MA and the central office serving
> my new location exhibits behavior which I have never experienced
> before.

> If someone calls me and then hangs up (or gets disconnected) my line
> doesn't immediately get a dial tone.  The line stays quiet for a while

Most modern central office switches do not immediately provide dial
tone to the "sole-surviving-conferee" when the other party disconnects.
Doing that almost guarantees that a dial tone needs to be provided
twice on every call: once at the beginning, before dialing, and once
again at the end, as it is unlikely that both parties will disconnect
at _exactly_ the same time.  This nearly doubles the number of
dialed-digit registers required for the switch.  Most common-control
switches provide silence for 20 - 40 seconds and then dial tone when
the far end has hung up.  I don't recognize the pattern described
here: silence followed by the ROH recording.


Dave Levenson        Internet: [e-mail]
Westmark, Inc.        UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave
Warren, NJ, USA        Voice: 908 647 0900  Fax: [phone]

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

Date: Wed, 27 Nov 91 09:00:49 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Cost of Area Code Split
Organization: Summit NJ


> There's another aspect that I haven't seen mentioned, but it came to
> my attention when Northern New Jersey split its area code recently:
> the cost of printing up NEW business cards, letterheads, etc.  And
> apparently these costs are fairly substantial. [ Think about it -- you
> hardly want to send out correspondence with your old phone number on
> it, even during the optional phase -- so fairly quickly, all of this
> becomes obsolete].

I wonder if the telcos would be so quick to split area codes if they
had to pay the real cost of doing so (and that means buying up unused
stationery and repainting business signs and trucks, etc).

In addition to all the great new gimmicks the telcos have to create
more phone numbers (like "distinctive ringing", where one line can
have up to four numbers), NJ Bell is now going on an advertising blitz
encouraging businesses to order additional voice and FAX lines.  It
took them about 80 years to need two area codes for NJ, and another 27
years to split off 908; how long before the next split? Five years, at
the rate they're encouraging the creation of new phone numbers?


Stan Krieger                     All opinions, advice, or suggestions, even
AT&T UNIX System Laboratories    if related to my employment, are my own.
Summit, NJ   [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (david.g.lewis)
Subject: Re: Why Can't I Hang Up On Them
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1991 14:28:17 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> Our Beloved Moderator writes:

> [Moderator's Note: If you keep going off hook every five or ten
> seconds to see if *they* are gone yet, they won't be. Stay off the
> line for 30-45 seconds so the central office can detect the disconnect
> and tear it down.   PAT]

Actually, it's not to allow the CO to detect the disconnect, it's to
allow the disconnect timer to timeout.  The CO detects the disconnect
when it happens, but it doesn't release until 10 seconds (usually)
after disconnect.

(All together now: "That's not a bug, that's a feature!")


David G Lewis     AT&T Bell Laboratories
[e-mail]  or  !att!houxa!deej      ISDN Evolution Planning

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #978
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa22432;
          28 Nov 91 22:29 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA25998
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 28 Nov 1991 20:54:46 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA16842
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 28 Nov 1991 20:54:32 -0600
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 1991 20:54:32 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #979

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 28 Nov 91 20:54:32 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 979

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Non-PacBell Calls in SF Bay Area LATA? (Ethan Miller)
    Re: Two Cellular Questions (Donald Yett)
    Re: Touch-Tone on Old Switch (Jay Ashworth)
    Re: Government Phone Books (Jim Gottlieb)
    Re: Discount International Calls (Heard on BBC Mediawatch) (Jack Decker)
    Re: Newest FAX Machine? (Mart Molle)
    Re: Shared Area Codes (Norman Soley)
    Re: Capacity Limits of Digit (Tim Gorman)
    Re: Preparing for ISDN ... How? (Jeff Sicherman)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (ethan miller)
Subject: Re: Non-PacBell Calls in SF Bay Area LATA?
Date: 27 Nov 91 03:39:19


[e-mail] (John Higdon) writes:

[Curtis Galloway <[e-mail]> wants to use 10222 (MCI) to make an
intra-LATA call.]

> One thing you might look into is any carrier that
> offers "950" access. To make a call, you dial a number that looks like
> 950-XXXX and when you hear a tone you dial your authorization code and
> the number. Since this call is being handled entirely by the carrier's
> switch, Pac*Bell cannot block your intraLATA call. There are several
> carriers that offer this type of access, two of which are Cable &
> Wireless and ComSystems.

MCI also offers this type of access.  In most cities, the number is
950-1022.  If this is unavailable, you can use 1-800-950-1022.  You
still get hit with high charges for the first minute, though (at least
on MCI).  If your calls lasts for several minutes, you'll make up that
high charge by lower per-minute rates.


ethan miller--cs grad student   [e-mail]
#include <std/disclaimer.h>

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

From: [e-mail] (Donald Yett)
Subject: Re: Two Cellular Questions
Date: 27 Nov 91 04:34:07 GMT
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Marc T. Kaufman) writes:

> [e-mail] (Alan Boritz) writes:

>> In a message <[e-mail]>, Michael Lyman writes:

>>> When the phone is just sitting there, it tends to transmit for about
>>> one or two seconds every hour or so.

>> Doesn't this kind of polling activity present a significant RFR risk
>> for someone using, for example, a Motorola flip-phone?  It's bad
>> enough to have a live transmitting antenna close to one's internal
>> organs when a call comes in (from another customer), but regular
>> transmissions would appear to be an unusually high health risk.

> Please define "unusually high" ... insofar as the effects of a few
> milliwatts of RF near the body once per hour are entirely unknown, but
> likely less than the effect of wearing a several-watt radio and using
> it regularly (as do police, for example).

Long microwaves are the most damaging frequencies, the necessary
wattage for tissue damage is much less in the 800-2400 MHz range than
in most any other ... Police HTs normally operate under 200 MHz.

Low level emissions from microvave ovens (usually around 2400 MHz)
have been linked to psychological problems, birth-defects, and cancer.

You ought to see the information about people who live in proximity to
military bases, where you have usually a large concentration of long-
microwave low-level emissions!

Check a good university for books on the subject (few and far between).
Most of the above info came from newpapers, magazines, etc in bits and
pieces.


[e-mail]    Just my opinions!

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

From: [e-mail] (Jay Ashworth)
Subject: Re: Touch-Tone on Old Switches
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 91 11:27:00 PDT
Organization: Psycho: The Usenet<->Fidonet Gateway of St. Pete Florida


> [Moderator's Note: I suspect I would have outlasted that incident at
> the least when I explained that my intent was only in one thing: to
> stop the theft of telco resources, and that since the subscriber would
> not agree to curtail his theft of resources he would need to be placed
> in an environment (ie on a prefix) where such theft could be
> controlled by the company.   PAT]

At this point, I feel the need to drop in my two cents.  I'm curious,
Pat, why it is that -- being a professional in this field, and,
therefore, aware that tone dialing _saves_ resources and money for the
LEC _at this point in the game_ (regardless of how things were when
the service was introduced) -- you take this outlook.

Granted, given your phrasing of the question: "...theft of
resources ...", things are kind of fuzzy.

1) Is the customer _actually_ stealing resources?

   Nowadays, not really.  The days of tone-call registers existing,
much less being a scarce resource, are, likely, mostly over.  Yeah,
some exchanges still need them.  Many?  I doubt it.

2) Is the customer depriving the LEC of revenue?

   Yup.

3) Should the LEC _be_ expecting (i.e.: billing for) this revenue?

  And here, we get to the heart of the matter.  It has always been my
personal opinion that the charge by LEC's for tone-calling service has
been unconscionable for some time now.  Of course, with the advent of
digital switches, _a lot_ of the things for which LEC's used to be
able to justify charging lots of money no longer justify these
charges.  At least, not by my lights ...

Anybody have any comment (enlightened or otherwise) on this aspect of
the subject?


Cheers,

BABBLE v1.0: I'm not a telecom engineer, but I play one on the nets.
Jay R. Ashworth                             [e-mail]
Ashworth & Associates              Jay_Ashworth@{psycho.fidonet.org,
An Interdisciplinary Consultancy                 f160.n3603.z1.fidonet.org,
  in Advanced Technology                         petexch.relay.net}
Note:psycho is a free gateway between Usenet & Fidonet. For info write root.


[Modertor's Note: Since 'resources' includes money, then it might be
said to deprive telco of money it is by tariff entitled to is theft of
resources. And the tariff is all that counts ... not my personal
opinion or yours. The changing of tariffs is how we redefine what
telco is or is not entitled to. Neither is the effeciency of one
method of passing the number over another method the criteria here. If
speed in dialing (that is, lessening of the amount of time telco must
wait for instructions) is the way we will judge this, then telco
should give speed dialing away for free ... indeed, perhaps offer some
rebate to subscribers who use it. The time required to punch two
digits and the additional millisecond or so required for telco to
access its database, interpret our abbreviation and act on it is
substantially less than that required to punch eleven digits, is it
not? Just because something is mutually convenient to both telco and
subscriber does not mean telco's advantage cancels out subscriber's
advantage.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Jim Gottlieb)
Subject: Re: Government Phone Books
Organization: Info Connections, West Los Angeles
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 1991 09:00:25 GMT


> Survey takers have a hard time convincing people they are NOT
> (really, not!)  selling anything.

And to make matters worse, some telesleaze pretend to be taking a
survey.  The last time I received such a call, it went like this:

Sleaze: "Hello, could you spare a few moments to answer a survey
     concerning water quality in your neighborhood?"

Me:    "Sure, as long as it's really a survey and you're not trying to
     sell me anything."

Sleaze: "Then, never mind <click, ka-chunk>."


Jim Gottlieb
E-Mail: <[e-mail]> or <attmail!denwa!jimmy>
V-Mail: [phone]   Fax: [phone]   Voice: 824-5454

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

Date: Wed, 27 Nov 91 20:19:33 CST
From: Jack Decker <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Discount International Calls (Heard on BBC Mediawatch Program)


In a message dated 21 Nov 91 14:42:14 GMT, [e-mail] (David
E A Wilson) wrote:

> Last night on the BBC World service program Mediawatch there was an
> item on a company which is offering discounts of between 50% & 80% on
> the cost of a call from various countries to the USA. The system works
> as follows.  The subscriber (who pays a couple of hundred dollars a
                               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> month for the service) rings a number (I think in the USA), lets it
  ^^^^^
> ring once and hangs up. About 20 seconds later his phone rings and
> when he picks it up he has an American dial-tone provided by the
> carrier of his choice. This can be used to make multiple calls (using
> the # key [pronounced pound by the person describing the service] to
> terminate a call and get a fresh dial tone).  I have no idea how this
> could be made to work -- ANI would not be available internationally
> would it?

Not likely, BUT at $200 a month they could easily afford to obtain a
unique incoming line for each subscriber, couldn't they?  Actually,
I'd suspect that they might have DID trunks coming into their
equipment, and then key the return call based on the last three or
four digits of the incoming number dialed.  Of course, this would open
them up to the possibility of making return calls when someone dials a
wrong number, but maybe they have their system set to to NOT make the
return call if the line rings MORE than once or twice, which would
definitely minimize the number of return calls.

If I were running such a system, I'd use DID and try to set it up so
that after three rings, it would cut to a very generic and
unimaginative "The number you have reached is not in service"
recording.  If the number was allowed to ring only once or twice, the
call back would be made, otherwise the recording would come on
(without supervising the line, so the caller would not be charged).
This type of scheme would minimize the number of false callbacks.

Disclaimer: I have no idea how LEGAL the above scheme might be.  I
suspect it may be a bit borderline, but on the other hand, it's not
much different (from a tariff standpoint) than getting a number of
individual lines (rather than DID trunks) from the phone company,
listening for one or two rings, and then calling back the subscriber
associated with that number.  You wouldn't be able to deliver the "out
of service" recording with that system, but you wouldn't really need
to anyway, that would just be icing on the cake to discourage wrong
number calls.

I think that the biggest problem that would be encountered by such a
service would be collections.  If a customer in a foreign country ran
up a huge bill and then refused to pay, I suspect it would be pretty
difficult to collect, at least not without considerable expense and
effort.  You'd almost have to make customers put some money in an
account and then only allows call to be made up to the amount
deposited in the account, unless you could arrange billing to a major
credit card (and even credit card billings can be reversed by the
customer, so that's somewhat less secure).

It sounds like an interesting business idea, though, and I'd love to
know how they're actually doing it.


Jack Decker   [e-mail]   FidoNet 1:154/8

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

From: [e-mail] (Mart Molle)
Subject: Re: Newest FAX Machine?
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 1991 10:03:31 -0500


[e-mail] writes:

> And I thought I had seen everything.  From the Hammacher Schlemmer
> Christmas catalog:

>FAX-SENDING ELECTRONIC ADDRESS BOOK [...]
             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

That implies a stored list of names, addresses and >phone numbers<,
right?

> Type in your message onto the unit's liquid crystal, dot-matrix
> display (10 lines x 44 characters) -- then, simply press the "send
> fax" button. [... and it does the work using ...] a built-in acoustic
> coupler (sends message by simply holding the unit up to the mouth-
> piece of almost any Touch-Tone telephone.)  ...
                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

> I'm not sure why it has to be a touch tone phone for it to
> acoustically couple ...

Isn't it obvious?  It's >dialing the phone for you< based on its
stored phone numbers, which it can do by sending tones into the
mouthpiece of a phone with Touch-Tone service, but you can't get a
POTS phone to dial by sending a stream of "click" sounds into the
mouthpiece.

I bet it would work fine on a non Touch-Tone line if you had good
timing: dial the call manually, but just before you dialed the last
digit (or two) push the "send fax" button and hope it finishes dialing
by the time you do ...


Mart L. Molle, University of Toronto

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

From: [e-mail] (Norman Soley)
Subject: Re: Shared Area Codes
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: 28 NOV 91 10:44:47


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Colin
Plumb) writes:

> Actually, some places are keeping 1+ = toll, and I rather like it.
> The recent dialling instructions for the 416/905 split that's underway
> direct one to dial:

> - In-area, local call: nxx-xxxx
> - Other area, local call: 416-nxx-xxxx/905-nxx-xxxx
> - Long distance: 1-416-nxx-xxxx/1-905-nxx-xxxx

> Unfortunately, both 416-nxx-xxxx and 905-nxx-xxxx to our modem line
> produce an intercept.  (And it soulds like a tape player with low
> batteries -- the speed wanders up and down the scale!) I agree with the
> desire for context-free phone numbers ...
> Ideally, 00-1-416-736-0900 from any phone in the world would reach our
> front desk.

To be expected as the 416/905 split is still some time away. There is
one situation that 'breaks' the 1+ = toll rule to reach 800 numbers
you must prefix with a 1 even though it's a toll free call.


Norman Soley, Specialist, Professional Software Services, ITC District
Digital Equipment of Canada                   [e-mail]
Opinions  expressed are  mine and do not necessarily  reflect those of
Digital Equipment Corporation or my cat Marge.

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

Date: 28 Nov 91 11:27:29 EST
From: tim gorman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Capacity Limits of Digital Switch


[e-mail] (John Nagle) writes in TELECOM Digest V11 #974:

> A question arises, are current-generation switches (5ESS, DMS100,
> etc.)  non-blocking?  Does the TDMA bus that is the main switching
> mechanism in a 5ESS actually have one time slot per line?

I can't tell you about the TDMA bus, but I can state, based on some
research done back in 1989 or so, that under heavy load the 5ESS can
block.  It is based more on the processing capacity (e.g. lots of call
originations and disconnects, lots of short holding time calls) of the
peripheral modules than on the switching fabric itself. AT&T may have
increased some of these capacities is the ensuing years, so I can't
give you any specific figures right now.

The DMS100F series of switches, when installed with the junctor-type
of switch interconnections, can also block just like any analog
switch. Their new type of network is configured differently and I
haven't had time to study it. It is supposedly non-blocking. I have
not studied their peripheral modules in any detail but I will bet they
also have maximum call processing limitation.

I have not been in the switch ordering business for quite some time
but the 5ESS line modules used to be configurable with different
number of "time slot sets" (i.e. paths to the network) based on the
concentration ratios needed to handle the traffic. Thus installations
in high-density traffic areas would, of course, be configured
differently. Perhaps someone else on here has current access to the
5ESS documentation and can give you specific references.


Tim Gorman - SWBT
* opinions are my own, any resemblence to official policy is coincidence*

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

Date: Thu, 28 Nov 91 10:36:50 -0800
From: Jeff Sicherman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Preparing for ISDN ... How?
Organization: Cal State Long Beach


> [Moderator's Shameless Advertising: In about three to four weeks,
> Digest reader Fred Goldstein's new book, "ISDN In Perspective", will
> be out of the printers.  It's published by Addison-Wesley, is
> paperback with a price of (I think) $25 or so, and is about 270 pages
> long.  I think some Digest readers will like it.  I'll tell you more
> about it once I've read my copy.   PAT]

Yes, but have you negotiated the TELECOM Digest readers' discount yet? :-)


[Moderator's Note: No, I have not, but that sounds like a neat idea.
Fred, would you be willing to raise this point with the publisher?  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #979
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa23653;
          28 Nov 91 23:30 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA25327
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 28 Nov 1991 21:56:26 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA15816
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 28 Nov 1991 21:56:16 -0600
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 1991 21:56:16 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #980

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 28 Nov 91 21:56:14 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 980

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Belated, But Sincere: Happy Thanksgiving! (TELECOM Moderator)
    Re: Dial Tones on Answering Machine (Lauren Weinstein)
    Re: Dial Tones on Answering Machine (Ole J. Jacobsen)
    Re: Dial Tones on Answering Machine (Michael A. Covington)
    Re: Sprint Voice-Activated Calling Cards (Lauren Weinstein)
    Re: Long Range Cordless Phones Question (Michael A. Covington)
    Re: US West: BBSs are Businesses (Randy Bush)
    Re: What is IMTS? (was Cellular Antennas) (John A. Weeks III)
    Re: Making Annoying Calls *To* Telemarketers! (John Higdon)
    Re: ANI Numbers That I Know of (Stephen Friedl)
    Re: Shared Area Codes (Steven Leikeim)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Belated, But Sincere: Happy Thanksgiving!
Date: Thu 28 Nov 1991 21:45:00 CST


I probably should have mentioned it six or eight issues ago: Best of
wishes to all the TELECOM Digest family on this Thanksgiving Day, 1991.
I hope your holiday (if you get four days off like me this time!) is
safe and pleasant.


Patrick Townson
TELECOM Moderator

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

Date: Thu, 28 Nov 91 11:58:22 PST
From: [e-mail] (Lauren Weinstein)
Subject: Re: Dial Tones on Answering Machine


Greetings.  This is almost certainly caused by calls that rang long
enough to trigger the machine, but then were abandoned by the caller
just before the machine grabbed the line.  The result is that the
machine ends up with dial tone, and continues its sequence until
timeout, CO loop voltage drop (often part of the dial tone timeout
sequence on modern switches), or other call termination trigger.

With older answering machines and older COs (DMS-10s configured
without CPC controls were particularly notorious if used with some
answering machines), this sort of thing could be a real problem.  You
might come home to find a whole message tape filled with fast busy
signals or various other tones.  Luckily, newer equipment is much less
likely to have this sort of problem.


 --Lauren--

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

Date: Thu, 28 Nov 91 14:03:35 PST
From: "Ole J. Jacobsen" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Dial Tones on Answering Machine


My answering machine also often records dial tone, reorder, etc.  I'm
afraid that this is "normal" for a fairly simple-minded machine. This
happens when a caller hangs up (without leaving a message). If the
timing is right, the machine will go off hook, wait for a message, and
then start recording dial tone. In fact, my crufty old PhoneMate
records dialtone even after a message is left, but is smart enough in
that case to recognize the tone, hang up and place the time stamp on
the tape. I'm about ready to ditch it and get an ADAM (All Digital
Answering Machine), complete with out-call notification, CPC and the
works.


Ole J Jacobsen, Editor & Publisher ConneXions--The Interoperability Report
Interop, Inc., 480 San Antonio Road, Suite 100, Mountain View, CA 94040,
Phone: [phone]  FAX: [phone]  Email: [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Michael A. Covington)
Subject: Re: Dial Tones on Answering Machine
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 91 16:39:01 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Christopher Walton) writes:

> I have had a wierd occurence happen lately, several times.  I would
> get home and check my answering machine only to hear a click, and then
> a dial tone.  The dialtone plays for a while until I get the tone that
> happens when you have the phone off the hook for too long.
> (Fast-reorder ???)  Then the phone hangs up and the answering machine
> continues.

> Does anyone have any idea what this may be???  It has happened several
> times.

It's what normally happens here when someone calls the answering
machine and then hangs up.

Maybe the behavior of the switching equipment at your telephone
exchange has changed recently.


Michael A. Covington, Ph.D.  |  [e-mail]   |  N4TMI
Artificial Intelligence Programs | U of Georgia | Athens, GA 30602

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

Date: Thu, 28 Nov 91 11:43:10 PST
From: [e-mail] (Lauren Weinstein)
Subject: Re: Sprint Voice-Activated Calling Cards


Greetings.  Oh dandy, just what we need: voice calling cards that are
using people's social security numbers as the main part of the number!
As if people looking over your shoulder at payphones wasn't bad
enough, now you have to worry about people overhearing you while you
speak your number.

Sprint of course says that won't matter, since "only your voice" will
activate the system (I suppose time will tell how accurate that claim
is ...)  But as usual, there's no addressing of the fact that just
having people able to overhear your SS# is a problem, since that
number can be subject to largescale abuse due to its constant misuse
as an ID or passcode by banks, credit agencies, and other entities.

But Sprint has shown a sorry lack of concern over customer privacy in
the past, so this isn't very surprising.  I'm still arguing with them
regarding their system that allows interrogation of account balances
using nothing but the ten digit phone number -- no passcodes, no
protection, and no way for customers to "opt-out" of the system.  To
be fair, I've spoken to various Sprint personnel who have been very
responsive about discussing this issue, but so far no action (I'll
obviously report back here if this changes).

I only hope that Sprint doesn't plan to insist on use of SS numbers
for their voice calling cards once they pass beyond the experimental
stage ...


 --Lauren--

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

From: [e-mail] (Michael A. Covington)
Subject: Re: Long Range Cordless Phones Question
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 91 22:09:29 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(miroslaw tadeusz sochanski) writes:

> I need to buy for use in Poland a cordless, *not* cellular phone that
> has an effective range of about two miles. I was able to find a gray
> market store in Chicago that sells phones like that made by MCE or
> TAMAGAWA. I am not sure about spelling of that last company name.
> Price range was from $250 to $700 for the phone with a range 40km.
> Anyone familiar with those phones, brands??  Any advice where and what
> to buy??

How are you going to guarantee that nobody within 40 km of you is
using another "telephone" on the same frequency?

Or, indeed, that the frequency isn't used by police, the military,
aircraft, ships, or something else in Poland?

Cordless phones are radio transmitters.  International treaties
require radio transmitters to be licensed.  There are exceptions for
very low power transmitters, but you can be sure that anything with 40
km range will attract the attention of the authorities not only in
Poland, but also in neighboring countries.  You _must_ use something
properly licensed by the government of your country.

Anyhow, for good technical reasons, long-range unlicensed transmitters
are not practical.  There is simply no way to keep the frequency clear
for your own use unless the frequencies are government-assigned.


Michael A. Covington, Ph.D.  |  [e-mail]   |  N4TMI
Artificial Intelligence Programs | U of Georgia | Athens, GA 30602

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

From: [e-mail] (Randy Bush)
Subject: Re: US West: BBSs are Businesses
Organization: Pacific Systems Group, Portland Oregon, US
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1991 18:45:50 GMT


> Randy Bush's oft-repeated boilerplate comments in various forums about
> this situation miss the mark by deliberately ignoring the purported
> policy statements on BBSs re: res.-bus. classification made publically
> by two US West personnel.

And Peter's endless repition of the usual "Telco Attacks BBSs"
paranoia continues to miss the fact that US West said this AFTER
Wagner and Morgel tried their ripoff and failed.

> To make matters worse, Mr. Bush again makes a number of other
> statements with little or nothing to back them up; e.g., his
> again-repeated assertion that this sysop's actions can only make
> things worse for Oregon BBSs.

Seeing that everything was friendly and hunky-dory BEFORE Wagner and
Morgel were caught, and that US West is trying a harder position
afterward, your petty ad homina may be cute but they go against the
facts.

And now, thanks to Wagner's and Morgel's greed, and confrontive
inflation of the situation by sensationalists, US West is now forced
to try to make a strong stand to define business BBSs, etc.  Great.
Thanks folk.

One can only hope that the hearing (forced by Wagner, Morgel, and the
sensationalists) is calm, truthful, and non-confrontational, so we all
don't get screwed by a few sensationalist paranoids.


randy    [e-mail]   ...!uunet!m2xenix!randy

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

From: newave![e-mail] (John A. Weeks III)
Subject: Re: What is IMTS? (was Cellular Antennas)
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1991 11:33:46 -0600
Reply-To: [e-mail] (John A. Weeks III)
Organization: NeWave Communications Ltd, Eden Prairie, MN


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bob
Denny):

> What _is_ IMTS? How does it work (freq's, modulation, multiple access
> method, etc.)?

IMTS is the mobile car telephone service in use before cell phones
were invented.  They used something like 13 radio channels in the VHF
band.  In order to talk and listen at the same time, each channel used
a split channel pair, ie, talk on something like 152.xxx megahertz,
and listen on 157.xxx megahertz.  The big players in this market were
Motorola and GE.  Both used essentially standard mobile two-way police
radio chassis, with the addition of a logic board and a control "head"
that included a telephone handset rather than a mike.

The actual protocols were kind of fun.  The telco end of this used
very large base radio stations located at fairly substantial towers.
I recall that they were something like 250 watts of power max (where
as the mobile units were 25 watts max).  An available telco channel
would transmit all the time and emit a continious tone.  The IMTS user
would hear this as a dial tone.  The IMTS telephone would scan all
channels with this tone listening for its phone number to be dialed.
If it heard the right series of pulses, it would "ring" (or beep the
vehicle horn).

I recall these mobile phones selling for about $1500-$2500 used back
in 1980 -- and in some areas, someone literally had to die before a
mobile phone number would become available.  I bet the bottom dropped
out when cell phone became popular, but IMTS has a much greater range
than cellular, which is an advantage if you venture outside of a metro
area or off of an interstate that is wired for cell phones.


John A. Weeks III   [phone]  [e-mail]
NeWave Communications, Ltd. ...uunet!tcnet!newave!john

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

Date: Thu, 28 Nov 91 15:57 PST
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Making Annoying Calls *To* Telemarketers!


mole-end![e-mail] writes:

> What about ANSWERING an unsolicited call in that way?  If I were to
> switch to heavy breathing when I discovered that I had been called by
> a stockbroker, or ask about the individual's intimate life, would I be
> breaking any laws?

My old 800 number used to receive wrong numbers for both a local boat
tour company and the Hilton Hotel chain. When I was feeling
particularly mean I would answer with either "Thank you for calling
Hilton", or with the name of the boat company. More often than not, I
would score and some unsuspecting person would book a tour or a room,
which of course would be non-existent upon arrival.

Somehow, Hilton found out about this and I got a call on my listed
POTS from someone proporting to be from the hotel chain. He admonished
me to cease and desist on pain of legal action. I told him that I
would be happy to stop when he would do something about his customers
bothering me and running up my 800 bill. I also told him that he had a
lot of nerve telling me what to do with my own telephone number. I
ended up by telling him that future callers would be told that Hilton
was no longer in business and would be given Sheraton's number.

Then I hung up on him. Oddly enough, the calls drastically slowed down
after that. However between the tour company and Hilton, I finally had
the number changed to protect my peace of mind and things have been
quiet ever since.

For those few "obscene" calls on any line, I use another approach
which seems to work quite well. A couple of weeks ago I got a call
from a whisperer who said, "I wanna _____ your _____." To which I
replied, "You wanna _____ my _____? Great! When can we get together?"
I don't think I ever heard anyone hang up the phone as fast as this
caller did!

A couple of years ago, my mother had a similar call. To the whispered,
"I wanna _____ you," she replied, "Sounds like fun. Where shall we
meet?" The caller, no longer whispering, declared, "Lady, you're
sick!", and hung up the phone.


        John Higdon         |   P. O. Box 7648   |   [phone]
    [e-mail]      | San Jose, CA 95150 |       M o o !


[Moderator's Note: It is not clear to me why you felt Hilton was in
some way responsible for the wrong numbers you were getting. Were
*they* distributing your number in advertising, etc?   PAT]

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

Subject: Re: ANI Numbers That I Know of
Date: 27 Nov 91 11:47:29 PST (Wed)
From: [e-mail] (Stephen Friedl)


> In GTE Los Angeles, either 114 or 1223.
> In PACBell San Diego 211-2111.

In Pacific*Bell territory in Orange County (the cities of Santa Ana
and Tustin, at least) the ANI code is 211-2222.


Stephen Friedl  |  Software Consultant  |  Tustin, CA  |  [phone]
3b2-kind-of-guy |  uunet!mtndew!friedl

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

From: [e-mail] (Steven Leikeim)
Subject: Re: Shared Area Codes
Organization: ECE Department, U. of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 91 20:37:57 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ted Hadley)
writes:

> Simple trivia question:

> What cities (towns, etc) in the US and Canada are split by differing
> area codes? By cities, I mean only that, not metropolitan areas. The
> only example I know of is Sunnyvale, CA, which has 415 on the NW edge
> and 408 elsewhere.  Are there any others? And why would the Bell
> Companies do that (i.e., not cut at city boundries)?

One simple trivia answer:

Lloydminister, Alberta (Saskatchewan) has phones in both area code 403
and 306.

In that area it is possible to dial across the provincial border with
only seven digits if the phone you are calling in is your local
calling area. Outside your local calling area it appears that the area
code is required. Dialing into Lloydminister (long distance), it
appears that it may be possible to use either area code but I haven't
tried this out.

Why did they do this? I don't know. I, however, would conjecture that
Lloydminister existed as a city on the border before DDD was widely
available.  As the city is politically divided (provincially) it would
appear the the area codes were allocated based on the provincial
boundaries.


Steven Leikeim   University of Calgary
Department of Electrical Engineering
Internet: [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: For years and years we had 'convenience community
dialing' throughout the USA in cities which sat on state borders. To
accomodate this in the early days of DDD, the Bell System never would
assign the same prefixes in two contiguous area codes. Of course, that
is a luxury we can no longer afford. Until about 1975, we in northern
Illinois had no exchanges overlapping those in the northwest corner of
Indiana. Nor did we have 396 since that served North Antioch, WI
(414-396), a local call to Antioch, IL (312-395).  Oddly, when we got
312-396 in Blue Island, IL, the people in Antioch dialing 396 still
got North Antioch, WI. They dialed 1+ for anything else in 312
(including 1+396) outside their town! Likewise, northwestern Indiana
dialed Chicago with seven digits, and dialed *the very same prefixes*
located in South Bend and Michigan City, IN (also 219) with 1+7D.  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #980
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa24848;
          29 Nov 91 0:25 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA12405
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 28 Nov 1991 22:47:06 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA07584
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 28 Nov 1991 22:46:56 -0600
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 1991 22:46:56 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #981

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 28 Nov 91 22:46:56 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 981

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Pacific Telesis' Radio Ad Attacks Congressman (Donald Yett)
    Re: How Does The Law Handle Crank Calls? (Jack Decker)
    Re: Hacker Convicted (John Higdon)
    Re: Touchtones on Video Tapes? (Michael J. Graven)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Donald Yett)
Subject: Re: Pacific Telesis' Radio Ad Attacks Congressman
Date: 26 Nov 91 02:31:13 GMT
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Dan'l DanehyOakes) writes:

> John Higdon quoted the Pacific Telesis spot, which ended:

>> This advertisement is brought to you by the people of Pacific Telesis
>> and is not paid for by telephone customers.

> What this means, of course, is that it's being paid for by the
> salaries of the people they're laying off.

I was in the Dallas/FtWorth area recently, and SW Bell is running an
identical radio ad (where they are bashing Rep. Bryant from Dallas)
with an identical disclaimer at the end ...

The commercial was a load of crap, they want people to believe that
they are the only ones capable of providing online information
services!!!!

I am currently transcribing the bill the ads refer to (H.R.3515, The
Telecommunications Act of 1991) to set the record straight as to what
the bill says and to ask people to contact their congressman and
senators with support for the passage of this bill.

Here are the first few pages ... I'll post the rest IN IT'S ENTIREITY
later this week when I finish transcribing it ... it will also be
available from eff.org for FTP transfer.

                             -----

The following quote is from the SW Bell brochure on the subject:

        "IT SOUNDS EXCITING

The exciting news is that we already have the technology to put these
services to work for us through the seven regional holding companies
 -- Ameritech, Bell Atlantic, BellSouth, NYNEX, Pacific Telesis Group,
Southwestern Bell Corporation, and U.S. West.  Some larger businesses
in urban areas already use a variety of information services.  But,
they are not an option for most small businesses and the general
public.

That's because making the services available to everyone depends on
the regional holding companies ..."

                            ------

Information services depend on cables and switching facilities owned
and operated by the RBOCs.  Having them in the industry is a massive
conflict of interest.

   They want their monopoly back!

H.R. 3515               102nd Congress, 1st Session           [Page 01 of 35]

                                  H.R. 3515

To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to encourage competition in
the provision of electronic information services, to foster the
continued diversity of information sources and services, to preserve
the universal availability of basic telecommunications services, and
for other purposes.

                       IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                               October 8, 1991

Mr. Cooper (for himself, Mr. Bliley, Mr. Synar, Mr. Schaefer, and Mr.
Bryant) introduced the following bill, which was referred jointly to
the Committees on Energy and Commerce and the Judiciary.

                                    A BILL

To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to encourage competition in
the provision of electronic information services, to foster the
continued diversity of information sources and services, to preserve
the universal availability of basic telecommunications services, and
for other purposes.


    1        Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
    2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

    3 SECTION 1.  SHORT TITLE
    4        This Act may be cited as the "Telecommunications
    5 Act of 1991".

H.R. 3515               102nd Congress, 1st Session           [Page 02 of 35]

    1 SECTION 2.  FINDINGS AND PURPOSES

    2 (a) Findings--The Congress finds that--

    3        (1) the national welfare will be enhanced by the
    4 continued development of robust competition in the
    5 provision of electronic information services and tele-
    6 communications services;

    7        (2) the widest possible availability of informa-
    8 tion and telecommunications services requires an
    9 open telecommunications infrastructure that incor-
   10 porates market-driven advances in technology and
   11 whose features and functions are available on a non-
   12 discriminatory and unbundled basis;

   13        (3) the availability of multiple and inter-
   14 connected complementary telecommunications net-
   15 works can enhance competition in the provision of
   16 information and telecommunications services;

   17        (4) the redundancy inherent in a pluralistic
   18 telecommunications infrastructure offers protection
   19 against network failures;

   20        (5) the cost-effective deployment of advanced
   21 public telecommunicatins networks, subject to ap-
   22 propriate safeguards, can further the long-standing
   23 goals of universal telephone service at affordable
   24 rates;

   25        (6) the provision of information services by di-
   26 vested operating companies prior to the development of

H.R. 3515               102nd Congress, 1st Session           [Page 03 of 35]

    1 an effectively competitive telecommunications infra-
    2 structure would likely lead to higher rates for tele-
    3 phone exchange service and jepordize the diversity
    4 of information sources and services; and

    5        (7) current regulatory policies must be revised
    6 and supplemented to ensure the universal availability
    7 of telephone exchange service at reasonable rates
    8 and fair competition in delivery of telecommunicati-
    9 cations and information services.

   10 (b) PURPOSES--The purposes of this Act are to--

   11        (1) ensure the continued availability of afford-
   12 able telecommunications and information services
   13 that are essential to full participation in the nation's
   14 economic, political, and social life;

   15        (2) encourage the continued development of ad-
   16 vanced, reliable telecommunications networks;

   17        (3) ensure that the costs of such networks and
   18 the services provided over them are allocated equi-
   19 tably among users; and

   20        (4) ensure that the provision of information
   21 services by divested operating companies does not
   22 jepordize the universal availability of telephone ex-
   23 change service at reasonable rates or undermine
   24 competition in the information services marketplace.

                           ------

I Want the widest possible distribution for the complete transcription
when posted. This bill is the only thing standing in the way of the
Baby Bells dominating the information services marketplace. Free-
enterprise and free and fair competion (which, by the way, the radio
ads claim will not be possible if the passes (yeah, right ... wanna
buy a bridge?)) must prevail.

The bill will allow the Bells to provide specialized information
services that cannot be obtained elsewhere, but will not allow them to
enter the general information services marketplace until "at least 50
percent of all businesses and residences within the areas in each
state in which such company or any affiliate thereof provides
telephone exchange service have access to transmission and switching
facilities (other than those owned or controlled by a divested
operating company or it's affiliates) that are comparable in quality,
cost, geographic range, and functionality to those offered by the
divested operating company for the delivery of electronic publishing
services" (Title II, Sec. 201(b)(1), Telecommunications Act of 1991,
H.R.3515), That sounds as if free and fair trade can be possible ONLY
IF THIS BILL PASSES!!!


[e-mail]    Just my opinions!

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

Date: Wed, 27 Nov 91 20:22:22 CST
From: Jack Decker <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: How Does The Law Handle Crank Calls?


In a message dated 19 Nov 91 13:14:27 GMT, [e-mail] wrote:

> OK, how about I walk in your front door (maybe using a plastic ID card
> because you have cheap locks, making it your fault) because I'm just
> interested in exploring your place.  Oh I won't do much.  I'll just
> use your chair, stove, refrigerator, etc. which merely deprives you of
> their use for a little while.  While I'm there, I'll explore your
> address book to see who your friends are.  After all, I can probably
> get into their houses by assuming that they have the same cheap locks
> you do, or by using thier trust in you to get them to trust me.  While
> I'm at your desk, I may go through your personal records, just because
> they are fascinating to me and I may learn something by reading them.
> After all, only the papers themselves are tangible.  All I'm doing is
> reading the information on them, and after all, you're not gonna tell
> me you own the information -- everybody knows you can't own
> information or ideas.  Your bank balance *is* my business.  Your
> letters contain information that are public property, buddy, and I'm
> here to collect.

> Now why would anybody call this "stealing" or "invasion of privacy"?
> I'm so misunderstood ...

Andy and I have already communicated by mail on this, and I think we
pretty much see eye-to-eye on the matter.  I think that some folks may
have originally missed my point.  I *WAS NOT* condoning this sort of
activity, certainly not at the level that is described.  In my analogy
I never even remotely referred to the hacker who starts perusing
confidential files ... that puts the matter in a whole different
light.  The only point that I was trying to make is that telemarketers
share some of the characteristics of hackers ... they are uninvited,
they often attempt to use deceptive means to get past minimal security
(your receptionist or secretary), they waste your time and in at least
some cases, the purpose of their call is to try and steal something
from you (if the telemarketer is running some sort of scam, which many
do).  I don't condone the activity of the hackers, but I also don't
condone the activity of the telemarketers!

I think I'M the one who was misunderstood here!  :-)

Pat (the Moderator) added that he has in the past been "widely
castigated" for using terms like 'burglar' and 'burglary' to describe
computer break-ins in the past.  To be fair, I would only point out
that not ALL computer break-ins actually result in theft, unless you
want to get real nit-picky and call it "theft of electricity" or
"theft of cpu cycles" or something like that.  Many break-ins would be
more analogous to trespass, where the hacker is someplace he has
absolutely no business being, but he hasn't stolen anything of any
significant value yet (I would point out that if I broke into your
home and while there ate a banana I found on your table, the police
might charge me with breaking and entering and trespass, but I doubt
they'd charge me with the theft of the banana because it's such a
ridiculously small item, even though I technically would have been
guilty of theft).

I guess we could play word games on this one all night, but I think
that the terms a person will use to describe a crime will often vary
depending on a person's perception of how bad the crime is.  And it's
just a fact of life that some people see ripping off a "big
corporation" as a far less serious crime than stealing from an
individual's home.

In my case, I believe that theft is THEFT and should be punished just
as severely whether the victim is an individual or a corporation, but
I'm not prepared to label simple trespass as "theft" when nothing of
any real value has been stolen.  In some cases trespass may be
deserving of punishment in its own right, but I don't see it as quite
the open-and-shut case that "theft" implies (for example, I might want
someone severely prosecuted if they were found in my bedroom rifling
through my private papers, but would not be all that upset if someone
opened my unlocked front door and walked into my add-on room in the
mistaken belief that it was a front porch and the REAL front door was
further inside, as has actually happened on a couple occasions).


Jack Decker           : [e-mail]              : FidoNet 1:154/8


[Moderator's Note: Don't confuse the terms 'trespass' and 'burglary'.
I used the latter. And when someone enters your home univited in a
sneaky way, it is burglary. It becomes theft if something is taken.
His *mere presence there* is also illegal.  PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 28 Nov 91 17:18 PST
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Hacker Convicted


[e-mail] (Dave Niebuhr, BNL CCD, 516-282-3093) writes:

> Well, I guess computer crime pays.  Wittman will spend no more than
> $1,100; the government paid hourly salaries of the investigators and
> programmers working on the problem.  A very, very conservative
> estimate of the final cost would be over $20,000 when one stops to
> consider that the word "investigators" was used which implies more
> than one person.  They gave away the store.

Well, now let's see. If the government had installed secure software
in the first place, how much would it have cost them? Have you ever
heard of the term "mitigation of damages"? It says that if someone
leaves his front door wide open and someone walks in that he is
entitled to less than full damages. I hardly think that a computer
that can be entered with less than two hour's worth of hacking would
qualify for the term "secure".

The reason the government had to pay over $20,000 is because of its
own negligence. To pontificate and say that Wittman should not have
been "fooling around" is evading the issue.

> [Moderator's Note: Yeah, isn't it disgusting how they are making him
> pay $1100 for his 'research'?

It certainly is. I do not know how else we would have found out that
our own government has such disregard for security. I am outraged; not
at the "hacker" but at my own government for such a blatant disregard
for adequate safeguards that led to a further waste of my tax money. I
tip my hat to Mr. Wittman for revealing this lack of competence on the
part of my public servants.

> And to think they are harassing him further by telling him
> he has to pay for a portion of what he stole!  :)   PAT]

Your sarcasm does not nullify the fact that the real crime here is
that so-called computer professionals are apparently incompetent at
securing their systems. I don't think that Mr. Wittman could have
broken into MY computer in under two hours. The fact that he did so to
a supposedly secure and sensitive one scares me to death. How many
other government computers are sitting there wide open because those
in charge are idiots?


        John Higdon         |   P. O. Box 7648   |   [phone]
    [e-mail]      | San Jose, CA 95150 |       M o o !


[Moderator's Note: While it is true we are expected to mitigate our
losses and make reasonable efforts to protect our property, I have
some question as to the extent of such efforts expected of us where
highly complex computing machinery is concerned. We are NOT talking
about putting a better piece of hardware on the front door of your
home and a simple lock being physically smashed and the premises
entered. Indeed, we should have known and taken stronger actions to
protect our property. Is it reasonable to expect every computer user
to be a computer scientist? If industry and professional standards for
security are met, then we have done what should be expected of us.  PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 28 Nov 91 17:06:34 CST
From: [e-mail] (Michael J Graven)
Subject: Re: Touch Tones on Videotapes?


> When I rent videotapes, in the beginning and end of tape, when I turn
> up the volume I can hear somethign that sounds like rapid touch-tone
> dialing. What is it?

Why, that's the sequence to disable the DTMF-to-pulse decoder in your
VCR, of course.  :)


Michael    [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #981
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa25703;
          29 Nov 91 1:11 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA15155
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 28 Nov 1991 23:36:42 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA05828
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 28 Nov 1991 23:36:29 -0600
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 1991 23:36:29 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #982

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 28 Nov 91 23:36:22 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 982

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Second Carrier Announced 'Down Under' (Mark Cheeseman)
    NightLine Program on Telemarketing (Ken Sprouse)
    Re: Pseudo-Area Code 311 (John Higdon)
    Re: MCI Friends and Family: How Bad Does it Get? (Graham Toal)
    Re: Making Annoying Calls *To* Telemarketers! (David Ash)
    Re: The March of Progress (Dave Levenson)
    Re: ANI Numbers That I Know of (Jamie Hanrahan)
    Re: Dial Tones on Answering Machine (Andrew M. Dunn)
    Re: Bell Canada to Offer Caller-ID "Alternate Number" Option (Jamie Mason)
    Long Distance at Local Rates (Peng H. Ang)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 29 Nov 91 12:27:09 +1100
From: Mark Cheeseman <[e-mail]>
From: [e-mail] (Mark Cheeseman)
Subject: Second Carrier Announced 'Down Under'
Organization: Your Computer Magazine, Sydney, Australia
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 91 01:26:55 GMT


     For those TELECOM Digest readers who are interested in the
telecoms goings-on in other coutries, Australia is about to enter the
wonderful world of telecommunications competition. Following are
excerpts from a press release from the appointed second carrier --
Optus (the bits in [] are mine!).

      Optus Communications will undertake what is likely to be the
largest privately funded fast track infrastructure project in
Australia for the 1990s, with the establishment of Australia's second
telecommunications network.

     The Minister for Transport and Communications, Mr Kim Beazley,
announced today that Optus had won the tender to purchase Aussat, and
become Australia's second telecommunications carrier. Finalisation of
the purchase is due to occur before year end, following ratification
of the second carrier licence conditions by parliament.

[Much public relations BS deleted]

     Optus Chairman, Sir Brian Inglis, said: "Deployment of the Optus
network involves establishing a fibre-optic backbone network extending
from Cairns [in far north Queensland] through the eastern states and
Adelaide [South Australia] to Perth [in Western Australia]. The
network will be complemented by highly advanced digital switching and
transmission systems.

     "The plans we have for Australia will result in the most advanced
integrated telecommunications system in the world. [!]  Because it
will be planned at a single point in time, the network will integrate
all network elements. This will lead to a network that is easy for
customers to understand and use".

     [Optus shareholders are BellSouth and Cable & Wireless, with
24.5% each, and a consortium of Australian bean, er, finance
companies, holding the remaining 51%]

     The Optus timetable for service introduction is:

          -2Q 1992 - Mobile cellular service marketing commances in
every capital city;

          -4Q 1992 - Domestic long distance and international services
available to an estimated 45% of the population, extending to
virtually 100% by 1997.

          -Early 1993 - introducation of new digital cellular services
for mobile and personal communications based on the European Global
System for Mobile Communication (GSM) standard, delivering higher
quality enhanced services. The system will be extended to cover 80% of
the population by 1997.

          -1993 - provision of value-added network services for
business.

     From the time the first Optus domestic long distance and
international services are offered next year, customers will access
the Optus network by dialing a single digit prefix ("1") followed by
the usual area code and telephone number.

[More BS deleted]

     Optus director, Terry Winters, said "As the Optus network
evolves, we forecast price reductions in real terms of 40% for
domestic long distance and international calls and data services over
the first five years, escalating to 60% over ten years."

[There's still a couple of pages to go, put is probably only of
marginal interest outside Australia. Then again, maybe the rest if
too:-) ]

                          ----------

Note that I have no connection with Optus, other than as a potential
victim, oops, customer.


Mark Cheeseman VK2XGK       ACSnet: [e-mail]
Technical Editor            Fido:   3:712/[e-mail]
Your Computer Magazine      Packet: offline
Sydney, Australia           Phone:  [phone]  Fax:[phone]

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

Subject: NightLine Program on Telemarketing
Date: 27 Nov 91 16:27:45 EDT (Wed)
From: [e-mail] (Ken Sprouse)


> Rep. Barney Frank was interviewed at Boston's Logan Airport the other
> evening on Nightline, about his proposed legislation.  Surely someone
> else has seen it and might be able to fill in the following a bit more
> completely.  I believe there were four points but I remember only the
> first and last:

> o Require all junk-call dialers to disconnect immediately if the the
> callee hangs up.  (The inability to call 911, or whatever, until the
> automated sales pitch finishes is the issue here.)

> o Create a national list of phone numbers that could Not be
> junk-called or junk-faxed.  The crucial point that I didn't hear made
> specific is whether this list would prevent human junk calls too, or
> just the machine ones.

(stuff deleted)

I did see the show although Koppel was off that night and others do
not seem to have his knack for getting the most out of people in an
interview.  To answer your question, the legislation introduced by
Rep.  Frank would ban ONLY calls made by machines and with exceptions.
Human initiated calls would not be affected and call from machines
soliciting for charities or for political campaigns would be exempt.
(how conveeeenient! :-) )

Frank seemed to place a great deal of emphases on the number of call
that a machine could make in a day and implied that if only humans
were allowed to place the calls that the problem would be reduced
because the cost per call with labor charges would outweigh the income
derived from the calls.  So the debate continues.


Ken Sprouse / N3IGW    [e-mail]
GEnie mail ksprouse   Compu$erve 70145,426

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

Date: Thu, 28 Nov 91 18:16 PST
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Pseudo-Area Code 311


On Nov 28 at  8:18, TELECOM Moderator writes:

> [Moderator's Note: Many years ago, the old Bell System always had the
> number 311-555-2368 shown on the dial of phones in advertisements and
> display windows, etc.

When I first saw this number used on phone advertisements, it was:

Area Code 311
KL5-2368

The reason I remember the 'KL' so vividly is that KLondike was a real
exchange in San Francisco. Someone must have an inclination for such
words because another SF exchange was YUkon.

Unfortunately, those all went away by the time I was out of high
school.


        John Higdon         |   P. O. Box 7648   |   [phone]
    [e-mail]      | San Jose, CA 95150 |       M o o !


[Moderator's Note: One I seem to remember from your town from long ago
was CHina. Correct?   PAT]

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

From: Graham Toal "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MCI Friends and Family: How Bad Does it Get?
Organization: Robobar Ltd., Perivale, Middx., ENGLAND.
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 91 03:33:38 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
writes:

> Is MCI now going to distribute my number on marketing lists?  What do
> I have to look forward to -- is it time to get a new unlisted number
> (and not give it to my mother)?

I would advise it.  I go to great lengths to keep my address and phone
number private, and as a result get *no* junk mail (aren't you jealous
;-) ) ... except when my mother slips up and tells people how to get
in touch with me.  I've explained dozens of times but it just doesn't
sink in.  So I have two phone lines, one of which is for my friends
and the other for my modem and my mother and my answering machine.  If
she rings, I call back.  If anyone else rings I hit erase and rewind
my answering machine :-)

Now if only I could change my address as easily ... [my dad does me
'favours' like sending off for free gifts from tobacco companies ...
Every time more disgusting crap comes in because of this I spend a day
getting myself off their lists, and berating my dad, who also doesn't
understand why anyone might value privacy :-(]


Graham

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

From: [e-mail] (David Ash)
Subject: Re: Making Annoying Calls *To* Telemarketers!
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University, Ca , USA
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 1991 03:49:39 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> PAT writes:

> [Moderator's Note: I'd recommend only two things: one being you should
> NEVER claim to be employed by the government or 'the telephone
> company' if you are not so employed; and two, insure that the caller
> is in fact a 'junk-caller' and not a person -- even if his identity is
> not immediatly known to you -- who has a legitimate business reason
> for calling, i.e. payments on your accounts; a legal matter, etc.  PAT]

This brings up a problem with dealing with telemarketers.  I get a
*lot* of telemarketing calls from Citibank offering to sell me the
latest Citiscam.  I'm not sure just how rude to be with them, and I'm
also forced to listen to their pitch long enough to find out whether
there's some legitimate problem with my account that I should know
about.  I find this type of activity by Citibank reprehensible.


David W. Ash   [e-mail]
HOME: [phone]   WORK: [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Dave Levenson)
Subject: Re: The March of Progress
Date: 29 Nov 91 04:13:13 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(david.g.lewis) writes:

> The present value stated in the LSSGR for a minimum off-hook signal
> that should be recognized as an answer signal for charging and
> supervision purposes is two seconds."

> English translation: an off-hook signal must be two seconds long or
> longer to be recognized as an "answer" signal.  The office doing the
> recording can not begin charging until the answer signal is
> recognized.

That 'translation' is not the only possible interpretation of the
LSSGR.  I take it to mean that the systen uses the duration of the
off-hook signal to distinguish between answer supervision, and
wink-start or other non-answer-supervision uses of the same signal.
It would appear that if the far end answers and then disconnects
within less than two seconds, the originating end does not record it
as a completed (chargeable) call.

If the off-hook condition begins at 0:00, for example, there is no
charge unless the condition persists until at least 0:02.  But if the
off-hook condition does persist until 0:02, there is no requirement
that the charge not include the interval from 0:00 until 0:02, is
there?

If the far end answers and the originating end disconnects within two
seconds, even though the terminating end is still off-hook, that is
yet another case.  It would make sense not to charge for such a call,
because the originating party was probably already in the act of
hanging up when the terminating party answered.  If the handset was
already on its way from the caller's ear to the cradle switch, then
the answer would not have been heard by the caller, who is probably
abandoning what she believes is a ring-no-answer case.  If an
allowance is made for this case, some high-speed data users may take
advantage of it by trying to send a burst of data of a second or so
before disconnecting.  This probably explains why a modem, to meed
part 68 requirements, delays for about two seconds after answering
before asserting carrier-detect and passing data.


Dave Levenson       Internet: [e-mail]
Westmark, Inc.       UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave
Warren, NJ, USA       Voice: 908 647 0900 Fax: [phone]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: ANI Numbers That I Know of
Date: 28 Nov 91 20:28:57 PST
Organization: Kernel Mode Consulting, San Diego CA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Ron
Schnell) writes:

> In GTE Los Angeles, either 114 or 1223.

This I'm not in a position to test, but ...

> In PACBell San Diego 211-2111.

> *Interesting note: In San Diego, 211-2112 gives you your number, but
> with Touch-Tones(tm)!  I think it playes a # at the beginning.

Neither of these appear to be work from my home phone (284-xxxx).


     Jamie Hanrahan, Kernel Mode Consulting, San Diego CA
Chair, VMS Internals Working Group, U.S. DECUS VAX Systems SIG
Internet:  [e-mail], [e-mail], or [e-mail]
Uucp:  ...{crash,eisner,uunet}!cmkrnl!jeh

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

From: [e-mail] (Andrew M. Dunn)
Subject: Re: Dial Tones on Answering Machine
Organization: A. Dunn Systems Corporation, Kitchener, Canada
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 1991 00:11:19 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Christopher Walton) writes:

> I have had a wierd occurence happen lately, several times.  I would
> get home and check my answering machine only to hear a click, and then
> a dialtone.  The dialtone plays for a while until I get the tone that
> happens when you have the phone off the hook for too long.
> (Fast-reorder???)  Then the phone hangs up and the answering machine
> continues.

> Does anyone have any idea what this may be???  It has happened several
> times.

This happens a lot.  What it usually involves is as follows:

   The phone rings four (or however many rings your A/M is set to)
times.

   After the fourth ring, the caller hangs up.  They've concluded that
you're not there.

   The A/M picks up the phone (and gets dial tone, since there is no
call to pick up anymore).

   The A/M sits there, recording the dialtone, until the CO times out
and gives you the 'off hook' recording.  This recording includes a
standard tone (which all A/M's that I've ever met understand).

   The A/M hangs up.


Andy Dunn ([e-mail])  ({uunet...}!xenitec!mongrel!amdunn

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

From: Jamie Mason <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Bell Canada to Offer Caller-ID "Alternate Number" Option
Organization: University of Toronto Computer Services Advisor
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 1991 00:25:30 -0500


    That is GROSS.   That is REALLY AWFUL and DISHONEST.

Even per-line blocking is better.  If someone blocks, it could be
arranged for me to see 'Blocked'.  I could then automatically ignore
such calls.

    But if Bell lets them randomly pick some random number, I
can't filter such calls.  Telemarketers will be harder to avoid, as
they will be using their CNID-du-jour.

    Disgusting.

    What I *do* want to see is Bell implememnt CNID *with name*.
Where the name *cannot* be fictitious.  Then they can remove the
number altogther for those who are paranoid about privacy.

    But under no circumstances should they distribute lies.

Jamie


[Moderator's Note: I had to wonder myself how many subscribers to
Caller-ID they actually expect to have with such a scheme.  PAT]

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

Date: Fri, 29 Nov 91 00:12 EST
From: "Peng_H.Ang" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Long-Distance at Local Rates


This may sound hokey but it's true. I just spoke to a Japanese lawyer
from the Ministry of Post and Telecommunications and he says there is
something called ATM (Asynchronous Transfer Mode) that is supposed to
lower long-distance rates to local rates.

I don't think he's pulling my leg because he sounded and looked
pained.  (He's got to regulate the phone companies.) He said the
technology is available *now* and that equipment with that technology
has been shipped over here for field trial.

Any of you heard something like that?


[Moderator's Note: Is this something that is supposed to take place in
Japan or in the USA? From reading your message, I assume you mean
Japan. If it works like he says, it would be great to have it here!  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #982
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa12984;
          29 Nov 91 13:59 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA30987
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Fri, 29 Nov 1991 12:16:02 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA19717
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Fri, 29 Nov 1991 12:15:44 -0600
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 1991 12:15:44 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #983

TELECOM Digest     Fri, 29 Nov 91 12:15:03 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 983

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Long-Distance at Local Rates (Andrew G. Minter)
    Re: Long-Distance at Local Rates (David G. Lewis)
    Re: Hacker Convicted (Chris Yoder)
    Re: Hacker Convicted (John Higdon)
    Re: Hacker Convicted (Warren Burstein)
    Re: Making Annoying Calls *To* Telemarketers! (John Higdon)
    Re: Making Annoying Calls *To* Telemarketers! (Richard Tilley)
    Re: Capacity Limits of Digital Switch (Niall Gallagher)
    Re: Answering Machines For Hearing Impaired (was Rolm devises) (Greg Paris)
    Re: Telephone Posters - Old and New (John Holman)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Andrew G. Minter)
Subject: Re: Long-Distance at Local Rates
Date: 29 Nov 91 15:03:20 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Andrew G. Minter)
Organization: BNR Europe Limited


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Peng_H.Ang) writes:

> This may sound hokey but it's true. I just spoke to a Japanese lawyer
> from the Ministry of Post and Telecommunications and he says there is
> something called ATM (Asynchronous Transfer Mode) that is supposed to
> lower long-distance rates to local rates.

If I remember correctly, ATM is a technique which allows better use to
be made of transmission bandwidth.  It does this be sending variable
size data packets depending on how much information is being sent.
The main use for this is in high bandwidth private networks, but there
may be benefits for private users in that you would not be using any
bandwidth during pauses between speech.  Whether this will lead to the
telco charging you less if you have lots of long silences is another
matter.

ATM is pretty new stuff and it's not just the Japanese who are working
on it!


Disclaimer: I don't work in transmission, so I'm hardly an expert.
Naturally, these are my own views, not those on BNR.

Andrew G. Minter            | Email: [e-mail]
Principal Research Engineer | Phone: [phone] ext 3165
BNR Europe Limited          | Fax:   [phone]
London Road, Harlow         | ESN:   742-3165
Essex  CM17 9NA             | Telex: 81151 BNR HW G

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

From: [e-mail] (david.g.lewis)
Subject: Re: Long-Distance at Local Rates
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 1991 16:41:22 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Peng_H.Ang) had questions about ATM:

ATM has got nothing to do with long distance, nothing to do with
local, and absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with rates.

ATM is a fast packet switching technology.  It uses 53-octet cells (5
octet header, 48 octet payload).  Each cell header carries a Virtual
Path Identifier and Virtual Circuit Identifier which uniquely
identifies it; therefore, cells are independent of one another and
multiple cells for multiple virtual circuits can be sent over an
access interface as the traffic is generated -- thus "Asynchronous",
because the user device can send three cells for VC1, then a cell for
VC3, then six cells for VC2, then another cell for VC1, and so on.
This contrasts with normal TDM, ("Synchronous Transfer Mode"), where
each virtual path from the user to the network is assigned a timeslot.

(Apologies if my definition is not exactly correct; I don't work much
with ATM, I just know what I've picked up in the literature.)

Considering ATM is designed to operate over SONET transport (51.62Mbps
minimum rate) (OK, I guess you could consider a VT1.5 to an ATM switch
 -- 1.732kbps minimum), this isn't exactly something that you're going
to tack on the side of your 2500 set ...

> He said the technology is available *now* and that equipment with
> that technology has been shipped over here for field trial.

The technology is not available now; several companies (Bellcore, Bell
Labs, Fujitsu, I believe Seimens, perhaps others) have built
lab-prototype (as distinguished from field prototype) ATMish switches,
but as far as I'm aware, there is nowhere a field-ready prototype of
an ATM switch.  There are field-ready prototype SMDS switches, and
SMDS is "evolutionary to ATM", but that's another story.

Give it ten years or so.

Oh -- ATM is often cited as an element of "Broadband ISDN", so I guess
this is something that's actually peripherally related to what AT&T
pays me for!


David G Lewis      AT&T Bell Laboratories
[e-mail]  or  !att!houxa!deej      ISDN Evolution Planning

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

From: [e-mail] (Sir "Insanity IS" Reality)
Subject: Re: Hacker Convicted
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 91 06:31:20 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> John Higdon <john@zygot.
ati.com> writes:

> It certainly is. I do not know how else we would have found out that
> our own government has such disregard for security. I am outraged; not
> at the "hacker" but at my own government for such a blatant disregard
> for adequate safeguards that led to a further waste of my tax money. I
> tip my hat to Mr. Wittman for revealing this lack of competence on the
> part of my public servants.

    I tend to agree with Mr. Higdon.  I also kind of wonder what
NASA has that needs to be that secure.  I would HOPE that most of
NASA's information would be of a nature that would accept publication.
Any DoD files should be extremely secure and probably not on a net.

> [Moderator's Note: While it is true we are expected to mitigate our
> losses and make reasonable efforts to protect our property, I have
> some question as to the extent of such efforts expected of us where
> highly complex computing machinery is concerned. We are NOT talking
> about putting a better piece of hardware on the front door of your
> home and a simple lock being physically smashed and the premises
> entered. Indeed, we should have known and taken stronger actions to
> protect our property. Is it reasonable to expect every computer user
> to be a computer scientist? If industry and professional standards for
> security are met, then we have done what should be expected of us.  PAT]

    Since this person was able to crack a system with sensitive
information in approximately two hours, I don't think a professional
standard of security was being maintained.  I know of an educational
institute that routinely checks it's user's passwords for ease of
cracking.  If an educational institute can maintain this level of
security, it would seem that NASA could be at least as secure.


Chris "Got any job openings?" Yoder    ->[e-mail]
I'm not sure if what I say even represents my opinions, much less

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

Date: Thu, 28 Nov 91 23:11 PST
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Hacker Convicted


On Nov 28 at 22:46, TELECOM Moderator writes:

> If industry and professional standards for security are met, then we
> have done what should be expected of us.  PAT]

Very much agreed! But I submit that ANY computer that can be entered
as a result of two hours worth of hacking is not meeting those
industry standards. For one thing, callback security is now
commonplace and SOP in most businesses that are even remotely (pardon
the pun) concerned about the protection of their data.

Even without callback, normal prudent procedures would keep almost
anyone out for much longer than two hours. But when I see systems that
have unprotected administrative logins, inadequate modem control that
allows a shell to survive after an inadvertant user disconnection,
encrypted passwords that can be accessed by all users, and systems
that allow direct root login via modem, it is hard to get very
indignant over a kid sliding in through the open door.


        John Higdon         |   P. O. Box 7648   |   [phone]
    [e-mail]      | San Jose, CA 95150 |       M o o !

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

From: [e-mail] (Warren Burstein)
Subject: Re: Hacker Convicted
Date: 29 Nov 91 10:19:55 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: WorldWide Software


[e-mail] (Dave Niebuhr, BNL CCD, 516-282-3093) writes:

> Both sides have agreed on repayment of $1,100 in collect calls he
> placed to the computer system, but they differ on whether Wittman
> should be held responsible for the cost of new software.

> Well, I guess computer crime pays.  Wittman will spend no more than
> $1,100; the government paid hourly salaries of the investigators and
> programmers working on the problem.

Firstly, the article it has not been decided whether the hacker will
have to pay for the cost of the software, while it later says that he
will pay no more than $1100.

Secondly, even if the final sentence is that the hacker will only pay
for the cost of the calls, it cannot be said that "computer crime
pays" as the hacker received no benifit from the work of the
investigators and programmers.


[e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 28 Nov 91 21:59 PST
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Making Annoying Calls *To* Telemarketers!


On Nov 28 at 21:56, TELECOM Moderator writes:

> [Moderator's Note: It is not clear to me why you felt Hilton was in
> some way responsible for the wrong numbers you were getting. Were
> *they* distributing your number in advertising, etc?   PAT]

In my irrational, annoyed frame of mind, I resented the existence of
Hilton's number in the first place. Contributing to this was the fact
that my number was issued some time before theirs; Hilton was the new
kid on the block, not I. Also, after my "threat" the calls did stop.

I suspect that the way Hilton's number was advertised contributed to
the misdialing by callers. I present the two numbers and you tell ME
why anyone could make the mistake:

Hilton Hotels    800 445-8667
John Higdon    800 445-8886 (since changed)

How could anyone get these numbers confused?


        John Higdon         |   P. O. Box 7648   |   [phone]
    [e-mail]      | San Jose, CA 95150 |       M o o !


[Moderator's Note: Someone with a less than well-maintained instrument
punched the first '8' in '8667' and got a lot of (would you say?)
bounce from the key, generating three '8's .... then continued with
the '667' part but of course the first '6' is all that got counted.
Most of the calls you got could have come from the same organization
if it had a 'system speed dial' configuration with Hilton installed in
it (but installed incorrectly, as per above). So innocent users of the
company or whatever punch *29 or whatever they punch to speed dial
Hilton and the speed dialer was mis-programmed per the above example.

About 1967, a real estate company here had my number listed on the
'what number to call for the janitor in your apartment complex' list
which they distributed to tenants. It was only a typographical error,
but still ... nothing I said or did could get them to correct the
listing until I started taking calls for the janitor ... heh heh ...
'sorry madam, but the rent you pay does not entitle you to have hot
water or heat in your apartment during the winter.' ...   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Richard Tilley)
Subject: Re: Making Annoying Calls *To* Telemarketers!
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 1991 08:04:14 GMT


In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David
Ash) writes:

> ...  I get a *lot* of telemarketing calls from Citibank offering to
> sell me the latest Citiscam.  I'm not sure just how rude to be with
> them, and I'm also forced to listen to their pitch long enough to find
> out whether there's some legitimate problem with my account that I
> should know about.

There is a simple solution to this. Think about it!


[Moderator's Note: The first thing which comes to mind is that if he
pays his bills on time he won't get the other kind of calls :), but I
don't know if that is the answer you had in mind.   PAT]

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

Date: 29 Nov 91 10:14:00 EST
From: Niall (N.) Gallagher <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Capacity Limits of Digital Switch


[e-mail] (John Nagle) wrote in TELECOM Digest V11 #974:

> A question arises, are current-generation switches (5ESS, DMS100,
> etc.)  non-blocking?

A complex question! There are two major aspects to switch capacity,
call processing, normally expressed as Busy Hour Call Attempts - BHCA,
and network capacity, expressed in erlangs, CCS, timeslots.

I can speak a little to DMS-100 digital switch capacities (info
obtained from DMS-100 family technical spec, valid for BCS31). The
capacity figures assume a specific call type mix - intra-switch,
originating, terminating, tandem etc.

1. Call Processing Capacity

                Calls per Hour
 POTS Suburban:    515K    @ 1.5% ABSBH Grade of Service
 POTS Urban:       455K    (implies dial tone delay > 3 seconds for
 Access Tandem:    661K    less than 1.5% of call attempts)

2. Network Capacity

In DMS the switching network is single stage and non-blocking.
Starting size is 4,000 channels (erlangs), can be grown to 128,000
channels.  Line access peripherals do concentrate (eg Line
Concentration Modules with up to 640 lines and 60 to 180 channels for
network access). If your application really requires non-blocking line
access and you can afford it, just engineer the LCMs to 180 lines max.
Trunking peripherals do not concentrate.

The most important driver for large non-blocking networks is the
ability to provide switched wideband services - video conferencing is
the current bandwidth driver with requirements for 128K bps to 1.5M
bps for video calls. (Think about it, with a network of 128,000
channels you could have 128,000 voice calls active (256,000
subscribers!) or 5,300 video calls at 1.5M, 21,000 video calls at
384K)

Hope this clarifies the question on switch capacity. Of course, all
manufacturers are building bigger and faster switches and you can
really hear some incredible numbers at conferences and in marketing
literature. The issue that arises with really big switches is the
impact on the phone network if they should happen to fail.


Regards,

Niall Gallagher,   Bell-Northern Research, PO Box 3511, Stn C,
                   Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA   K1Y  4H7

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

Date: Fri, 29 Nov 91 11:17:26 -0500
From: Greg Paris <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Answering Machines For Hearing Impaired (was "Rolm devises...")


In Volume 11, Issue 976 [e-mail] (Lauren Weinstein) writes:

> Just in case Rolm tries to file a patent on this topic, let me get it
> on the record that there is plenty of prior art in this area.  I've
> built simple interfaces for ordinary answering machines for hearing
> impaired friends with TDDs -- and they work just fine.  Since TDDs
> operate at quite low speeds using simple modulation techniques, most
> modern answering machines are quite capable of recording their tones
> accurately.

This was true in the past, but no longer, given the VOX technology
used in most answering machines today.  TDD tones do not convince the
machines that they are being "talked to" and so they time out and
disconnect after a few seconds.  (The two answering machines we have
 -- from different manufacturers -- both behave this way, though one
records the first few seconds of TDD tones as a message, while the
other refuses to count the TDD tones as a message at all.)

My wife has talked to the AT&T Special Needs Center about this and
they confirm what I wrote above (though they'll tell you about the
$600 TDD-only answering machine they sell).  She was told that AT&T is
working on a new machine that will be able to handle both voice and
TDD that it should be available in (late?) 1992.  I don't know what
the price will be, but I can guess that it won't be low ...


Greg

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

Date: November 29, 1991
From: John Holman UW-Whitewater (Wisconsin) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telephone Posters - Old and New


After reading about the AT&T history of the telephone poster I decided
to order one for my office.  It came very quickly but for $12.00 I am
disappointed.  The early telephones are nice but the last telephone
shown is a 1990 two line remote answering system.  There are no ISDN
sets or any new great break throughs.  I guess that the perception of
ISDN technology in AT&T's promotion posters is that ISDN still stands
for IT STILL DETAINS NOSTALGIA!

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #983
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa28161;
          29 Nov 91 23:40 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA01275
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Fri, 29 Nov 1991 22:07:16 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA02335
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Fri, 29 Nov 1991 22:07:07 -0600
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 1991 22:07:07 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #984

TELECOM Digest     Fri, 29 Nov 91 21:06:41 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 984

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    E911 System Brought to it's Knees By a Prank (Glenn Tenny via Ron Dippold)
    950 No-Surcharge-Card Info Wanted (Scott Reuben)
    Figure This One Out? (Kim Fosbe)
    Re: US West: BBSs are Businesses (John Higdon)
    Re: Pseudo-Area Code 311 (John Higdon)
    Re: Dial Tones on Answering Machine (Warren Burstein)
    Re: AT&T Files With FCC to Carry Calls to Vietnam (Al Donaldson)
    Re: US West: BBSs are Businesses (Peter Marshall)
    Caller ID Box For Sale (Ed Ngai)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Ron Dippold)
Subject: E911 System Brought to it's Knees By a Prank
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 1991 09:10:56 GMT


This showed up in comp.risks.
 From: well![e-mail] (Glenn S. Tenney)

The {San Jose Mercury News} reported that the San Mateo 911 system was
brought to it's knees because of a prank.  Were you wondering when
some phone phreak or system cracker would do this ...

It seems that a disc jokey at KSOL decided to play a recent MC Hammer
record over and over and over... as a prank.  Listeners were concerned
that something had happened to the personnel at the station, so they
called 911 (as well as the police department business line).  It seems
that a few hundred calls in forty five minutes or an hour was enough
to jam up the system.  There was no report in the newspaper of any
deaths or injuries to the overloaded system.

The DJ didn't want to stop playing the record (claiming First
Amendment rights), but did insert an announcement to not call the
police.

So, it seems that a low tech "assault" on a 911 center could be quite
effective.  The system in question provides E911 for a few communities
in the San Francisco Bay Area.  This is the same center that went down
following the Loma Prieta earthquake a couple of years ago.  At that
time, they lost power and switched over to the emergency generator
only to find that just starting a generator once a month wasn't enough
 -- the generator conked out in about an hour!


Glenn S. Tenney
Have an adequate day.


[Moderator's Note: Those radio DJ's and their First Amendment rights
are really something else. We've got a few in Chicago who I'm sure
must have given thanks yesterday for the First Amendment. After all,
how else could they continually spew their stupid (and frequently
vile) comments with impunity?  I hope the incident encourages whatever
modernization or upgrading of the 911 system is required. God knows
little or nothing will ever get the ignorant DJ's under control.  PAT]

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

Date: 29-NOV-1991 12:57:27.68
From: Douglas Scott Reuben <[e-mail]>
Subject: 950 No-Surcharge-Card Info Wanted


Recently, John Higdon (and others) were discussing the use of LD
services for Intra-LATA LD, thus avoiding the rather high rates which
Pac*Bell et. al.  charge.

Yet after calling numerous LD companies (Allnet, RCI, Cable&Wireless,
Metromedia/ITT, Comm*Systems [who I'd rather not use anyhow due to
their rip-off AOS]), I have found no service *without* a Calling
Card/Travel Card surcharge. (Other than AT&T on ROA at night, or RCI
within the Rochester LATA)

Some, such as C&W will offer you a $.33 per minute flat rate,
providing you are one of their 1+ customers. Yet this is a bit more
than the LEC charges me right now.

I believe that there have been a few inquiries about this in the past,
so could someone who did the "research" previously let me know what is
available?

Thanks in advance!

Doug    [e-mail]  //  [e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 28 Nov 91 02:38:56 cst
From: [e-mail] (Kim Fosbe)
Subject: Figure This One Out?
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha


Here's a good one for all you Telephone Wizards. Tonight I called a
girlfriend of mine from the shopping mall with a payphone. Now she
just got the Call-ID service. Now I forget the exact numbers, but the
payphone I was calling from was something like 391-9648 but she got a
number like 391-9658 on the box. There was one numeral off. She told
me to call back when I hung up but to only let it ring once and see
what number came in the second time. It was still the one that was one
numeral off from the real number on the phone.

Later we called the number that was on the phone and the number that
the box said I called from. The number on the phone got a "Not in
service" recording, but the number that the Call-ID box said I was
calling from did not even ring, but it gave a loud click and then a
beep tone, kind of like a modem, but not exactly. All there was was
one beep tone and nothing more.

Anybody know what is going on?


Ybbat (DRBBS) 8.9 v. 3.13 r.5
DRBBS -- BIOSed in favor of CP/M  (200:5010/666.0)


[Moderator's Note: What was going on was (1) the payphone was a
privately owned 'intelligent' COCOT (customer owned, coin operated
telephone.) It can be programmed on site by the proprietor or from
remote by calling into it with a PC and modem. The 'click and beep
tone' when it answered was the COCOT telling the remote end it was on
line and ready for programming. (2) The phone number was in fact
actually what the Caller-ID box said it was. The label on the phone
either accidentally or purposefully showed the wrong number. Most of
the COCOTS around Chicago don't show any number on the phone at all,
mainly to avoid having phreaks try to tamper with them. Of course,
once we get Caller-ID here it will be a trivial matter to find out
what the phone number actually is. Whatcha wanna bet the people who
have squawked and squealed the most against Caller-ID will be among
the first to subscribe once it is installed in their community?  PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 28 Nov 91 22:50 PST
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: US West: BBSs are Businesses


[e-mail] (Randy Bush) writes:

> And now, thanks to Wagner's and Morgel's greed, and confrontive
> inflation of the situation by sensationalists, US West is now forced
> to try to make a strong stand to define business BBSs, etc.  Great.

Perhaps, but I personally suspect the motivation has more to do with
the possibility that free BBSes are not looked upon kindly by those
who offer or wish to offer the same services for money. I can think of
no reason other than concern for profit that would "force" US West to
make "a strong stand to define business BBSs, etc."

And the concern for profit is not the difference between business and
residential rates. Telcos are fully aware that free BBSes operate "on
the edge" and that it would not take much of a shove to shut most of
them down. Ironically, it is precisely the non-business BBSes that the
telcos would like to see go away. "Free" is the hardest price to
compete against.

As the owner of a personal computer that has six modems connected (not
a BBS), I would be very nervous about all of this sabre rattling by US
West. Fortunately, California tariffs are VERY specific in the matter
of business/residence definitions, and say what I will about Pac*Bell,
the company does honor its own tariffs. Those definitions, by the way,
say absolutely nothing about what is connected to the line. At home
here, for my personal use, I have six modems, including fax, a PBX, a
voicemail system, a conferencing system, and some remote controllers.
None of these things has anything to do with determining my class of
service. Some of the lines are ground start, some loop start. ALL of
them are residence except for the 800 number. And rightly so. (My
office has business service; but then, it IS an office!)

In a nutshell, the definitions simply revolve around the premise that
business service is installed in businesses and residence service is
installed in residences. Most of the verbage beyond that simply
defines which is which. If the service is connected to an office
building, then it is obviously business. If to a residence, then
residence service applies. Exceptions include the running of a
business out of a home.  But we are talking about a REAL business
where the phone is answered as a business, the number is advertised on
cards, flyers, media, etc.  Doing unusual things with your telephone
at home does not automatically make you a business. Having more than
three lines (SBT nonsense) does not make you a business. Modems do not
make you a business. In essence, if what you are doing would require a
business license from the city, you get business service.

And only those lines in the home used for business need be that class
of service. You are also entitled to live in your home and have
residence service also.


        John Higdon         |   P. O. Box 7648   |   [phone]
    [e-mail]      | San Jose, CA 95150 |       M o o !

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

Date: Thu, 28 Nov 91 23:34 PST
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Pseudo-Area Code 311


On Nov 28 at 23:36, TELECOM Moderator writes:

> [Moderator's Note: One I seem to remember from your town from long ago
> was CHina. Correct?   PAT]

I don't think so. We had (before the 415/408 split and before the
all-digit phone numbers) only two '24' exchange names: CHerry and
CHestnut. CHerry was served out of the Santa Clara office at
Winchester and Bellomy and CHestnut was served out of the Sunnyvale
office.  Although CHestnut was originally a San Jose number it was
changed to Sunnyvale and 408/245 remains a Sunnyvale prefix to this
day.

The CHerry exchanges (241, 243, and 248) were originally served with
#1 crossbar office until some years ago when they were cut to a 1AESS.
All of the rest of the prefixes, 244, 246, 247, and 249, in that same
office were created after the seven-digit dialing. They were also
originally served out of a #5 crossbar switch, now a #5ESS.

Now, if you have been counting prefixes, you will note the omission of
242 and 240. There is no 240 even to this day. 242 is the Fort Ord
telephone system. I am not sure if it ever had an exchange name, but
it is the only possibility for "CHina" that might exist in this
region.  Perhaps someone from the Monterey area can fill us in.

Any '24' exchanges in the 415 area would have been created in the last
ten years and hence would have no "name" associated with them. Up
until ten years ago, convenience dialing existed across the 415/408
boundary.


        John Higdon         |   P. O. Box 7648   |   [phone]
    [e-mail]      | San Jose, CA 95150 |       M o o !

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

From: [e-mail] (Warren Burstein)
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 91 12:32:56 IST
From: [e-mail] (Warren Burstein)
Subject: Re: Dial Tones on Answering Machine
Date: 29 Nov 91 10:32:54 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: WorldWide Software


[e-mail] (Christopher Walton) writes:

> I have had a wierd occurence happen lately, several times.  I would
> get home and check my answering machine only to hear a click, and then
> a dialtone.

I get this all the time.  Sometimes it's a dial tone, sometimes the
think sort of like a busy signal that happens when the phone is left
off the hook.  People in this country (Israel) seem not to know what
to do when an answering machine picks up -- it's not because they are
scarce, it's probably related to neophobia.  I also once called my
machine when I was in New York and got a recording several minutes
long of someone saying "hello? hello?".

But we do have a phone system so advanced that where in other places
you have to dial all the digits in the phone number before getting a
busy signal, here the phone can tell after only the first few. :-)

My guess is that this happens when the caller hangs up during the
outgoing message.  When the caller hangs up during record, there is a
silence before the tone comes on, and the machine hangs up.  But if
they hung up during the outgoing message, some of the period of
silence is missed so the tone gets recorded.

I've thought of setting my machine to only record for a minute, but
sometimes I get real messages that are longer than that.


[e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Al Donaldson)
Subject: Re: AT&T Files With FCC to Carry Calls to Vietnam
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Al Donaldson)
Organization: ESCOM Corp., Oakton VA (USA)
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 1991 17:37:27 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Herb
Jellinek) writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 973, Message 11 of 12

> The company said it would use 210 circuits on undersea cable,..

This is perhaps a bit off the subject, but when I was on vacation in
Vietnam during 1968 and 1969, I remember visiting an undersea cable
facility, I believe at Qui Nhon (sp?) or perhaps Nha Trang.  As I
remember, the cable ran down the entire eastern coast of South Vietnam
and around to Thailand, with four or five stations including the one I
visited.

The transmitting equipment was housed in some trailers, as I recall.
I do remember vividly how powerful the air conditioning was; it seemed
like about 50 degrees, but it may have been because I didn't see much
AC that year.

I remember that the station was out on a small peninsula and didn't
have any fences or guards around the facility, which was unusual for
signal units.  I asked one of the fellows who was there, and he said
that they didn't need any perimeter protection -- there was a ROK unit
(Republic of Korea) further up the peninsula.  The VC didn't come
anywhere nearby. :-)

I was wondering if anyone knew if the US scuttled this equipment
before we left or if it is still in operation.


Al

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

Date: Fri, 29 Nov 91 08:09:59 PDT
From: [e-mail] (peter marshall)
Subject: Re: US West: BBSs are Businesses


Randy Bush's 11/27 reply post on this topic in Issue 980 seems to
maintain a continuing, unnecessarily polarized way of looking at this
situation; while apparently in lieu of taking care of business (pun
not), Randy's view of things continues instead to reflect selective
omission.

It is interesting that the recent {Comm Daily} article on this subject
would apparently not meet with Randy's approval either. Perhaps he
would also like to respond directly to CD or to do so here? Does he
also want to label this trade publication with "confrontive inflation
 ... by sensationalists"?  While he's at it, does he want to explain
how the upcoming OPUC hearing has been "forced by ... sensationalists,"
too?


Peter Marshall([e-mail]) "Lightfinger" Rayek's Friendly
Casino: 206/528-0948, Seattle, Washington.

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

From: [e-mail] (Ed Ngai)
Subject: Caller ID Box For Sale
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Ed Ngai)
Organization: Advanced Computer Communications, Santa Barbara, California
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 91 18:17:16 GMT


Hi all, I have a Caller ID box I bought from EDE, 266 Pepper Tree Dr,
Buffalo, NY, 14228, 1-716-691-3476, Mod # 125C, CDT P/N 70-100.

The problem is that here in southern CA (Goleta/Santa Barbara area),
Caller ID is not available and probably will never be seeing how the
politics are.  I paid $57.00 COD, EDE will not take it back and it's
been a long time just sitting here in it's box. I want to sell it.

So for sale is the above for $40.00, brand spanking new, neve used.
What a deal if you have Caller ID enabled in your area.

BTW, I need some spare X-mas $$.


Thanks for listening,

[e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: If I get many more 'for sale' messages here
relating to telecom stuff, I am thinking it might be a good idea to
start a specific category for it. Even though we've had three in the
past three days, they generally are few and far between.  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #984
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa03001;
          30 Nov 91 2:54 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA11068
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 30 Nov 1991 01:15:41 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA30339
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 30 Nov 1991 01:15:30 -0600
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 1991 01:15:30 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #985

TELECOM Digest     Sat, 30 Nov 91 01:15:03 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 985

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Dial Tones on Answering Machine (Frederick G.M. Roeber)
    Re: Hacker Convicted (Marc T. Kaufman)
    Re: Hacker Convicted (Joel Upchurch)
    Re: Answering Machines for the Hearing Impaired (Lauren Weinstein)
    Re: US West: BBSs are Businesses (Randy Bush)
    Re: E911 System Brought to it's Knees By a Prank (Michael A. Covington)
    Re: Bell Canada to Offer Caller-ID "Alternate Number" Option (Bruce Balden)
    Re: Long-Distance at Local Rates (Nelson Bolyard)
    Re: Newest FAX Machine? (Malcolm Slaney)
    Sprint Voice-Activated Calling Cards (Henry Mensch)
    KLondike and YUkon (David G. Cantor)
    Re: Limited Bandwidth PBX? (Dave Martindale)
    How Do I Disable Call Waiting on Incoming Calls? (Cliff Stoll)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Dial Tones on Answering Machine
Date: 29 Nov 91 18:54:21 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Lauren
Weinstein) writes:

>> [omitted question about an answering machine recording dial tone]

> Greetings.  This is almost certainly caused by calls that rang long
> enough to trigger the machine, but then were abandoned by the caller
> just before the machine grabbed the line.  The result is that the
> machine ends up with dial tone, and continues its sequence until
> timeout, CO loop voltage drop (often part of the dial tone timeout
> sequence on modern switches), or other call termination trigger.

When I lived in Pac$Bell land, I had a cheap answering machine to do
all the answering (I gave up because of telemarketers).

Occasionally I would get such a message: dial tone, message, loud
busy, slience.  Some of these times, such a message would then be
followed by one half of some random stanger's phone call.

Once I returned from a couple week vacation to find about 30 messages:
26 from telemarketers, two real ones for me, and two of the "dial
tone+ etc+random other conversation" type.


Frederick G. M. Roeber | CERN -- European Center for Nuclear Research
e-mail: [e-mail] or [e-mail] | work: [phone]
r-mail: CERN/PPE, 1211 Geneva 23, Switzerland | home: [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Marc T. Kaufman)
Subject: Re: Hacker Convicted
Organization: CS Department, Stanford University, California, USA
Date: 29 Nov 91 18:54:32 GMT


> [Moderator's Note: ...Is it reasonable to expect every computer user
> to be a computer scientist? If industry and professional standards for
> security are met, then we have done what should be expected of us.  PAT]

It's not reasonable to expect every home owner to be a security
expert, either.  But I consider it reasonable to hire an outside
locksmith or security firm to advise me on securing my home or
business.  Why should we consider computers any differently?  Just
because the "standard" level of security on a delivered computer is
the equivalent of the average bathroom door lock, why should
supposedly knowledgable purchasers of such equipment think that the
same level of security would be adequate protection against access by
modem?  The penalties for (home) burglery are different, depending on
whether the miscreant walked in through an open door, or had to force
a lock.  The same should be true for computers.


Marc Kaufman ([e-mail])

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

From: [e-mail] (Joel Upchurch)
Subject: Re: Hacker Convicted
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 1991 22:58:35 GMT
Organization: Upchurch Computer Consulting, Orlando FL


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (John
Higdon) writes:

> Well, now let's see. If the government had installed secure software
> in the first place, how much would it have cost them? Have you ever
> heard of the term "mitigation of damages"? It says that if someone
> leaves his front door wide open and someone walks in that he is
> entitled to less than full damages. I hardly think that a computer
> that can be entered with less than two hour's worth of hacking would
> qualify for the term "secure".

Would you feel that someone who robbed your house shouldn't be
prosecuted if it took them less than two hours to get in? Most homes
can be broken into in a few minutes with a pry bar. Even a state of
the alarm system probably wouldn't keep a knowledgeable person out of
your house for more than a few minutes. One book I read on home
security said that you should use good pick proof locks, not because
it deters the criminal, but because you might have trouble collecting
from the insurance company if there are no signs of forced entry. A
lock functions more as a "KEEP OUT" sign for the lawful people, than a
deterent for the felon.

Not having state-of-the-art security software on a system might
indicate that the owners of the system are negligent, but it probably
means, like everyone else, they only have finite resources to devote
to securing their property. Having any sort of password protection on
a system should be taken as an indication that they don't want
unauthorized people mucking about on their system and give them the
full protection of the law.


Joel Upchurch/Upchurch Computer
Consulting/718 Galsworthy/Orlando, FL 32809 [e-mail]
{uiucuxc,hoptoad,petsd,ucf-cs}!peora!joel [phone]

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

Date: Fri, 29 Nov 91 12:06:34 PST
From: [e-mail] (Lauren Weinstein)
Subject: Re: Answering Machines for the Hearing Impaired


One reader reports trouble getting TDDs to record on some modern
answering machines, due to VOX problems.  Actually, there are some
tricks (and usage patterns) that can help deal with such situations
when you run up against many machines like that.  They tend to be
rather machine specific though, so if anyone is really interested for
any specific machine (I'll need an accurate description of machine
actions -- model number isn't enough given the continuous changes) I'll
be glad to offer some specific suggestions (via e-mail).


 --Lauren--

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

From: [e-mail] (Randy Bush)
Subject: Re: US West: BBSs are Businesses
Organization: Pacific Systems Group, Portland Oregon, US
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 1991 23:30:25 GMT


> While he's at it, does he want to explain how the upcoming OPUC hearing has
> been "forced by ... sensationalists," too?

Well, how about that Wagner got a lawyer and petitioned the PUC for
the hearing?  US West did not request one, nor did they say peep about
any other BBSs in Oregon other than the two which were flaunting the
rules.


Love and kisses,

randy    [e-mail]   ...!uunet!m2xenix!randy

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

From: [e-mail] (Michael A. Covington)
Subject: Re: E911 System Brought to it's Knees By a Prank
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 91 00:36:47 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Ron Dippold) writes:

> It seems that a disc jokey at KSOL decided to play a recent MC Hammer
> record over and over and over... as a prank.  Listeners were concerned
> that something had happened to the personnel at the station, so they
> called 911 (as well as the police department business line).  It seems
> that a few hundred calls in forty five minutes or an hour was enough
> to jam up the system.  There was no report in the newspaper of any
> deaths or injuries to the overloaded system.

> The DJ didn't want to stop playing the record (claiming First
> Amendment rights), but did insert an announcement to not call the
> police.

Hmmm, he could still be found liable.  He did something which would
create the impression, in a reasonable person's mind, that an emergency
had occurred.  It _was_ rather like yelling "fire" in a crowded theater.


Michael A. Covington, Ph.D.  |  [e-mail]   |  N4TMI
Artificial Intelligence Programs | U of Georgia | Athens, GA 30602

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

From: [e-mail] (Bruce Balden)
Subject: Re: Bell Canada to Offer Caller-ID "Alternate Number" Option
Organization: Wimsey Associates
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 1991 01:00:37 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Jamie Mason) writes:

> Even per-line blocking is better.  If someone blocks, it could be
> arranged for me to see 'Blocked'.  I could then automatically ignore
> such calls.

>    But if Bell lets them randomly pick some random number, I
> can't filter such calls.  Telemarketers will be harder to avoid, as
> they will be using their CNID-du-jour.

>    What I *do* want to see is Bell implememnt CNID *with name*.
> Where the name *cannot* be fictitious.  Then they can remove the
> number altogther for those who are paranoid about privacy.

>    But under no circumstances should they distribute lies.

Ideally the "fictitious number" would just as surely identify the
caller as the ordinary phone number, but would not be listed in
telephone directories.  Similarly, a subscriber per-call action could
permit authentication information to be sent to the caller id device.

This would permit those who wish the protection of an unlisted number
to have it, but would still allow pizza joints, and whatever to
authenticate calls.


Bruce Balden    Thaumaturge    [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Nelson Bolyard)
Subject: Re: Long-Distance at Local Rates
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc., Mountain View, CA
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 1991 21:30:01 GMT


[e-mail] (david.g.lewis) writes:

> The technology is not available now; several companies (Bellcore, Bell
> Labs, Fujitsu, I believe Seimens, perhaps others) have built
> lab-prototype (as distinguished from field prototype) ATMish switches,
> but as far as I'm aware, there is nowhere a field-ready prototype of
> an ATM switch.  There are field-ready prototype SMDS switches, and
> SMDS is "evolutionary to ATM", but that's another story.

At the "InterOp" networking trade show in San Jose last month, there
were several booths representing companies that claimed to be
demonstrating interoperating ATM switches (also called "fast-packet"
switches) at that show.  They claimed to be switching Ethernet traffic
among several nets on the show floor via their ATM-based switches.
They were selling their ATM gear as a CPE solution for private WANs
connecting LANs.

Sorry, I don't remember the names of the companies.  I suppose they
could have been faking it.  You walk up to a big monolithic box with a
few lights and the salescreature tells you that this box is the ATM
switch, and sure 'nuff there's lots of wires running in/out of it, but
who knows?

> Give it ten years or so.

Yeah, I believe it'll take ten years before the LECs and IXCs have
this stuff widely deployed, but that won't be because of lack of
technology.


Nelson Bolyard      [e-mail]      {decwrl,sun}!sgi!whizzer!nelson
Disclaimer: Views expressed herein do not represent the views of my employer.

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

Date: Fri, 29 Nov 91 13:53:44 -0800
From: Malcolm Slaney <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Newest FAX Machine?
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA


> Two methods of fax transmittal are available: a built-in acoustic
> coupler (sends message by simply holding the unit up to the mouth-
> piece of almost any Touch-Tone telephone.)  ...

> [Moderator's Note: What is the other method for transmittal? You only
> mentioned one (acoustic) above.   PAT]

Oh, sorry, the other way is much more boring.  They also provide an
RJ11 jack.

Now I know what was bugging me about this device before ... acoustic
coupling requires a connection to both the speacker and the receiver
of a handset, doesn't it?  The unit in the picture didn't look big
ebough to make a good connection to both ... and certainly the FAX
protocols require a two way path.


Malcolm

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

From: [e-mail] (Henry Mensch)
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 91 11:28:03 -0800
Subject: Re: Sprint Voice-Activated Calling Cards
Reply-To: [e-mail]


[e-mail] (John L. Shelton) wrote:

>   Drawbacks:
>   * I bet it's going to have trouble when you have a cold.

 ... or when you want to make a data call ...


# henry mensch / advanced decision systems / <[e-mail]>

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

Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: KLondike and YUkon
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 91 19:06:31 -0800
From: David G. Cantor <[e-mail]>


In TELECOM Digest, Volume 11 : Issue 982, John Higdon states,

> The reason I remember the 'KL' so vividly is that KLondike was a
> real exchange in San Francisco.  Someone must have an inclination
> for such words because another SF exchange was YUkon.

The reason these esoteric names were used is that the first two
letters of these exchange names had to have numeric equivalent 55 and
98, respectively.  For 55 the first two letters must both be one of
JKL and for 98 the first two letters must be from WXY, TUV,
respectively.  KLamath was also used for the first.  But it's clear
their aren't too many choices.  For 99, WYoming was a clear first
choice.  I can't remember what was used for 89, where the letters must
come from TUV, WXY, respectively.

The HOllywood exchange used to be a problem: People would dial 40
instead of 46.


David G. Cantor  Department of Mathematics
University of California  Los Angeles, CA 90024-1555
Internet:  [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Usually it was TYrone.   PAT]

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

Date: Fri, 29 Nov 91 17:16:15 EST
From: [e-mail] (Dave Martindale)
Subject: comp.dcom.telecom submission
From: [e-mail] (Dave Martindale)
Subject: Limited Bandwidth PBX
Organization: Imax Corporation, Mississauga Canada
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 1991 21:43:10 GMT


We have an Iwatsu digital PBX here.  The manual says that the data
format is "PCM32".  I haven't found any further details of the
digitizing process so far.  Does anyone know the answers to these
questions:

1) Does PCM32 mean the data rate is 32 Kbps?

2) Is that 7 bits/sample at 8 kHz, or something else?

3) Does the loss of 1 bit in amplitude resolution adversely affect the
ability to send high-speed modem data through the PBX (e.g. V.32bis or
Telebit's PEP modulation)?


Dave Martindale

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

From: [e-mail] (Cliff Stoll)
Subject: How Do I Disable Call Waiting on Incoming Calls?
Date: 30 Nov 1991 03:05:43 GMT
Organization: ucb


OK, if you're calling out, and you don't want your conversation
interrupted by Commstar / call-waiting, you preface your dialing with
*70.  So you see a lot of modem dialing strings that look like ATDT
*70,234-5678 (rotary dial folks use 1170)

But how do you disable call waiting on incoming calls?  If I have my
fax or modem programmed to autoanswer, how do I prevent another call
from stomping on my carrier?

Apologies to all -- this must be an easy one or FAQ.  Just never
occurred to me until I fired up AppleTalk remote access ... it's way
cool.


Cliff Stoll  [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: In most exchanges, call-waiting can only be
disabled at the start of an *outgoing* call with the *70 prefix unless
you also have three-way calling, or some other ability for flashing
the hook while a call is in progress. Obviously, once a call is
answered, it is 'in-progress', so unless the line in question also has
three way on it, suspending call waiting on an incoming call is
impossible. An exception is a few exchanges allow flashing (and
receiving dial tone) during a call regardless, and you can enter *70
against that. In either type of exchange, if flashing, getting dial
tone and entering *70 is possible during an incoming call, then doing
so will suspend call waiting and instantly return you to the call in
progress. So first, make sure you can do what you want on that line
with an incoming voice call. If you can't, the forget the rest of this
until you either add three way calling to the line OR take a better
approach and drop call waiting, period.

If you've gotten this far, then try this: When you detect an incoming
call, DO NOT answer it. Instead give the modem ATDT, the command to
dial 'blind' (that is immediatly, without waiting for a dial tone
which will never be there), the command to flash the hook (probably '!'),
*70, a two second pause, the command to go on line in answer mode,
then a carriage return. The modem will go off hook, flash the switch,
dial *70, wait two seconds and start sending answer carrier. Hopefully the
other end will be there waiting for you, and they should be provided
you don't give them any carrier until you are ready for them. If they
hear any carrier before your modem flashes the switch, they will start
handshaking with you, and your modem flashing the switch will mean the
loss of carrier to them and they will disconnect. You'll need
something on the side to detect the ringing phone which can in turn
start running a little script on your computer to issue these commands
to the modem unless you expect to answer all such calls manually.  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #985
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa05891;
          30 Nov 91 4:52 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA17368
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 30 Nov 1991 03:17:41 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA17438
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 30 Nov 1991 03:17:25 -0600
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 1991 03:17:25 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #986

TELECOM Digest     Sat, 30 Nov 91 03:17:16 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 986

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Strange Chatline Number (Colin Tuttle)
    Oddities About Area 809 (Collin Tuttle)
    Re: Hacker Convicted (Nick Sayer)
    Virtual Reality at Bellcore Symposium (virtual-worlds via Peter Marshall)
    Re: E911 System Brought to its Knees by a Prank (Bob Izenberg)
    Re: 950 No-Surcharge-Card Info Wanted (John Higdon)
    Re: ANI Numbers That I Know of (Pushpendra Mohta)
    Re: Calling Card Wars (Linc Madison)
    Legal Responsibility of CLID Users? (Bob Izenberg)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Strange Chatline Number
Date: 29 Nov 91 23:04:21 CST (Fri)
From: [e-mail] (Colin Tuttle)


In TELECOM Digest volume 11 issue 974 Jack Decker mentioned a chat
line in the 809-544 area code and prefix.  I checked with MCI and
found the number to be in Santo Domingo in the Dominican Republic.
They told me the call would be .94 for the first minute and .64 for
each additional minute, during the Economy time (after 10 PM in the
evenings).

Those are some hefty phone charges ... similar to the domestic 900
chatlines. This could give the local phone company in the Dominican
Republic a bit of money to pass on to the chat line provider, as PAT
had suggested.

If the Dominican Republic telco is charging MCI, AT&T, and others
.40 - .50 a minute to complete calls within their country, I would
imagine the telco might be willing to send .10 or so a minute back
to the provider for the boost in business.  Ten cents a minute might
be more than the company could get kicked back with a 900 call, and I
would imagine it is a bit more difficult not to pay a long distance
charge to your bill than a 900 phone call.


[Moderator's Note: Rates of .94/.64 are not that 'hefty' compared to
900 rates of $2.99/1.99 which are quite common. And the information
provider gets back a lot more than ten cents a minute, believe me you.
He pays maybe 35-50 cents a minute to the carrier, maximum, and keeps
the rest for himself.  PAT]

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

Subject: Oddities About Area 809
Date: 29 Nov 91 23:04:21 CST (Fri)
From: [e-mail] (Colin Tuttle)


While we are on the subject of the 809 area code, why is it that
Dominica has 809 for an area code, Martinique just south of Dominica
has country code 596, and St. Lucia just south of Martinique is in the
809 area code?  Does this have something to do in the way the local
phone companies charge for calls to each of these countries, or is
there some other reason?

Another oddity I've found is Haiti has a country code and the
Dominican Republic uses 809.  My atlas shows that both countries are
on the same island.


[Moderator's Note: To a large extent this has to do with countries
which were totally independent versus countries which were essentially
territories under the jurisdiction of another country at the time 809
was being set up. Also, there are some politics involved, ie, who we
(the USA) were friends with at the time 809 was set up versus who we
were cool toward. Another example is Cuba, where USA people may not
dial direct at all -- country code nor area code -- except for one
tiny area on the island which is leased by the US government for the
Navy. Shouldn't it logically be in 809? Yet Canadians can dial into
Cuba (but with a country code -- not 809) I understand, as can
Mexicans. Still another curious example are the islands of St. Pierre
and Miquelon, located just a few miles south of one of the Canadian
provinces. Yet they have a country code rather than a Canadian or USA
area code. Why?  Because they are French territories rather than part
of Canada despite their geographic proximity to North America.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Nick Sayer)
Subject: Re: Hacker Convicted
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix, Stockton, CA
Date: 30 Nov 1991 05:54:42 UTC


The Moderator notes:

> Is it reasonable to expect every computer user to be a computer
> scientist?

No, but not every computer user has a modem that will present a login
prompt to anyone who dials the number. In that regard, most of the
computers in the world probably are very secure, since the only access
to them is physical. THOSE users need not be security conscious. It is
those users who have dialup lines or wide-area network connectivity
that need to be security conscious. I must agree with John that it is
not too much to expect those few (percentage wise) to do a little
better than the victim in this case.

> If industry and professional standards for security are met, then we
> have done what should be expected of us.

Obviously either that is not the case here, or such so-called
professional standards are in serious need of review.


Nick Sayer   [e-mail]
37 19 49 N / 121 57 36 W   [phone] (modem)

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

Date: Thu, 28 Nov 91 13:47:00 -0800
From: [e-mail] (Peter Marshall)
Subject: Virtual Reality at Bellcore Symposium


[Reposted from an 11/20 item in sci.virtual-worlds]

Summary of "Advanced Interface Technology" Session of the 2nd
Bellcore/BCC Symposium on User-Centered Design.

The session in question focused on Virtual Reality, and business and
research issues surrounding the field, with emphasis on
telecommunications.  The first half was an audio-video presentation by
James Elias, Executive Director for Technology Assessment at US West
Communications. The main thrust was that Virtual Reality would be an
inevitable part of the telecommunications world of the future, and
that the US telecommunications industry shouldn't miss the boat.

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

From: [e-mail] (Bob Izenberg)
Subject: Re: E911 System Brought to its Knees by a Prank
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 91 0:02:37 CST


In TELECOM Digest issue 984, Ron Dippold quoted Glenn S. Tenney:

> The {San Jose Mercury News} reported that the San Mateo 911 system was
> brought to it's knees because of a prank.  Were you wondering when
> some phone phreak or system cracker would do this ...

What a misleading lead!  (I know, it's not from the San Jose paper's
story.)  The prankster wasn't a phreak or a cracker.  If we must have
labels, let's put them on straight.  :-) Another item in Tenney's
message caught my eye:

> they lost power and switched over to the emergency generator
> only to find that just starting a generator once a month wasn't enough
> -- the generator conked out in about an hour!

Considering how much critical services can depend upon their
generators, it is surprising to see how undermaintained some are.
Running them with a full load once a week is a good idea ... you'll
never know whether they're up to it until it's too late.  Also, watch
the fuel tank(s) ... one place had some water build up in its tank,
which rusted the bottom right out of it.  Their approach was to rotate
the drum continuously, but finding a water free diesel supply might
have helped (if that's possible.)

I also have a comment on PAT's two cents about the shock jocks in his
town.

> [Moderator's Note: Those radio DJ's and their First Amendment rights
> are really something else. We've got a few in Chicago who I'm sure
> must have given thanks yesterday for the First Amendment.

The First Amendment shields the offensive as well as the rewarding,
and who's to say which is which?  There's always the polar opposite of
what we have now, which P.J. O'Rourke talks about when describing
Phillipine television under Marcos:

"If you listened to Channel 4 for more than a minute, you'd start
boxing yourself on the ears, trying to get the steady hum of bull????
out of your head."

Lastly, John Higdon's note made we wonder (with respect to the Ed
Hopper and the COSUARD folks) whether we in Texas could have put up
more of a fight, and not been saddled with the three-line limit for
residence service by SWBT.  Alas, I only heard of the battle after it
was over and too late to pitch in.  If Ed or anyone in the know reads
this, is the settlement a closed issue?  I've always heard that Texas
was a cash cow for telco profits, but this doesn't have to be forever.
Let 'em work for a living!  :-) It was a good issue.  Thanks, PAT and
Digest contributors.


Bob

P.S.  If you're thinking that it's not like P.J. O'Rourke to avoid an
obscenity, you're right.  Neither shall thee blame thy Moderator.  The
question marks are mine.

DOMAIN-WISE: [e-mail]  BANG-WISE: ...cs.utexas.edu!dogface!bei

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

Date: Fri, 29 Nov 91 22:17 PST
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: 950 No-Surcharge-Card Info Wanted


Douglas Scott Reuben <[e-mail]> writes:

> Yet after calling numerous LD companies (Allnet, RCI, Cable&Wireless,
> Metromedia/ITT, Comm*Systems [who I'd rather not use anyhow due to
> their rip-off AOS]), I have found no service *without* a Calling
> Card/Travel Card surcharge. (Other than AT&T on ROA at night, or RCI
> within the Rochester LATA)

Don't cut off your nose to spite your face. I am using ComSystems and
find it quite economical and the service first rate. I get a rate of
$0.14/minute, no surcharge, no first-minute rate, six-second billing
increments.

Let me re-emphasize that you cannot simply call the front line people
and ask for rate quotes. You need to dig. You need to seek out
knowledgeable users and find out what the REAL rates are. You need to
check on various business plans. In California, no carrier can quote
you intraLATA rates so sitting in your easy chair and phoning around
will not get you the information you seek.

To find out what the T1 rates are, you need to go deep into the major
accounts division. Expect to expend more than a little effort to find
the right people. This part of what I do for a living: finding
inexpensive alternatives for telephone users. If it were just a matter
of picking up the phone a making a couple of calls, I would not be
delivering much.

> Some, such as C&W will offer you a $.33 per minute flat rate,
> providing you are one of their 1+ customers. Yet this is a bit more
> than the LEC charges me right now.

C&W also offers 950 access without surcharge and with attractive
rates.  You need to do a little more research.

> I believe that there have been a few inquiries about this in the past,
> so could someone who did the "research" previously let me know what is
> available?

All anyone can do here is point you to the carriers that we have found
to offer appropriate services. It is up to you to dig out the rates
applicable to your requirements and to negotiate for service. There is
a possibility that the rates in California are different than in NY
and if so, I cannot help you. I have no clients there.


        John Higdon         |   P. O. Box 7648   |   [phone]
    [e-mail]      | San Jose, CA 95150 |       M o o !

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

From: [e-mail] (Pushpendra Mohta)
Subject: Re: ANI Numbers That I Know of
Date: 30 Nov 91 07:20:13 GMT
Organization: CERFnet


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:

> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
> wrote:

>> In PACBell San Diego 211-2111.

>> *Interesting note: In San Diego, 211-2112 gives you your number, but
>> with Touch-Tones(tm)!  I think it playes a # at the beginning.

At least in San Diego, voice readout and touchtone playout ANI numbers
have always been contiguous.

> Neither of these appear to be work from my home phone (284-xxxx).

Works from only part of the county, I guess. It works okay from
551-XXXX.


pushpendra

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

Date: Sat, 30 Nov 91 00:32:27 PST
From: [e-mail] (Linc Madison)
Subject: Re: Calling Card Wars
Organization: University of California, Berkeley


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail].
edu (Harold Hallikainen) writes:

> I seem to remember something like if I use my PacBell card to
> place a call that PacBell cannot handle, my default (1+) long distance
> carrier gets billed for the call (who then bills me).

This is very, very, very wrong.  There is no guarantee that using your
PacBell card to place an inter-LATA call will go to YOUR default
carrier.  If it does do so, it is ENTIRELY coincidental.

When you make a 0+ call outside your service area, it will be carried
by the default carrier of the telephone line you happen to be using,
whether that is AT&T, MCI, Sprint, or LuxoCall AOS Gold Premium
($350.00 surcharge per call, but it's guaranteed to sound exactly like
a tin can on a string).  PacBell does not in any way encode your
default carrier on your calling card or in its calling card database.

Just like the TV ads say, if you don't hear "AT&T" after the kabong,
hang up and dial 10-ATT-0.


Linc Madison  ==  [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Bob Izenberg)
Subject: Legal Responsibility of CLID Users?
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 91 2:14:36 CST


I have a question for Digest readers who subscribe to Caller ID.  Is
there a regulation or agreement that requires you to truthfully
provide your number to a CLID-equipped number that you're calling?  If
someone comes out with a box that lets you remain CLID-anonymous, for
example, will there be any hassles with the local telco?  Whether it
would be cost-competitive with call blocking is unknown, so let's put
that issue aside.  Would your phone company insist, for whatever
reason, that the device be disconnected from your phone?


Bob
DOMAIN-WISE: [e-mail]  BANG-WISE: ...cs.utexas.edu!dogface!bei


[Moderator's Note: Caller-ID is not something you volunteer to the
other end. Neither telco or called party ask you for a 'truthful
answer'. The ID is provided by the central office based on what it
knows about you, namely your number unless you have specifically said
you do not want the information given out, ie ID blocking. It matters
not what you do to your end of the line; it is the central office
which decides what to do with the information and who to give it to
based on if the called party is paying to receive the information and
you have given a (default in most cases) okay to passing it along.

With this in mind, the only way you could trick the called party with
phalse information would be *by tricking the central office with the
same phalse information first* ... and we all know that giving bum
billing information to the central office is a Bad Thing to Do.

So if this hypothetical device is ever invented which let's you
'remain anonymous', you bet telco will make you remove it. More than
likely they'll raid your place and disconnect it themselves. :) You'd
have to stiff telco on the information in order to fool them into
giving phalse (or no) information to the distant end.  Not easy, and
certainly not nice!  If you insist on blocking your number, add some
gizmo in the line in front of your phone which automatically prepends
*67 to whatever you dial to save yourself the additional key strokes
if it matters.  Does anyone know if *67 can be made part of the dial
string in telco's speed dialing?  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #986
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa18962;
          30 Nov 91 15:45 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA17936
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 30 Nov 1991 14:13:15 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA05313
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 30 Nov 1991 14:13:05 -0600
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 1991 14:13:05 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #987

TELECOM Digest     Sat, 30 Nov 91 14:13:00 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 987

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Hacker Convicted (John Higdon)
    Re: E911 System Brought to it's Knees By a Prank (John Higdon)
    Re: Touch Tones on Videotapes? (David Leibold)
    Re: Touch Tones on Videotapes? (Jiro Nakamura)
    Re: Dial Tones on Answering Machine (David Leibold)
    Re: Making Annoying Calls *To* Telemarketers! (Ken Levitt)
    Re: Legal Responsibility of CLID Users? (David G. Lewis)
    Re: Legal Responsibility of CLID Users? (Bob Izenberg)
    Intra-Lata LD Using PC Pursuit (Gloria C. Valle)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 30 Nov 91 01:54 PST
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Hacker Convicted


[e-mail] (Joel Upchurch) writes:

> Would you feel that someone who robbed your house shouldn't be
> prosecuted if it took them less than two hours to get in?

Let us not be silly with our comparisons. First of all, my home is not
a "secure and sensitive government computer". But even using your
comparison, I would feel that if my bank's vault could be entered in
two hours by a student, it would be the bank's officers that should be
before a judge.

Secondly, I would consider that if my personal computer (shall we
compare apples to apples and computers to computers?) could be entered
in two hours by a total stranger that some work would need to be done
on my part. And remember, my home computer is not a repository of
secret or sensitive information -- but it is important enough to me to
not leave the door wide open.

> Most homes
> can be broken into in a few minutes with a pry bar. Even a state of
> the alarm system probably wouldn't keep a knowledgeable person out of
> your house for more than a few minutes.

What does this have to do with computers? I thought we were talking
about telco/computer security here, not housing.

> Not having state-of-the-art security software on a system might
> indicate that the owners of the system are negligent, but it probably
> means, like everyone else, they only have finite resources to devote
> to securing their property. Having any sort of password protection on
> a system should be taken as an indication that they don't want
> unauthorized people mucking about on their system and give them the
> full protection of the law.

If I can keep people out of MY home computer, I would certainly expect
that the government can, with its infinite resourses (our tax money)
keep kids out of its computers. I know of a number of companies that
have computers with very sensitive information contained within their
computer resources. They either a) do not allow dialup access to these
machines or b) have sufficient security to keep not only kids, but
real treatening people out.

I do not buy the argument that all you should be required to have is
the slightest hint of security and if you are penetrated that you can
go crying to the police and to the courts. Banks do not protect their
money with bathroom door locks. The military does not protect its
bases with "keep out" signs alone. Why should the security level be
any more lax on computer systems?


        John Higdon         |   P. O. Box 7648   |   [phone]
    [e-mail]      | San Jose, CA 95150 |       M o o !


[Moderator's Note: But the point is, both the computer and your home
are your personal property, and should be free from invasion. Also
please remember that the law protects the weakest of us. If I am not a
Unix Wizard but you are, and both of our systems are broken into,
should the fact that you might have known better mean that I should
have also known better? A neighbor of mine a few years ago put up a
BBS on an Apple II for her friends. She took normal security
precautions just as the books told her to do. Two weeks after she went
on line, some phreak broke in and wiped her disks clean, effectively
shutting down her BBS. Should she have been judged by your standards?
I don't think so.  PAT]

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

Date: Sat, 30 Nov 91 02:20 PST
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: E911 System Brought to it's Knees By a Prank


[e-mail] (Ron Dippold) writes:

> The DJ didn't want to stop playing the record (claiming First
> Amendment rights), but did insert an announcement to not call the
> police.

So didn't anyone listen to the announcement? It is a shame that the
collective intelligence of the public has dropped to such low levels
that if anyone on radio tries to do anything at all unusual, all Hades
will break loose and OF COURSE it will all be the fault of the DJ or
radio station.

How many people are aware of the fact that the networks continually
receive mail and gifts addressed to characters in the daytime soaps?
No, these are not directed to the actors but the CHARACTERS, who in
the script die, get married, go to jail, etc.

So radio entertainers are not to say anything offensive to anyone,
tell any jokes that might be construed to be defamatory, play any
record more than twice in a row, do any parody that might conceivably
be interpreted by the average imbecile to represent reality, or do
anything else that might conceivably stand out from the mushy Pablum
that so generally characterizes commercial radio today. How pathetic.

The people that called 911 in this instance were obviously idiots. Why
is anyone surprised?

TELECOM Moderater noted:

> We've got a few in Chicago who I'm sure
> must have given thanks yesterday for the First Amendment.

> God knows little or nothing will ever get the ignorant DJ's under
> control.  PAT]

Actually, we can be thankful for that. Government controlled radio is
not my cup of tea. We already have some very silly obscenity rules
that the FCC has put in place that seem to operate on a nebulous
sliding scale. While not a DJ, I am VERY thankful for the First
Amendment. If there is something you do not like on the radio, you can
always turn it off. If there is something on the radio you do not
think others should hear, then you need to find one of a vanishing
breed of countries that might want to employ your services as censor.


        John Higdon         |   P. O. Box 7648   |   [phone]
    [e-mail]      | San Jose, CA 95150 |       M o o !


[Moderator's Note: Had the same DJ aired a 'news bulletin' saying
several areas of the USA were currently under a nuclear attack from
some foreign nation, would you also blame the 'idiots' who would swamp
911 asking for instructions or confirmation? I'm not interested in
censoring his speech, but I believe I have the right to condemn and
scorn him for the speeches he makes. I also believe the greater one's
ability to speak, by virtue of being entrusted with major resources
for doing so, ie a radio commmentator, newspaper editor, even someone
entrusted, if you will, with more than average net access -- a Moderator
perhaps? -- then the greater your obligation to use what has been
entrusted to you in a responsible way. I do not believe my scorning of
someone else's speech should be equated with being a censor.  And when
I have made here what others deem to be irresponsible speech, I've
been first in permitting them to 'set the record straight'.  PAT]

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

Date: Saturday, 30 Nov 1991 00:13:20 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Touch Tones on Videotapes?
Organization: York University


Not only are touch tones found on videotapes, but CNN used to zap off a
set of four touch tones on either side of the commercial breaks, presumably
to signal cable company equipment to start up their own local commercial
breaks. This no longer happens (though what they replaced it with I don't
know and this is getting into rec.video.cable-tv topics) ...

I've also heard a series of touch tones used at the sign-off of a CBC
rebroadcaster of CBLT Toronto. The test pattern would come on, then
the tones were sent, and the transmitter power was shut off leaving
static on the channel. Presumably touch tones are used in a variety of
studio-to-transmitter links as they are used in amateur radio repeater
systems.


[e-mail]   [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Jiro Nakamura)
Subject: Re: Touch Tones on Videotapes?
Organization: Shaman Consulting
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 1991 19:23:09 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Yanek Martinson) writes:

> When I rent videotapes, in the beginning and end of tape, when I turn
> up the volume I can hear something that sounds like rapid touch-tone
> dialing. What is it?

    You're supposed to hold your phone up to the TV speaker when
the tones sound. If you have a trained ear (like John Higdon!) you can
make out the digits ...

        1-900-hot-vcrs

    :-)

    Seriously, I've never experienced this phenomena before and
I've rented a lot of tapes ...


Jiro Nakamura        [e-mail]
The Shaman Group    [phone] Voice/Fax/Data

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

Date: Saturday, 30 Nov 1991 09:34:40 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Dial Tones on Answering Machine
Organization: York University


Some of the newer answering machines will reject dial tones
altogether; a Panasonic KXT1450 model, for instance, will not even
count an incoming ring as a message if someone hangs up on the
recording ... thus, none of this dial tone stuff on your incoming
message tape, hopefully.

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

Date: Sat, 30 Nov 91 13:40:44 EST
From: [e-mail] (Ken Levitt)
Subject: Re: Making Annoying Calls *To* Telemarketers!


In <telecom 11-982> [e-mail] (David Ash) writes:

> I get a *lot* of telemarketing calls from Citibank offering to sell
> me the latest Citiscam. ... I'm also forced to listen to their pitch
> long enough to find out whether there's some legitimate problem with
> my account that I should know about.

I had the same problem with a different bank after my bank sold all of
their Visa accounts to a new bank.

I called the new bank and asked them to stop calling me.  I was told
that they were unable to stop just the phone calls, but they could
stop both phone and mail selling.  I told them that stopping both was
fine with me and I have not received any calls since.


Ken Levitt - On FidoNet gateway node 1:16/390
UUCP: zorro9!levitt
INTERNET: [e-mail] or [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: I would have responded "Of course you can stop the
phone calls ... want me to have *your attorney* show you how it is
done?" Why do people believe so much of the nonsense they are told by
banks?  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (david.g.lewis)
Subject: Re: Legal Responsibility of CLID Users?
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 1991 16:37:19 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Bob Izenberg) writes:

> If someone comes out with a box that lets you remain CLID-anonymous,
> for example, will there be any hassles with the local telco?

And PAT responds:

> [Moderator's Note: Caller-ID is not something you volunteer to the
> other end...  The ID is provided by the central office based on what it
> knows about you, namely your number unless you have specifically said
> you do not want the information given out, ie ID blocking.

> With this in mind, the only way you could trick the called party with
> phalse information would be *by tricking the central office with the
> same phalse information first* ... and we all know that giving bum
> billing information to the central office is a Bad Thing to Do.

Moreover, the number sent by the CO is the dialable DN associated with
your individual line.  This is the same common office data used for
translations and routing to determine that a call is destined for your
phone.  So if you did somehow manage to get incorrect data in there
(exceedingly difficult, unless you have the capability of wading
through three or four layers of operations support systems), you're
*really* going to protect your privacy, because no one would ever be
able to call you ...


David G Lewis       AT&T Bell Laboratories
[e-mail]  or  !att!houxa!deej      ISDN Evolution Planning

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

From: [e-mail] (Bob Izenberg)
Subject: Re: Legal Responsibility of CLID Users?
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 91 11:21:38 CST


In TELECOM Digest #986, PAT set me straight about CLID:

> With this in mind, the only way you could trick the called party with
> phalse information would be *by tricking the central office with the
> same phalse information first* ... and we all know that giving bum
> billing information to the central office is a Bad Thing to Do.

It's funny how my privacy-oriented idea is sounding dishonest when
played back to me.  Is it the recording or the recorder that makes it
sound that way?  :-)

Getting serious for a minute, if a not-so-hypothetical Mr. H wants
each of his six phone lines to display his listed voice number when he
calls you, can he do it?  Of course, if he can in his area doesn't
mean that I can (being in Austin means having to say that I can't, not
yet) in mine.  Maybe I should just ask Bill Degnan.


Bob

DOMAIN-WISE: [e-mail]  BANG-WISE: ...cs.utexas.edu!dogface!bei


[Moderator's Note: Phrased the way you said it the second time around,
the answer is yes. For example, both my lines here are billed under
the first number. If CLID operates the same way as call-screening and
automatic call-back does here, then regardless of the line I use to
place the call, the first number is the one used as the basis for
whatever happens next. Likewise at my office, we have a couple dozen
trunk lines from our PBX all billed under the main listed number. When
I have experimented with call-screening and auto-call back between my
home and office, invariably I screen or call back to the listed
number, regardless of the trunk line my call from the office went out
on. And when I have screened (or blocked) the listed number at my office,
calls to me from the back trunks on the PBX have been blocked also.

When I have in reverse blocked my first number from calling my office,
calls from my second number to the office are also denied. Note  I
said *IF* CLID operates the same as other CLASS features which toss
your phone number(s) around between caller and called party, etc.  I
have noticed it is also impossible to screen (block) or auto callback
to numbers which don't return supervision; ie if I attempt to block
calls from a non-working number, the recording tells me "call
screening cannot be used on that number at this time ... try again
later please." I cannot block any 312-727 (Ameritech HQ) numbers from
reaching me, nor any numbers in the XXX-99xx range.   PAT]

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

From: /PN=GLORIA.C.VALLE/O=GTE/ADMD=TELEMAIL/C=US/@sprint.com
Date: 30 Nov 91 18:32 UT
Subject: Intra-Lata LD Using PC Pursuit


I'm not sure if many of you know, but US Sprint's PC Pursuit can be
used by computers to make calls for a flat rate of $30.00 and $50.00 a
month and I have found that you can use it wherever there is an out
dial. It can be used for data only, but it sure makes a difference if
you do your calling after 6:00 PM local and before 7:00 AM local or on
weekends and some holidays.


[Moderator's Note: You can get on and off of PC Pursuit in the same
city, although they discourage it since it ties up two ports and as we
have been reading here, they are not authorized to sell service within
the same LATA. But PC Pursuit is an excellent bargain at $1.00 per
hour for data calls around the USA, plus whatever it costs to connect
to your local indial. I've been a customer since 1984 and recommend it
highly.  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #987
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa18540;
          1 Dec 91 4:52 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA22583
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 1 Dec 1991 03:10:30 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA12984
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 1 Dec 1991 03:10:17 -0600
Date: Sun, 1 Dec 1991 03:10:17 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #988

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 1 Dec 91 03:10:06 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 988

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Hacker Convicted (Michael H. Riddle, Esq.)
    Re: Hacker Convicted (Pushpendra Mohta)
    Re: Hacker Convicted (John Higdon)
    Re: Hacker Convicted (Gloria C. Valle)
    Re: Pending "Modem Tax" in Portland, OR (Tad Cook)
    Re: Virtual Reality at Bellcore Symposium (Jeff Sicherman)
    Re: How Do I Disable Call Waiting on Incoming Calls? (Jeff Sicherman)
    Re: Dial Tone After Hangup (Alan L. Varney)
    Re: Intra-Lata LD Using PC Pursuit (Seng-Poh Lee)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Michael H. Riddle, Esq.)
Subject: Re: Hacker Convicted
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Michael H. Riddle, Esq.)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 91 22:05:51 GMT


I am amazed at the number of people in this forum that seem to view
the Case of the Convicted Hacker in terms of polar opposites.  It
seems that the consensus is either the hacker, or the sysadmin, but
not both, is at fault.

I sumbit that both can be liable for their actions.

The Hacker is guilty of the electronic equivalent of breaking and
entering, and depending on intent, of either misdemeanor or felony
burglary.

The Sysadmin is perhpas guilty in tort of failing to take the steps
that a "reasonable person" would take under the same circumstances.

Both can be "wrong."

To further strain the analogy that has been made, if someone easily
opens my locked door and enters my abode, they are guilty of B&E.  If
they take something, of theft and perhaps burglary.  And if their
entry was that easy, I should have put on better locks.  Both of us
did something "wrong" and are paying the consequences.

Entering a passworded system, knowing you have not been authorized
access, is electronic B&E.  Period.  Viewing, not to mention copying
or destruction/alteration of data, is theft of at least some of the
bundle of rights that go with the ownership of intellectual property.

Now when it comes to sentencing, I will be sentenced in the court of
public opinion to get better locks.  As NASA will get better security,
I'm sure.  But the burglar, or the hacker, should be sentenced in the
court of justice.  She is not innocent merely because I could have
done it differently.


          <<<< insert standard disclaimer here >>>>
[e-mail]        |  Nebraska Inns of Court
[e-mail]        |  [phone] (Data/Fax)
Sysop of 1:285/27@Fidonet          |  V.32/V.42bis   /   G3 Fax

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

From: [e-mail] (Pushpendra Mohta)
Subject: Re: Hacker Convicted
Date: 30 Nov 91 23:13:45 GMT
Organization: CERFnet


In article <[e-mail]> John Higdon <john@zygot.
ati.com> writes:

> On Nov 28 at 22:46, TELECOM Moderator writes:

>> If industry and professional standards for security are met, then we
>> have done what should be expected of us.  PAT]

> Very much agreed! But I submit that ANY computer that can be entered
> as a result of two hours worth of hacking is not meeting those
> industry standards. For one thing, callback security is now

So maybe the NASA computer was not maintaining industry standards, but
I fail to understand the fascination with "two hours worth of
hacking".  Perhaps the Cracker knew of holes not widely known?
Perhaps he was one step ahead of the "state of the art"?  Some
debugging takes me hours, yet it takes the local guru no more than a
few minutes.

That not withstanding, this much hackneyed story, (poorly) rewritten
for modern times:

In BonerLand , the king ordered build the fastest, biggest computer
known to mankind. The computer did the nation proud, productivity in
the kingdom grew no bounds and then, one proverbial fine morning, the
computer came to a screeching halt.

All the king's experts labored for weeks. No avail. A reward was
offered to anyone who could fix the computer. "Let them name their
price," the king said. They came from far and wide, and they tried
their skills. No matter. The computer stood its ground.  The king grew
despondent.

Then another proverbial fine morning, with a loud thump, a pair of
skate boards landed in the lobby.  "Let me take a look," Bart Simpson
said. "What the hell," the king shrugged. Bart went around the
computer, listened to its various sounds.  Two minutes later his ears
perked up and he said: "Caramba Dudes! Bring me a hammer."

The kings experts grimaced. "Oh! well," they said. Ever so slightly,
Bart tapped the computer. Lo and behold, LEDs started flashing and the
processors started processing and the drives starting whirling and the
room was filled with white noise. The computer was computing again.

Bart wants a million dollars. "A million dollars for two minutes work!
All you did was hit the computer with a hammer," the king protested.

"Don't have a cow gramps," Bart says. "It's only a buck for hitting
the computer -- the rest of the dough is for knowing *WHERE* to hit
it."


Pushpendra Mohta   [e-mail]   [phone]    CERFNet

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

Date: Sat, 30 Nov 91 15:32 PST
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Hacker Convicted


On Nov 30 at 14:13, TELECOM Moderator notes:

> She took normal security precautions just as the books told her to
> do. Two weeks after she went on line, some phreak broke in and wiped
> her disks clean, effectively shutting down her BBS. Should she have
> been judged by your standards?  I don't think so.  PAT]

I do not think so, either. But there is still this matter of degree.
While not degrading the importance of one's BBS, my computer has my
life's work on it in every detail. It has my client lists, all matter
relating to work in progress, all source code for all of my voice
machines, and sensitive matter relating to legal cases that I am
involved in. For this reason, I have taken more than moderate
precautions to keep this data secure while still having the system on
line and in communication with the world.

To carry this one step further, a computer with sensitive government
information on it should be far more protected than my personal
machine. My point, which should be obvious, is that the more sensitive
the system, the more it should be protected. This principle is applied
to physical security, is it not? A bank does not use the same security
to protect its cash and negotiable assets as I do to protect my
privacy when on the throne.


        John Higdon         |   P. O. Box 7648   |   [phone]
    [e-mail]      | San Jose, CA 95150 |       M o o !

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

From: /PN=GLORIA.C.VALLE/O=GTE/ADMD=TELEMAIL/C=US/@sprint.com
Date: 1 Dec 91 02:08 UT
Subject: Re: Hacker Convicted


I myself have run an Apple II BBS since the early part of 1987 and
have had several users try every trick in the book to try and crash my
system.  I don't know if it was luck or just good programming, but no
one was ever able to do it. I have a good friend and programmer John
Edwards who wrote a routine that detected the use of .X which would
allow someone to get into files though the message base and X-modem.
His mod would check for that; prevent the user from access; kick him
off of the board; invalidate his password; and let the SysOp know that
there was a hack attempt. The newer versions of GBBS have closed this
as well as others. But as long as there are computers there will be
hackers. I hope your friend was able to put her board back up.


[Moderator's Note: She was really brand new to the scene and the
incident pretty much turned her off to providing any sort of public
service via computers.  PAT]

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

Subject: Re: Pending "Modem Tax" in Portland, OR
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 91 23:39:34 PST
From: [e-mail] (Tad Cook)
Date: 30 Nov 91 07:39:29 GMT


[e-mail] (peter marshall) writes:

> Tad Cook's 10/20 reply post on this topic in issue 850 is correct in
> pointing out some inaccuracies about this situation in an earlier post
> by Andrew Klossner; however, Tad's reply is no shining example of
> accuracy itself.  Given US West statements that BBSs are businesses,
> period, and thus subject to business rate classification, notwith-
> standing the absence of OR tariff language that can reasonably be so
> construed; this is not, as Mr. Cook tries to suggest, "one particular
> incident in Portland."

Sorry.  It is indeed one particular incident in Portland.  A company
operating a multiline BBS got caught using residential service.  Now
that some of the details are coming out, after the original cries of
"modem tax!" by the defendants, the latest tactic of the spreaders of
this misinformation is to quote a particular out of context statement
by a telco employee concerning what they thought might constitute
business service.  There have been no statements from US West that
imply any kind of redefinition of the tariffs.

> Notwithstanding the possibility that this sysop is, as Tad suggests,
> "spreading a lot of misinformation," that is not all that counts here,
> even as Mr. Cook seems to indulge in some "misinformation" himself.
> One example of same might be Mr. Cook's less than relevant attempt to
> haul out that tired old chestnut as to residential service priced
> below cost and "subsidized" by the higher business rates.

Less than relevant?  It was in response to a statement that the
difference in price for residential versus business service is somehow
"arbitrary."  It sounded to me like a good time to mention the concept
of "universal service," and how the tariffs are set up to pay for it.
I realize that this concept (chestnut?) is "old", but most of us would
not claim it was "tired" if it was abandoned and business and
residential rates were equalized.

If anyone really believes that pricing residential service lower than
business is a bad thing, go ahead and file for a change in tariff.
Don't blame me for trying to explain the rationale that the PUC had
when setting up the rate difference.


 Tad Cook     |  Phone:  [phone]             |   MCI Mail: 3288544
 Seattle, WA  |  Packet: KT7H @ N7DUO.WA.USA.NA   |   [e-mail]
              |  USENET: [e-mail]          or...sumax!ole!ssc!tad

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

Date: Sat, 30 Nov 91 11:33:27 -0800
From: Jeff Sicherman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Virtual Reality at Bellcore Symposium
Organization: Cal State Long Beach


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Peter
Marshall) writes:

> The first half was an audio-video presentation by
> James Elias, Executive Director for Technology Assessment at US West
> Communications. The main thrust was that Virtual Reality would be an
> inevitable part of the telecommunications world of the future, and
> that the US telecommunications industry shouldn't miss the boat.

  This is incorrect, as I'm sure John Higdon will corroberate, the
RBOC's are already heavily involved in 'virtual reality', it's more
commonly referred to, however, as rate justification. (:-)

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

Date: Sat, 30 Nov 91 11:44:01 -0800
From: Jeff Sicherman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: How Do I Disable Call Waiting on Incoming Calls?
Organization: Cal State Long Beach


In article <[e-mail]> stoll@earthquake.
Berkeley.EDU (Cliff Stoll) writes:

> OK, if you're calling out, and you don't want your conversation
> interrupted by Commstar / call-waiting, you preface your dialing with
> *70.  So you see a lot of modem dialing strings that look like ATDT
> *70,234-5678 (rotary dial folks use 1170)

> But how do you disable call waiting on incoming calls?  If I have my
> fax or modem programmed to autoanswer, how do I prevent another call
> from stomping on my carrier?

  This issue raised a question for me: is call-waiting line specific
or number specific? That is, if you have distinctive-ring service will
calls coming for any number on that line signal through (and if so, is
there any way to differentiate which one so you dont get an earful of
CNG?), or will the switch remember which number is using the line and
present some other symptom to the caller: continuous ringing but never
signalling you, or a busy signal. Are distinctive ring and call-waiting
just not good cohabitants on the same line?


Jeff Sicherman


[Moderator's Note: The two get along fine here. If you have call
waiting on your line and distinctive ringing, then the distinctive
ringing has its own, different call waiting tone. After hearing the
call waiting tone for the regular line versus the one for the
distinctive ringing number, you quickly can tell them apart. *70
suspends call waiting from either direction, so I guess you would say
it is line-specific, to use your terminology. In my case though,
instead of a busy signal, calls from either side are shunted
immediatly into voicemail.    PAT]

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

Date: Sat, 30 Nov 91 14:19:56 CST
From: [e-mail] (Alan L Varney)
Subject: Re: Dial Tone After Hangup
Organization: AT&T Network Systems


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Dave Levenson) writes:

> Most modern central office switches do not immediately provide dial
> tone to the "sole-surviving-conferee" when the other party disconnects.

> ....  Most common-control switches provide silence for 20 - 40
> seconds and then dial tone when the far end has hung up.  I don't
> recognize the pattern described here: silence followed by the ROH
> recording.

Most non-modern switches do not provide immediate dial tone, but some
PBXs do so.  A recent change in Bellcore's LSSGR specifies the LEC
must be able to control the handling of disconnect timeouts (either
party of the call remaining off-hook after a period), for lines
without conflicting features (Hot lines, for example). Either:

  1) Dial Tone treatment or
  2) Permanent Signal treatment

must be provided.  Permanent Signal will usually go to ROH and
eventually silence.  An on-hook condition is needed to allow service
to resume.  Unlike the Dial Tone treatment, the PS allows
(semi-intelligent) phones to prevent users from dialing a call after
the original call.  This is useful for COCOTs, etc. that don't want a
special class of service that would identify them as coin phones, and
don't want to attempt the NP-hard effort of distinguishing Dial Tone
from all the other tones a caller might receive.


Al Varney, AT&T Network Systems, Lisle, IL
Disclaimer:  I am not affiliated with Bellcore or the LSSGR,
  nor do I always agree with either.

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

Date: Sat, 30 Nov 91 16:04:23 EST
From: [e-mail] (Seng-Poh Lee, Speedy)
Subject: Re: Intra-Lata LD Using PC Pursuit
Organization: University of Syracuse


In article <[e-mail]> is written:

> I'm not sure if many of you know, but US Sprint's PC Pursuit can be
> used by computers to make calls for a flat rate of $30.00 and $50.00 a
> month and I have found that you can use it wherever there is an out
> dial. It can be used for data only, but it sure makes a difference if
> you do your calling after 6:00 PM local and before 7:00 AM local or on
> weekends and some holidays.

Do they charge for the local outdial call? I used to subscribe to
another data outdial service, but they buy the cheapest bussiness
lines and as such have a local per call charge or timed local access.
So although your connection is $1.00 per hour, once you dial a local
number at the outdial location, you could easily add several $ per
hour. How does PC Pursuit compare?


Seng-Poh Lee   <[e-mail]>


[Moderator's Note: PC Pursuit is flat rate. There are no charges to
use the outdials in the distant cities, however *where* you can call
from the outdials is somewhat limited to the local calling area of
that outdial, unlike the Tymnet service which allows you to pretty
much call where you please from the outdial for the extra cost
involved in making that call. The fallacy there is that to jump off
the net at outdial X and then make a call somewhere near to X but not
within the local calling area winds up costing almost as much as it
would dialing it direct from your home due to the broad differences in
rates between inter and intrastate calling. Tymnet is (or was)
allowing calls from outdials and billing for them at telco plus ten
percent. Well, fooey .... the extra 10-20 cents per minute is what I
would pay to go DDD from here in the first place ... so why not just
cut Tymnet out of the picture? PC Pursuit on the other hand, simply
disallows calls from their outdials which would otherwise cost them
extra. But their outdial coverage range is pretty broad.   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #988
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa20377;
          1 Dec 91 5:58 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA19789
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 1 Dec 1991 04:22:28 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA17998
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 1 Dec 1991 04:22:14 -0600
Date: Sun, 1 Dec 1991 04:22:14 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #989

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 1 Dec 91 04:22:08 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 989

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Making Annoying Calls *To* Telemarketers! (Robert J Woodhead)
    Re: Making Annoying Calls *To* Telemarketers! (Brandon S. Allbery)
    Re: Non-PacBell Calls in SF Bay Area LATA? (Macy Hallock)
    Re: E911 System Brought to it's Knees By a Prank (Derek Andrew)
    Re: Legal Responsibility of CLID Users? Mason
    Re: Touch Tones on Videotapes? (Dale Miller)
    Caller-ID Specifications (Jeff Sicherman)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Robert J Woodhead)
Subject: Re: Making Annoying Calls *To* Telemarketers!
Organization: Foretune Co., Ltd.
Date: Sun, 1 Dec 1991 07:39:16 GMT


[e-mail] (John Higdon) writes:

> My old 800 number used to receive wrong numbers for both a local boat
> tour company and the Hilton Hotel chain. When I was feeling
> particularly mean I would answer with either "Thank you for calling
> Hilton", or with the name of the boat company. More often than not, I
> would score and some unsuspecting person would book a tour or a room,
> which of course would be non-existent upon arrival.

Dear John,

It is my sincere wish that, the next time you accidentally misdial a
phone number while attempting to make an important reservation, you
end up talking to someone as witty as you are.

What you did was malicious, petty, insenstive and rude.  You punished
strangers for the heinous crime of misdialing a telephone by
inflicting the possibility of great inconvenience upon them.

Way to go.


Robert J. Woodhead, Biar Games / AnimEigo, Incs.   [e-mail]

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

Date: Sun, 1 Dec 91 00:40:44 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH)
Subject: Re: Making Annoying Calls *To* Telemarketers!
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH)
Organization: North Coast Public Access *NIX, Cleveland, OH


As quoted from <[e-mail]> by [e-mail].
ca (Richard Tilley):

> In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David
> Ash) writes:

>> ...  I get a *lot* of telemarketing calls from Citibank offering to
>> sell me the latest Citiscam.  I'm not sure just how rude to be with
>> them, and I'm also forced to listen to their pitch long enough to find
>> out whether there's some legitimate problem with my account that I
>> should know about.

> There is a simple solution to this. Think about it!

> [Moderator's Note: The first thing which comes to mind is that if he
> pays his bills on time he won't get the other kind of calls :), but I
> don't know if that is the answer you had in mind.   PAT]

I suspect I know what he meant ... but I'm not sure it would help.
Food for thought: I originally had my bank account at TransOhio.  When
I closed it, they screwed it up and debited it twice.  It took about a
year to get that straightened out ... then they started up again, this
time for accumulated service charges on the nonexistent negative
balance.  Sheesh.

So (a) you can get calls for "legitimate" problems that aren't your
fault and (b) closing the account won't necessarily help.  :-(

(This one doesn't belong in Telecom, though ...)

(No, it doesn't belong in RISKS either.)


Brandon S. Allbery, KF8NH [44.70.4.88]        [e-mail]
Senior Programmer, Telotech, Inc. (if I may call myself that...)

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

Date: Sat, 30 Nov 91 23:10 EST
From: fmsys![e-mail] (Macy Hallock)
Subject: Re: Non-PacBell Calls in SF Bay Area LATA?
Organization: A Fool's Paradise


In article <[e-mail]> John (I love GTE) Higdon
writes:

[discussion about bypass routing/dialing of intra-LATA calls]

> Absolutely. If you make a LOT of intraLATA calls there are several
> options open to you. One thing you might look into is any carrier that
> offers "950" access.

Here in Ohio (wherever the heck that is ...), we have at least one
carrier (Litel) that takes any call dialed with a 700 area code and
routes it as a home area code call.

Example: From Medina, Ohio (Akron LATA) to Akron, Ohio is an
intra-LATA toll call, and the local telco (GTE) takes all 1+ for
itself ... so if I dial 1-253-9883 (Akron Blackstone 1000hz test), the
call goes via GTE, and is billed at their outlandish intra-LATA rate.

If I dial 1-700-253-9883, the call is delivered to my 1+ PIC, in this
case Litel.  Litel routes the call to the same area code as the call
originated in: 216-253-9883 and bills me at the proper rate for my
calling plan.  This has two advatageous effects: 1) I save a little
bit of money and 2) GTE does not get my money.  I find this
arrangement entirely satisfactory.

> I advise virtually all of my clients to bypass and do it myself.

Same here.

Almost every PBX I work with has the ability to add routing digits
to a call as part of its Automatic Route Selection feature.

All of the PBX systems I am responsible for are programmed to send
intra-LATA calls out using the most economical route.  Telco
intra-LATA toll rates are not economical.  I use either FGB (950),
10XXX (where it works) or 1-700 routing, depending on the carrier and
telco.

I have a number of customers with key systems that either dial 1-700
or 950.  Many others have intelligent dialers (usually Mitel Smart
One's) installed on the key system lines just to reroute intra-LATA
traffic.

> You as a customer are violating no tariffs by bypassing Pac*Bell for
> intraLATA traffic. The applicable rules apply only to the carriers and
> allow for "incidental" traffic.

In Ohio, intra-LATA competition is entirely legal and open ... unlike
the People's Republic of California.  Ohio still has a very pro-telco
PUCO, though.  Just try this on a Centrex line! (these have very tight
telco controlled routing on them ... more telco revenue enhancement, I
guess.)


Macy M Hallock Jr N8OBG 216.725.4764 [e-mail] [e-mail]
[No disclaimer, but I have no real idea what I'm saying or why I'm telling you]

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

From: [e-mail] (Derek Andrew,,,)
Subject: Re: E911 System Brought to it's Knees By a Prank
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: University of Saskatchewan
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 1991 16:40:46 -0700


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail].
uga.edu (Michael A. Covington) wrote:

> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
> (Ron Dippold) writes:

>> It seems that a disc jokey at KSOL decided to play a recent MC Hammer
>> record over and over and over... as a prank.  Listeners were concerned
>> that something had happened to the personnel at the station, so they
>> called 911 (as well as the police department business line).  It seems
>> that a few hundred calls in forty five minutes or an hour was enough
>> to jam up the system.  There was no report in the newspaper of any
>> deaths or injuries to the overloaded system.

So, if something had happened to the DJ, how did he start the song
again when it was over?  Who was it who said "never underestimate the
stupidity of the public"?


Derek Andrew, Manager of Computer Network & Technical Services
University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon Saskachewan, Canada, S7N 0W0
[e-mail], [phone],  52 11 23N 106 48 48W

 .and they that weave networks, shall be confounded. - Isaiah 19:9

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

From: Jamie Mason <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Legal Responsibility of CLID Users?
Organization: University of Toronto Computer Services Advisor
Date: Sun, 1 Dec 1991 00:07:14 -0500


The Moderator's notes:

[ call blocking throwing *billing* number around ]

> Note I said *IF* CLID operates the same as other CLASS features which
> toss your phone number(s) around between caller and called party, etc.

    Up here, CNID delivers the number of the line that does the
calling.  Both of my lines are billed to my first line.  But when I
call myself, the CNID correctly indicates which line I used.

> have noticed it is also impossible to screen (block) or auto callback
> to numbers which don't return supervision; ie if I attempt to block
> calls from a non-working number, the recording tells me "call
> screening cannot be used on that number at this time ... try again
> later please."

    I don't have call*block.  I think that kind of thing does not
belong in the CO any more than speed dial does.  They both belong in
my equiptment.  Just give it the number and it should decide whether
to activate the ringer.  No more limit of 12 screen lines!  Now all I
need to do is wait for some company to build one, since I can't just
connect any random equiptment that I hack up to my line ...

    Anyhow, I can auto-callback to any local number for which I
can get CNID, and a few which I can't.  But there are still some
exchanges (like 416-636, which is a crossbar) which I can't touch with
CLASS-style features.


Jamie

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

From: [e-mail] (Dale Miller)
Subject: Re: Touch Tones on Videotapes?
Date: 30 Nov 91 17:45:16 -0600
Organization: University of Arkansas at Little Rock


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
writes:

> Not only are touch tones found on videotapes, but CNN used to zap off a
> set of four touch tones on either side of the commercial breaks, presumably
> to signal cable company equipment to start up their own local commercial
> breaks. This no longer happens (though what they replaced it with I don't
> know and this is getting into rec.video.cable-tv topics) ...

I believe most such tones have been moved to one of the other audio
channels now in use by broadcast TV.  Unless you have one of the
(expensive) televisions that can decode all of the audio feeds you
won't hear it any more.  I also seem to remember that some control
information is now located in the video signal (in addition to the
close-caption text).


Disclaimer: I program computers for a living.  Anything else is just a hobby.

Dale Miller - [e-mail]

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

Date: Sat, 30 Nov 91 17:30:39 -0800
From: Jeff Sicherman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Caller-ID Specifications
Organization: Cal State Long Beach


This is a copy of the data sheet picked up at the Rockwell
booth at the COMDEX show.

INTRODUCTION

Calling Number Delivery (CND), better known as Caller ID, is a
telephone service intended for residential and small business
customers.  It allows the called Customer Premises Equipment (CPE) to
receive a calling party's directory number and the date and time of
the call during the first four second silent interval in the ringing
cycle.  The customer must contact a Bellcore Client Company to
initiate CND service.

According to Pacific Bell representatives, the following states and
district currently support CND service: Delaware, District of
Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine,
Maryland, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Vermont,
Virginia, and West Virginia.

The following states are scheduled to support CND service by April,
1992: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa,
Massachusetts, Mississippi, New Hampshire, New York, North Carolina,
North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Rhode Island, and South Carolina.

PARAMETERS

The data signalling interface has the following characteristics:
    Link Type:                2-wire, simplex
    Transmission Scheme:        Analog, phase-coherent FSK
    Logical 1 (mark)            1200 +/- 12 Hz
    Logical 0 (space)            2200 +/- 22 Hz
    Transmission Rate:            1200 bps
    Transmission Level:            13.5 +/- dBm into 900 ohm load

(I have copied this data as presented.  I believe the transmission
level is meant to be -13.5 dBm.)

PROTOCOL

The protocol uses 8-bit data words (bytes), each bounded by a start
bit and a stop bit.  The CND message uses the Single Data Message
format shown below.

Channel    Carrier    Message    Message    Data        Checksum
Seizure    Signal     Type     Length    Word(s)      Word
Signal             Word      Word

CHANNEL SEIZURE SIGNAL

The channel seizure is 30 continuous bytes of 55h (01010101) providing
a detectable alternating function to the CPE (i.e. the modem data
pump).

CARRIER SIGNAL

The carrier signal consists of 130 +/- 25 mS of mark (1200 Hz) to
condition the receiver for data.

MESSAGE TYPE WORD

The message type word indicates the service and capability associated
with the data message.  The message type word for CND is 04h
(00000100).

MESSAGE LENGTH WORD

The message length word specifies the total number of data words
to follow.

DATA WORDS

The data words are encoded in ASCII and represent the following
information:

o  The first two words represent the month
o  The next two words represent the day of the month
o  The next two words represent the hour in local military time
o  The next two words represent the minute after the hour
o  The calling party's directory number is represented by the
   remaining  words in the data word field

If the calling party's directory number is not available to the
terminating central office, the data word field contains an ASCII "O".
If the calling party invokes the privacy capability, the data word
field contains an ASCII "P".

CHECKSUM WORD

The Checksum Word contains the twos complement of the modulo 256
sum of the other words in the data message (i.e., message type,
message length, and data words).  The receiving equipment may
calculate the modulo 256 sum of the received words and add this
sum to the reveived checksum word.  A result of zero generally
indicates that the message was correctly received.  Message
retransmission is not supported.

EXAMPLE CND SINGLE DATA MESSAGE

An example of a received CND message, beginning with the message
type word, follows:

04 12 30 39 33 30 31 32 32 34 36 30 39 35 35 35 31 32 31 32 51

04h=    Calling number delivery information code (message type word)
12h= 18 decimal; Number of data words (date,time, and directory
    number words)
ASCII 30,39= 09; September
ASCII 33,30= 30; 30th day
ASCII 31,32= 12; 12:00 PM
ASCII 32,34= 24; 24 minutes (i.e., 12:24 PM)
ASCII 36,30,39,35,35,35,31,32,31,32= [phone]; calling
              party's directory number
51h=    Checksum Word

DATA ACCESS ARRANGEMENT (DAA) REQUIREMENTS

To receive CND information, the modem monitors the phone line between
the first and second ring bursts without causing the DAA to go off
hook in the conventional sense, which would inhibit the transmission
of CND by the local central office.  A simple modification to an
existing DAA circuit easily accomplishes the task.

(I will mail the Rockwell data sheet, which includes the suggested
schematic diagram.)

MODEM REQUIREMENTS

Although the data signalling interface parameters match those of a
Bell 202 modem, the receiving CPE need not be a Bell 202 modem.  A
V.23 1200 bps modem receiver may be used to demodulate the Bell 202
signal.  The ring indicate bit (RI) may be used on a modem to indicate
when to monitor the phone line for CND information.  After the RI bit
sets, indicating the first ring burst, the host waits for the RI bit
to reset.  The host then configures the modem to monitor the phone
line for CND information.

(I'm skipping some Rockwell-specific information here.)

According to Bellcore specifications, CND signalling starts as early
as 300 mS after the first ring burst and ends at least 475 mS before
the second ring burst.

APPLICATIONS
Modem manufacturers will soon be implementing new modem features
based on CND information as this service becomes widely
available.

Once CND information is received the user may process the
information in a number of ways.

1.    The date, time, and calling party's directory number can be
    displayed.

2.    Using a look-up table, the calling party's directory number
    can be correlated with his or her name and the name
    displayed.

3.    CND information can also be used in additional ways such as
    for:

    a.  Bulletin board applications
    b.  Black-listing applications
    c.  Keeping logs of system user calls, or
    d.  Implementing a telemarketing data base

REFERENCES
For more information on Calling Number Delivery (CND), refer to
Bellcore publications TR-TSY-000030 and TR-TSY-000031.

To obtain Bellcore documents contact:

    Bellcore Customer Service
    60 New England Avenue, Room 1B252
    Piscataway, NJ   08834-4196
    [phone]



[Moderator's Note: This article will also be filed in the Telecom
Archives (lcs.mit.edu) as a separate article in a couple days.  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #989
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa00437;
          1 Dec 91 15:00 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA03903
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 1 Dec 1991 13:09:43 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA01314
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 1 Dec 1991 13:09:25 -0600
Date: Sun, 1 Dec 1991 13:09:25 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: What the RBOCs Aren't Saying in Their Radio Ads About Info Services


[TELECOM Moderator's Note: This message is the complete text of H.R.
3515, as sent along by Donald Yett <[e-mail]>. It is
posted here for your convenience, but all follow-ups should go to
comp.org.eff.talk where the message has been cross-posted.   PAT]


 From: Donald Yett <[e-mail]>
 Subject: What the RBOCs aren't saying in their radio ads about info services
 Date: 30 Nov 91 23:48:45 GMT
 Followup-To: comp.org.eff.talk
 Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA

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

H.R. 3515 -- Transcribed by James D. Bryant II on Nov. 24, 1991
             I have proofed this twice, it should not contain any
             errors or omissions, I can't access my spell checker
             right now, there may be a typo or two somewhere..

The following document is a full transcription of the Telecommunications
Act of 1991.

If this bill does not pass, the Regional Bell Operating Companies (RBOCs)
will be able to force all other information services out of business.

Please TELL your Congressman and Senators, and all members of the
involved committees to vote YES on this bill.

The RBOCs have been conducting a massive disinformation campaign on the
radio bashing the sponsers of this bill and saying that if this bill
passes, that the public will not be able to use online information
services leaving the impression on the listener that they are the ONLY
ones that can provide these services.

This bill will also provide for open competition among phone companies at
the local level.  This is the second reason that the RBOCs oppose this
bill.

The following information is from the SW Bell brochure on the subject :

     "IT SOUNDS EXCITING

          The exciting news is that we already have the
          technology to put these services to work for us
          through the seven regional holding companies --
          Ameritech, Bell Atlantic, BellSouth, NYNEX,
          Pacific Telesis Group, Southwestern Bell Corpora-
          tion, and U.S. West.  Some larger businesses in
          urban areas already use a variety of information
          services.  But, they are not an option for most
          small businesses and the general public.

          That's because making the services available to
          everyone depends on the regional holding companies...."

Information services depend on cables and switching facilities owned and
operated by the RBOCs.  Having them in the industry is a massive conflict
of interest.

They want their monopoly back!

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 3515            102nd Congress, 1st Session           [Page 01 of 35]

                                  H.R. 3515

To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to encourage competition in the
provision of electronic information services, to foster the continued
diversity of information sources and services, to preserve the universal
availability of basic telecommunications services, and for other purposes.

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

            IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                October 8, 1991

Mr. Cooper (for himself, Mr. Bliley, Mr. Synar, Mr. Schaefer, and Mr.
Bryant) introduced the following bill, which was referred jointly to the
Committees on Energy and Commerce and the Judiciary.

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

                 A BILL


To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to encourage competition in the
provision of electronic information services, to foster the continued
diversity of information sources and services, to preserve the universal
availability of basic telecommunications services, and for other purposes.


  1        Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
  2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

  3 SECTION 1.  SHORT TITLE

  4        This Act may be cited as the "Telecommunications
  5 Act of 1991".

H.R. 3515            102nd Congress, 1st Session           [Page 02 of 35]

  1 SECTION 2.  FINDINGS AND PURPOSES

  2     (a) Findings--The Congress finds that--

  3              (1) the national welfare will be enhanced by the
  4     continued development of robust competition in the
  5     provision of electronic information services and tele-
  6     communications services;

  7              (2) the widest possible availability of informa-
  8     tion and telecommunications services requires an
  9     open telecommunications infrastructure that incor-
 10     porates market-driven advances in technology and
 11     whose features and functions are available on a non-
 12     discriminatory and unbundled basis;

 13              (3) the availability of multiple and inter-
 14     connected complementary telecommunications net-
 15     works can enhance competition in the provision of
 16     information and telecommunications services;

 17              (4) the redundancy inherent in a pluralistic
 18     telecommunications infrastructure offers protection
 19     against network failures;

 20              (5) the cost-effective deployment of advanced
 21     public telecommunicatins networks, subject to ap-
 22     propriate safeguards, can further the long-standing
 23     goals of universal telephone service at affordable
 24     rates;

 25              (6) the provision of information services by di-
 26     vested operating companies prior to the development of

H.R. 3515            102nd Congress, 1st Session           [Page 03 of 35]

  1     an effectively competitive telecommunications infra-
  2     structure would likely lead to higher rates for tele-
  3     phone exchange service and jepordize the diversity
  4     of information sources and services; and

  5              (7) current regulatory policies must be revised
  6     and supplemented to ensure the universal availability
  7     of telephone exchange service at reasonable rates
  8     and fair competition in delivery of telecommunicati-
  9     cations and information services.

 10     (b) PURPOSES--The purposes of this Act are to--

 11              (1) ensure the continued availability of afford-
 12     able telecommunications and information services
 13     that are essential to full participation in the nation's
 14     economic, political, and social life;

 15              (2) encourage the continued development of ad-
 16     vanced, reliable telecommunications networks;

 17              (3) ensure that the costs of such networks and
 18     the services provided over them are allocated equi-
 19     tably among users; and

 20              (4) ensure that the provision of information
 21     services by divested operating companies does not
 22     jepordize the universal availability of telephone ex-
 23     change service at reasonable rates or undermine
 24     competition in the information services marketplace.

H.R. 3515            102nd Congress, 1st Session           [Page 04 of 35]

  1                TITLE I -- INFRASTRUCTURE

  2                       DEVELOPMENT

  3 Sec. 101.  NETWORK STANDARDS

  4        Title II of the Communications Act of 1934 is
  5 amended by inserting after section 201 the following new
  6 section:

  7 "Sec. 201A. NETWORK STANDARDS.

  8     "(a) SERVICE QUALITY --

  9              "(1) ADOPTION OF STANDARDS.-- A Federal-
 10     State Joint Board shall be established under section
 11     401(c) not later than 90 days after the enactment
 12     of this subsection to impose and enforce network
 13     quality standards upon the common carriers for the
 14     purpose of ensuring the combined maintenance and
 15     evolution of common carrier facilities and services.
 16     Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment
 17     of this subsection, the Joint Board shall initiate a
 18     rulemaking proceeding to establish standards, to be
 19     enforced by the Commission and the State Commis-
 20     sions as to matters within their respective jurisdic-
 21     tions, for measuring common carrier network qual-
 22.    ity.

 23              "(2) REPORTS -- Each common carrier shall
 24     submit to the Joint Board established pursuant to
 25     paragraph (1) a quarterly data report, in a form re-

H.R. 3515            102nd Congress, 1st Session           [Page 05 of 35]

  1     quired by the Joint Board, reguarding compliance
  2     with the prescribed network quality standards.  The
  3     Joint Board may require periodic independant audits
  4     of common carrier compliance with the network
  5     quality standards.  The Commission, upon the rec-
  6     commendation of the Joint Board, shall establish en-
  7     forcement penalties and procedures, including expe-
  8     dited customer complaint mechanisms, to ensure
  9     common carrier compliance with network quality
  10     standards.

  11     "(b) INTERCONNECTION --

  12              "(1) GENERALLY-- Each local exchange carrier
  13     shall provide interconnection, on a reasonable and
  14     nondiscriminatory basis, to common carriers and
  15     other providers of telecommunications services and
  16     information services who request it.  An interconnect-
  17     ing party may physically colocate the equipment nec-
  18     essary for interconnection at the premises of a local
  19     exchange carrier, except as provided under para-
  20     graph (2).

  21              "(2) VIRTUAL COLOCATION-- A local exchange
  22     carrier that can demonstrate by clear and convincing
  23     evidence in a particular case that the physical
  24     colocation required under paragraph (1) is not pract-
  25     ticable for technical reasons or because of space lim-

H.R. 3515            102nd Congress, 1st Session           [Page 06 of 35]

   1     itations shall offer an interconnecting party virtual
   2     colocation with it's premises.  Virtual colocation shall
   3     be economically and technically comparable to inter-
   4     connection that is or would be obtained through
   5     physical colocation of the interconnecting party's
   6     equipment at the premises of the local exchange car-

   7     ier.  Nothing in this paragraph shall relieve a di-
   8     vested operating company of it's obligations under
   9     section 227(d)(12).

  10              "(3) EXCEPTION FOR RURAL EXCHANGE CAR-
  11     RIERS.-- Notwithstanding any other provision of this
  12     subsection, a rural exchange carrier shall not be re-
  13     quired to provide interconnection to another local ex-
  14     change carrier.

  15              "(4) REGUALTIONS-- Within 270 days after the
  16     date of enactment of the Telecommunications Act of
  17     1991, the Commission shall--

  18                 "(A) adopt and make effective rules to en-
  19          force the oblications imposed by this subsection;
  20          and

  21                 "(B) initiate a rulemaking to require that
  22          the interconnection offered by a local exchange
  23          carrier pursuant to this subsection shall provide
  24          for the portability of telephone numbers.

  25     "(c) NETWORK ACCESS--

H.R. 3515            102nd Congress, 1st Session           [Page 07 of 35]

   1              "(1) REVISIONS TO ORDER-- The Commission
   2     shall further revise the order of the Commission en-
   3     titled 'Filing and Review of Open Network Archetec-
   4     ture Plans' CC Docket 88-2, Phase I, released De-
   5     cember 22, 1988, and subsequently revised, to re-
   6     quire that--

   7                 "(A) the plans for compliance with such
   8          order offer unbundled features and functions;

   9                 "(B) such features and functions are made
  10          available on a reasonably uniform basis by all
  11          of the common carriers subject to such order,
  12          and that such features and functions are acces-
  13          sible throughout the service territory of each
  14          such carrier;

  15                 "(C) such plans include a schedule for
  16          timely offering of new features asnd functions;
  17          and

  18                 "(D) common carriers subject to such
  19          order not unreasonably discriminate between af-
  20          filiated and unaffiliated providers of informa-
  21          tion services in offering tariffed and non-
  22          tariffed features, functions, and capabilities.

  23              "(2) REVIEW OF ORDER AND PLANS-- At least
  24     once every three years, the Commission shall--

H.R. 3515            102nd Congress, 1st Session           [Page 08 of 35]

   1                 "(A) conduct a proceeding in which inter-
   2          ested parties shall have an opportunity to com-
   3          ment on whether the order described in para-
   4          graph (1), as further revised, and the plans
   5          filed pursuant to it have opened the networks of
   6          the carriers subject to such order to reasonable
   7          and non-discriminatory access by providers of
   8          telecommunications services and information
   9          services; and

  10                 "(B) not later than 180 days after receiv-
  11          ing the reply comments filed in such proceed-
  12          ing, revise such order as it deems necessary or
  13          appropiate and require the common carriers
  14          subject to such order to file new plans consist-
  15          ent with such revisions, which new plans shall
  16          also be subject to public comment and Commis-
  17          sion review prior to their becoming effective.

  18     "(d) PRIVACY-- Personally identifiable customer in-
  19 formation obtained or collected by a local exchange carrier
  20 in the course of providing telephone exchange service shall
  21 be used only in connection with the provision of such serv-
  22 ice, and shall not be made available to any affiliate of such
  23 carrier or any other person except--

  24              "(1) as required by law; or

H.R. 3515            102nd Congress, 1st Session           [Page 09 of 35]

   1              "(2) upon the affirmative request by the cus-
   2     tomer to which such information relates.

   3     "(e) TARIFFS--

   4              "(1) GENERALLY-- A local exchange carrier
   5     shall prepare and file tariffs in accordance with this
   6     Act with respect to the interconnection and network
   7     access services required under this section.  The costs
   8     that a local exchange carrier incurs in providing
   9     such services shall be borne solely by the users of
  10     the features and functions comprising such services.
  11     The Commission shall review such tariffs to ensure
  12     that--

  13                 "(A) the charges for such services are cost-
  14          based; and

  15                 "(B) the terms and conditions contained in
  16          such tariffs do not bundle together any sepa-
  17          rable elements, features, or functions.

  18              "(2) SUPPORTING INFORMATION-- A local ex-
  19     change carrier shall submit supporting information
  20     with it's tariffs for interconnection and network ac-
  21     cess services that is sufficient to enable the Commis-
  22     sion and the public to determine the relationship be-
  23     tween the proposed charges and the cost of provid-
  24     ing such services.  The submission of such informa-
  25     tion shall be pursuant to the rules adopted by the Com-

H.R. 3515            102nd Congress, 1st Session           [Page 10 of 35]

   1     mission to ensure that similarly situated carriers
   2     provide such information in an uniform fashion.

   3              "(3) UNIVERSAL SERVICE ELEMENTS-- A local
   4     exchange carrier may include in it's tariffs for inter-
   5     connection services an element intended to recover
   6     the amount necessary to preclude any substantial in-
   7     creases in the rates for telephone exchange service
   8     that would otherwise result from the offering of
   9     interconnection services.  Such element shall be im-
  10     posed at a uniform rate on any person who pur-
  11     chases such services, and shall also be included at
  12     the same rate in such carrier's charges for services
  13     offered by the carrier in competition with the serv-
  14     ices offered by interconnecting parties.  No later than
  15     270 days after the date of enactment of the Tele-
  16     communications Act of 1991, the Commission shall
  17     adopt and make effective rules governing the cal-
  18     culation of such element.  Any amounts recovered by
  19     the local exchange carrier through the imposition of
  20     this additional element shall be used to defray the
  21     costs of providing telephone exchange servicce.

  22     "(f) RESALE--  The resale of telephone exchange
  23 service (or the unbundled elements of such service) in conjunc-
  24 tion with the the furnishing of an interstate telecommuni-
  25 cations service or any information service shall not be pro-

H.R. 3515            102nd Congress, 1st Session           [Page 11 of 35]

   1 hibited or subject to unreasonable conditions by the Com-
   2 mission, any State, or any local exchange carrier.

   3     "(g) COORDINATED PLANNING--  The Commission
   4 shall adopt and make effective rules for the conduct of
   5 coordinated network planning by common carriers, subject
   6 to Commission supervision, to ensure (1) the effective and
   7 efficient interconnection and interoperability of common
   8 carrier networks, and (2) that the design of such networks
   9 does not impede access to information services by sub-
  10 scribers to telephone exchange service furnished by a rural
  11 exchange carrier.

  12     "(h) STUDY-- No later than 270 days after the en-
  13 actment of the Telecommunications Act of 1991, the Com-
  14 mission shall initiate an inquiry to examine the effects of
  15 competition in the provision of telephone exchange access
  16 and telephone exchange service on the availability and
  17 rates for telephone exchange service furnished by rural ex-
  18 change carriers.

  19 SEC. 102. EXPEDITED REVIEW OF CERTAIN COMPLAINTS

  20     Section 208 of the Communications Act of 1934 is
  21 amended by adding at the end thereof the following new
  22 subsection:

  23     "(c) EXPEDITED REVIEW OF CERTAIN COM-
  24 PLAINTS-- The Commission shall issue a final order with
  25 respect to any complaint arising from alleged violations

H.R. 3515            102nd Congress, 1st Session           [Page 12 of 35]

   1 of section 201A within 270 days after such complaint is
   2 filed".

   3 SEC. 103. EXPEDITED LICENSING OF NEW TECHNOLOGIES

   4           AND SERVICES.

   5     Section 7 of the Communications Act of 1934 is

   6 amended by adding to the end thereof the following new
   7 subsection:


   8     "(c) LICENSING OF NEW TECHNOLOGIES-- Within
   9 twenty-four months after making a determination under
  10 subsection (b) that a technology or service related to the
  11 furnishing of tlelcommunications services or information
  12 services is in the public interest, the Commission shall
  13 adopt and make effective rules for--

  14              "(1) the provision of such technology or service;
  15     and

  16              "(2) the filing of applications for the authoriza-
  17     tions necessary to offer such technology or service to
  18     the public, and shall act on any such application
  19     within twenty-four months after it is filed.  Any ap-
  20     plication filed by a carrier under this subsection for
  21     the construcction or extension of a line shall also be
  22     subject to section 214 and to any necessary approval
  23     by the appropriate State commissions".

H.R. 3515            102nd Congress, 1st Session           [Page 13 of 35]

   1             TITLE II -- PROVISIONS AFFECTING
   2               DIVESTED OPERATING COMPANIES

   3 SEC. 201. PROVISION OF INFORMATION SERVICES

   4     Title II of the Telecommunications Act of 1934 is
   5 amended by adding at the end thereof the following new
   6 section:

   7 "SEC. 227. PROVISION OF INFORMATION SERVICES BY DI-
   8                   OPERATING COMPANIES.

   9     "(a) PROVISION OF SERVICES-- A divested operating
  10 company or an affiliate thereof may provide information
  11 services, subject to this section and title IV.

  12     "(b) ELECTRONIC PUBLISHING-- A divested operat-
  13 ing company or an affiliate thereof may not offer elec-
  14 tronic publishing services in any State in which such com-
  15 pany or affiliate provides telephone exchange service until
  16 the Commission, after notice and opportunity for public
  17 comment and after consultation with the Department of
  18 Justice and the appropriate State commissions, deter-
  19 mines that--

  20              "(1) at least 50 percent of all businesses and
  21     residences within the areas in each State in which
  22     such company or any affiliate thereof provides tele-
  23     phone exchange service have access to transmission
  24     and switching facilities (other than those owned or
  25     controlled by a divested operating company or it's af-

H.R. 3515            102nd Congress, 1st Session           [Page 14 of 35]

   1     filiate) that are comparable in quality, cost, geo-
   2     graphic range, and functionality to those offered by
   3     the divested operating company for the delivery of
   4     electronic publishing services;

   5              "(2) at least 10 percent of all businesses and
   6     residences within the areas in each State in which
   7     such company provides telephone exchange service
   8     subscribe to services delivered over such alternative
   9     facilities; and

  10              "(3) the divested operating company or affiliate
  11     thereof seeking to provide such electronic publishing
  12     services has demonstrated that there is no substan-
  13     tial possibility that the divested operating company
  14     could use it's position as a local exchange carrier to
  15     (A) impede competition in the provision of electronic
  16     publishing services, or (B) impose additional costs
  17     upon subscribers of telephone exchange service.

  18     "(c) WAIVER-- A divested operating company or an
  19 affiliate thereof may petition the Commission for a waiver
  20 of subsections (b) and (h) to provide a particular elec-
  21 tronic publishing service.  Such petition shall be granted
  22 if such company or affiliate can demonstrate to the Com-
  23 mission by clear and convincing evidence that (A) such
  24 service would not exist unless offered by such company
  25 or affiliate, and (B) the provision of such service by such

H.R. 3515            102nd Congress, 1st Session           [Page 15 of 35]

   1 company or affiliate would not impose additional costs
   2 upon subscribers of telephone exchange service.  The Com-
   3 mission shall provide notice and opportunity for public
   4 comment with respect to any request for a waiver persu-
   5 ant to this subsection.  The provision of any service author-
   6 ized pursuant to this subsection shall be subject to all of
   7 the other provisions of this Act, including title IV and the
   8 requirements of this subsection.

   9     "(d) SEPARATE SUBSIDIARY--

  10              "(1) GENERALLY-- Except as provided in sub-
  11     section (e), a divested operating company or affiliate
  12     thereof may provide information services only

  13     through a subsidiary that is separated from the tele-
  14     phone exchange service operations of the divested
  15     company, in accordance with the requirements of
  16     this subsection and the regualations prescribed by the
  17     Commission to carry out this subsection.

  18              "(2) MINIMUM NUMBER OF OUTSIDE DIREC-
  19     TORS-- Any subsidiary required by this subsection
  20     shall have a board of directors not less than 33 per-
  21     cent of whom are not employees, officers, or direc-
  22     tors of any divested operating company or any affili-
  23     ate of such company.

  24              "(3) TRANSACTION REQUIREMENTS-- Any
  25     transaction between any divested operating company

H.R. 3515            102nd Congress, 1st Session           [Page 16 of 35]

   1     and any other affiliate of such company (including

   2     the subsidiary required by this subsection)--

   3                 "(A) shall not be based upon any pref-
   4          erence or discrimination arising out of affili-
   5          ation;

   6                 "(B) shall be carried out in the same man-
   7          ner as such company or affiliate conducts such
   8          business with unaffiliated persons;

   9                 "(C) shall be pursuant to contract or tariff
  10          reported to the Commission and made available
  11          for public inspection;

  12                 "(D) shall be fully auditable and reflect all
  13          costs associated with the conduct of such busi-
  14          ness; and

  15                 "(E) shall not have the effect of permitting
  16          any violation of the requirements of subsection
  17          (f) of this section.

  18              "(4) SEPERATE OPERATION AND PROPERTY--
  19     A subsidiary required by this subsection may not--

  20                 "(A) enter into any joint venture or part-
  21          nership with the divested operating company;

  22                 "(B) have employees or a financial struc-
  23          ture (other than as provided in this section) in
  24          common with the divested operating company;

H.R. 3515            102nd Congress, 1st Session           [Page 17 of 35]

  1                 "(C) own any property in common with a
  2          divested operating company; or

  3                 "(D) establish any other subsidiary or af-
  4          filiate except after notice to the Commission in
  5          such form and containing such information as
  6          the Commission may require.

  7              "(5) SEPARATE COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES-- A
  8     subsidiary required by this subsection shall carry out
  9     directly it's own marketing, sales, accounting, hiring
 10     and training of personnel, purchasing, and mainte-
 11     nance.

 12              "(6) BOOKS, RECORDS, AND REPORTS-- Any
 13     subsidiary required by this subsection shall--

 14                 "(A) maintain books, records, and ac-
 15          counts in a manner prescribed by the Commis-
 16          sion which shall be seperate from the books,
 17          records, and accounts maintained by the di-
 18          vested operating company and the other affili-
 19          ates of the divested operating company, and
 20          which shall identify any conduct of business
 21          with such company and any such affiliates; and

 22                 "(B) prepare it's own financial statements
 23          (including balance sheets and the related state-
 24          ments of operations, stockholders' equity, and
 25          cash flows) that are not consolidated with the

H.R. 3515            102nd Congress, 1st Session           [Page 18 of 35]

  1          financial statements of the divested operating
  2          company and any other affiliate of such com-
  3          pany; and

  4                 "(C) prepare and file with the Commission,
  5          whether or not such subsidiary is publicly trad-
  6          ed, the annual and periodic reports required of
  7          publicly traded companies by the Securities and
  8          Exchange Commission.

  9              "(7) ADVERTISING-- A subsidiary required by
 10     this subsection may not carry out advertising with
 11     the divested operating company, except that such
 12     subsidiary may carry out institutional advertising
 13     with such company if (A) such advertising does not
 14     specifically relate to any service, and (B) the sub-
 15     sidiary and the divested operating comapany share
 16     any costs of such advertising in proportion to their

 17     revenue.

 18              "(8) SECURITIES INFORMATION-- A subsidiary

 19     required by this subsection shall submit to the Com-
 20     mission a copy of any statement or prospectus that
 21     such subsidiary is required to file with the Securities
 22     and Exchange Commission.

 23              "(9) OUTSIDE OWNERSHIP-- A divested operat-
 24     ing company or an affiliate thereof may not own
 25     more than 90 percent of any class of outstanding

H.R. 3515            102nd Congress, 1st Session           [Page 19 of 35]

  1     capital stock of any affiliated subsidiary required by
  2     this subsection.


  3              "(10) TRANSMISSION CAPACITY-- A seperate
  4     subsidiary required by this subsection may not own
  5     any transmission facilities, and may obtain the use
  6     of such facilities from an affiliated divested operat-
  7     ing company or affiliate thereof only pursuant to
  8     tariffs of general applicability.

  9              "(11) PRESERVATION OF SEPERATE SUBSIDI-

 10     ARY REQUIREMENTS FOR GRANDFATHERED FUNC-
 11     TIONS-- Nothing in this subsection shall be con-
 12     strued to relieve a divested operating company or
 13     any affiliate thereof (or any other local exchange
 14     carrier or affiliate thereof) of any seperate subsidi-
 15     ary requirement imposed before October 1, 1991.

 16              "(12) PROVISION OF SERVICES AND INFORMA-

 17     TION-- A divested operating company may not pro-
 18     vide any services or information to a subsidiary re-
 19     quired by this subsection unless such services or in-
 20     formation are made available to others on the same
 21     terms and conditions.

 22     "(e) EXCEPTION TO SEPERATE SUBSIDIARY RE-

 23 QUIREMENT-- A divested operating company or affiliate
 24 thereof shall not be required to establish a subsidiary pur-
 25 suant to subsection (d) with respect to any information

H.R. 3515            102nd Congress, 1st Session           [Page 20 of 35]

  1 service provided by such company or affiliate on or before
  2 October 1, 1991.

  3     "(f) PREVENTION OF CROSS-SUBSIDIARIES--


  4              "(1) COST ALLOCATION SYSTEM REQUIRED--
  5     Any divested operating company that provides infor-
  6     mation services, or which has an affiliate that is en-
  7     gaged in the provision of such services, shall estab-
  8     lish and administer, in accordance with the require-
  9     ments of this subsection and the regulations pre-
 10     scribed thereunder, a cost allocation system that, to-
 11     gether with the subsidiary requirements of sub-
 12     section (d), is intended to prohibit any cost of pro-
 13     viding such services from being subsidized by reve-
 14     nue from telephone exchange service or telephone ex-
 15     change access services.

 16              "(2) COST ASSIGNMENT AND ALLOCATION REG-
 17     ULATIONS--

 18                 "(A) GENERALLY-- The Commission shall
 19          establish regulations to require the just and
 20          reasonable assignment and allocation of all
 21          costs that are in any way incurred by a divested
 22          operating company or any affiliate thereof in
 23          the provision of any information service.

 24                 "(B) JOINT AND COMMON COSTS-- The
 25          regulations adopted pursuant to this paragraph

H.R. 3515            102nd Congress, 1st Session           [Page 21 of 35]

  1          shall include a requirement that any costs of
  2          any investment or other expenditure that can-
  3          not be allocated based upon direct or indirect
  4          measures of cost causation shall be allocated to
  5          unregulated services--

  6                      "(i) under a formula that ensures that
  7                  the rates for telephone exchange service
  8                  are no greater than they would have been
  9                  in the absence of such investment (taking
 10                  into account any decline in the real costs
 11                  of providing such service), or

 12                      "(ii) based upon the highest forecast
 13                  unregulated usage of the investment over
 14                  the life of the investment,

 15          whichever method results in the lesser allocation
 16          of such costs to telephone exchange service.

 17              "(3) INSULATION OF RATEPAYERS--

 18                 "(A) ASSETS-- The Commission shall, by
 19          regulation, ensure that the economic risks asso-
 20          ciated with the provision of information services
 21          by divested operating companies or affiliates
 22          thereof (including any increases in the divested
 23          operating company's cost of capital that occur
 24          as a result of the provision of such services) are
 25          not borne by customers of telephone exchange

H.R. 3515            102nd Congress, 1st Session           [Page 22 of 35]

  1          service in the event of a business loss or failure.
  2          Investments or other expenditures assigned to
  3          information services shall not be reassigned to
  4          telephone exchange service or telephone ex-
  5          change access service.

  6                 "(B) DEBT-- Any divested operating com-
  7          pany affiliate--

  8                      "(i) which is providing information
  9                  services, and

 10                      "(ii) which is required to be or is
 11                  structurally seperate from an affiliate en-
 12                  gaged in the provision of telephone ex-
 13                  change service,

 14          shall not obtain credit under any arrangement
 15          that (I) would permit a creditor, upon default,
 16          to have recourse to the assets of the divested
 17          operating company, or (II) would induce a cred-
 18          itor to rely on the tangible or intangible assets
 19          of the divested operating company in extending
 20          credit.

 21              "(4) TRANSFERS OF ASSETS BETWEEN AFFILI-
 22     ATED COMPANIES-- The Commission shall prescribe
 23     regulations governing the accounting for the transfer
 24     of assets between a divested operating company and
 25     it's affiliates.  Such regulations shall protect the inter-

H.R. 3515            102nd Congress, 1st Session           [Page 23 of 35]

  1     ests of ratepayers of telephone exchange service and
  2     require such transfer to be conducted by means of
  3     a transaction that complies with subsection (d)(3).
  4     Such regulations shall require that--


  5                 "(A) any transfer of assets from such an
  6          affiliate to it's affiliated divested operating com-
  7          pany be valued at the lesser of net book cost or
  8          fair market value; and

  9                 "(B) any transfer of assets fromm a divested
 10          operating company to it's affiliate be valued at
 11          the greater of net book cost or fair market
 12          value.

 13              "(5) ANNUAL AUTIDING REQUIREMENT--

 14                 "(A) AUDIT APPLICABILITY AND PUR-
 15          POSE-- Each divested operating company that
 16          engages in, or has an affiliate that engages in,
 17          or has a financial or management interest in an
 18          orginization or entity that provides information
 19          services, shall provide annually to the Commis-
 20          sion, and to the State Commission of each State
 21          within which such company provides telephone
 22          exchange service, a report on the results of an
 23          audit by an independant auditor conducted for
 24          the purpose of determining wether the com-
 25          pany has--

H.R. 3515            102nd Congress, 1st Session           [Page 24 of 35]

  1                      "(i) established and administered a
  2                  cost allocation system as required by para-
  3                  graph (1) of this subsection, and

  4                      "(ii) complied with the cost assign-
  5                  ment and allocation regulations prescribed
  6                  under this subsection.

  7                 "(B) CONDUIT OF AUDIT-- Such audit
  8          shall be conducted, at divested operating com-
  9          pany expense, in accordance with audit proce-
 10          dures prescribed by the Commission, by regula-
 11          tion, which shall include approval of auditor se-
 12          lection by the Commission and rotation of audi-
 13          tors or other procedures to ensure the inde-
 14          pendence of such auditor.

 15                 "(C) SUBMISSION OF AUDIT RESULTS;
 16          CERTIFICATION-- The divested operating com-
 17          pany shall submit the audit to the Commission,
 18          which shall make the audit report available for
 19          public inspection.  Such report shall be certified
 20          by the person conducting the audit and by an
 21          appropriate officer of such affiliate and shall
 22          identify with particularity any qualifications or
 23          limitations on such certification and any other
 24          information relevant to the enforcement of the
 25          requirements of this section.

H.R. 3515            102nd Congress, 1st Session           [Page 25 of 35]

  1                 "(D) ACCESS TO DOCUMENTS-- For pur-
  2          poses of conducting and reviewing such audit--

  3                      "(i) the auditor, the Commission, and
  4                  a State commission with jurisdiction over
  5                  the divested operating company shall have
  6                  access to the accounts and records of the
  7                  divested operating company and to those
  8                  accounts and records of any of it's affiliates
  9                  necessary to verify transactions conducted
 10                  with the divested operating company; and

 11                      "(ii) the Commission and a State
 12                  commission shall have access to the work-
 13                  ing papers and supporting materials of any
 14                  auditor who performs an audit under this
 15                  paragraph.

 16     "(g) RECOVERY OF USE OF INTANGIBLE ASSETS--
 17 The Commission and a State commission shall, within
 18 their respective jurisdictions, require a divested operating
 19 company to assess any affiliate providing information
 20 services a charge for the reasonable vvalue of any intangible
 21 assets used in the provision of information services, and
 22 to credit the amount of such charge to the provision of
 23 telephone exchange service.

 24     "(h) REMOVAL OF BARRIERS TO COMPETITIVE
 25 ENTRY-- A divested operating company or affiliate there-

H.R. 3515            102nd Congress, 1st Session           [Page 26 of 35]

  1 of may not provide electronic publishing services, other
  2 than those it provided on or before October 1, 1991, in
  3 any State in which such company or affiliate provides tele-
  4 phone exchange service, unless and untill all entry barriers

  5 to the competitive provision of telecommunications services
  6 imposed by each State or State commission in which such
  7 company or affiliate provides telephone exchange service
  8 have been removed with respect to such company or affili-
  9 ate.

 10     "(i) PROVISION OF GATEWAY SERVICES-- Any di-
 11 vested operating company or affiliate thereof that offers
 12 a gateway service shall make such service available concurr-
 13 ently to all it's subscribers at the same rates, terms,
 14 and conditions.

 15     "(j) ENFORCEMENT-- A person who is injured by a
 16 violation of any of the requirements of this section may,
 17 in lieu of filing a complaint under section 208, commence
 18 in a civil action for injunctive relief and monetary damages
 19 in any Federal judicial district in which the defendant re-
 20 sides or has an agent.  A residential customer of telephone
 21 exchange service shall have standing to commence an ac-
 22 tion under this section, without regard to the amount in
 23 controversy.  In any action brought under this section, the
 24 court may award the costs of litigation (including reson-
 25 able attorneys fees).

H.R. 3515            102nd Congress, 1st Session           [Page 27 of 35]

  1     "(k) ADDITIONAL AUTHORITY-- In addition to any
  2 other authority which the Commission may exercise under
  3 this Act, the Commission shall take such actions as are
  4 necessary--

  5              "(1) to prevent anticompetitive practicces be-
  6     tween a divested operating company and any affili-
  7     ate of the divested operating company;

  8              "(2) to protect ratepayers of divested operating
  9     companies from subsidizing the provision of informa-
 10     tion services by such companies or their affiliates;

 11              "(3) to prevent any divested operating company
 12     or any affiliate thereof fromm imposing any unjust or

 13     unreasonable rates or charges for any common car-
 14     ier services that are provided in connection with the
 15     provision of information services.

 16     "(m) DEFINITIONS-- As used in this section--

 17              "(1) AFFILIATE-- The term 'affiliate' means
 18     any organization or entity that, directly or indirectly,
 19     owns or controls, or is owned or controlled by, or is
 20     under common ownership or control with, a divested
 21     operating company.  For purposes of this paragraph,
 22     the terms 'own', 'owned', and 'ownership' means a di-
 23     rect or indirect equity interest (or equivalent there-
 24     of) of more than 10 percent of an organization or
 25     entity, or the right to more than 10 percent of the

H.R. 3515            102nd Congress, 1st Session           [Page 28 of 35]

  1     gross revenues of an organization or entity under a
  2     revenue sharing or royalty agreement.

  3              "(3) DIVESTED OPERATING COMPANY-- The
  4     term 'divested operating company'--

  5                 "(A) means any of the following compa-
  6          nies: Bell Telephone Company of Nevada, Illi-
  7          nois Bell Telephone Company, Indiana Bell
  8          Telephone Company, Incorporated, Michigan
  9          Bell Telephone Company, New England Tele-
 10          phone and Telegraph Company, New Jersey
 11          Bell Telephone Company, New York Telephone
 12          Company, US West Communications Company,
 13          South Central Bell Telephone Company, South-
 14          ern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Company,
 15          Southwestern Bell Telephone Company, the
 16          Bell Telephone Company of Pennsylvania, the
 17          Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Company,
 18          the Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Com-
 19          pany of Maryland, the Chesapeake and Poto-
 20          mac Telephone Company of Virginia, the
 21          Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Company
 22          of West Virginia, the Diamond State Telephone
 23          Company, the Ohio Bell Telephone Company,
 24          the Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Company,
 25          and Wisconsin Telephone Company; and

H.R. 3515            102nd Congress, 1st Session           [Page 29 of 35]

  1                 "(B) includes any successor or assign of
  2          any such company, but does not include any af-
  3          filiate of such company.

  4              "(3) GATEWAY SERVICE-- The term 'gateway
  5     service' means an information service that, at the re-
  6     quest of the provider of an electronic publishing
  7     service or other information service, provides a sub-
  8     scriber with access to such electronic publishing
  9     service or other information service, utilizing the fol-
 10     lowing functions: data transmission, address trans-
 11     lation, billing information, protocol conversion, and
 12     introductory information content."

 13 SEC. 202. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

 14     "(a) AMENDMENT-- Section 6 of the Communica-
 15 tions Act of 1934 is amended by adding at the end thereof
 16 the following new subsection:

 17     "(d) SEPERATE SUBSIDIARY REQUIREMENTS-- Such
 18 sums as may be necessary are authorized to be appro-
 19 priated for the implementation and enforcement of the re-
 20 quirements of section 208(c) and 227 of this Act.  Such
 21 funds shall be in addition to any appropriations authorized
 22 under subsection (a)."

 23     "(b) PROVISION OF INFORMATION SERVICES-- A di-
 24 vested operating company or an affiliate thereof may not
 25 provide information services until enactment of the

H.R. 3515            102nd Congress, 1st Session           [Page 30 of 35]

  1 initial appropriation of funds authorized under section
  2 6(d) of the Communications Act of 1934, as added by sec-
  3 tion 202(a) of this Act.

  4          TITLE III -- MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
  5 SEC. 301. DEFINITIONS

  6     Section 3 of the Communicatins Act of 1934 is
  7 amended by adding at the end thereof the following new
  8 subsections:

  9     "(hh) 'Electronic publishing service' means the provi-
 10 sion of any information--

 11              "(1)(A) that the provider or publisher has (or
 12     has caused to be) authored, originated, gathered,
 13     collected, produced, compiled, edited, categorized, or
 14     indexed; or

 15              "(B) in which the provider or publisher has a
 16     direct or indirect financial or proprietary interest;
 17     and

 18              "(2) which is disseminated to an unaffiliated
 19     person through some electronic means.

 20     "(ii) 'Information services' means the offering of a
 21 capability for generating, acquiring, storing, transforming,
 22 processing, retrieving, utilizing, or making available infor-
 23 mation that may be conveyed via telecommunications, and
 24 includes electronic publishing, but does not include any
 25 use of any such capability for the management, control,

H.R. 3515            102nd Congress, 1st Session           [Page 31 of 35]

  1 or operation of a telecommunications service or the man-
  2 agement of a telecommunications service.

  3     "(jj) 'Local exchange carrier' means a provider of
  4 telephone exchange service that is classified by the Com-
  5 mission as a dominant carrier.

  6     "(kk) 'Rural exchange carrier' means menas a local ex-
  7 change carrier serving a total of 50,000 or fewer access
  8 lines.

  9     "(ll) 'Telecommunications' means the transmission,
 10 between or among points specified by the customer, of in-
 11 formation of the customer's choosing, without change in
 12 the form or content of the information as sent and re-
 13 ceived, by means of an electromagnetic transmission me-
 14 dium, including all instrumentalities, facilities, apparatus,
 15 and services (including the collection, storage, forwarding,
 16 switching, and delivery of such information) essential to
 17 such transmission.

 18     "(mm) 'Telecommunications service' means the pub-
 19 lic or private offering for hire of telecommunications facili-
 20 ties."

 22 SEC. 302. JURISDICTION

 23     Section 2 of the Communications Act of 1934 is
 24 amended--

H.R. 3515            102nd Congress, 1st Session           [Page 32 of 35]

  1              (1) in subsection (b), by striking out "223 or
  2     224" and inserting "223, 224, 225, and 227"; and

  3              (2) by adding at the end the thereof the following
  4     new subsection:

  5              "(c)(1) Notwithstanding subsection (b), a State may
  6     not regulate the rates, terms, or conditions for the offering
  7     of information service, except as provided in this sub-
  8     section and title IV.

  9              "(2) A State may impose regulations upon a local ex-
 10     change carrier with respect to the intrastate provision of
 11     information services by such carrier or an affiliate thereof
 12     if--

 13                 "(A) such regulations are necessary and appro-
 14          priate to seperate the provision of such services from
 15          the provision of telephone exchange services by such
 16          carrier or affiliate;

 17                 "(B) such regulations are intended to protect
 18          the privacy rights of customers of telephone ex-
 19          change services;

 20                 "(C) such regulations do not affect the rates,
 21          terms, or conditions for the provision of such infor-
 22          mations services or the types of such services offered
 23          by such carrier or affiliate; and

 24                 "(D) such regulations are not inconsistent with
 25          the purposes of this Act or impede signifigantly the

H.R. 3515            102nd Congress, 1st Session           [Page 33 of 35]

  1          enforcement of this Act or any regulation or order
  2          prescribed by the Commission pursuant to the
  3          Act."

  4 SEC. 303. TELEPHONE EXCHANGE SERVICE IN RURAL
  5           AREAS

  6     Nothing in the amendments made by this Act shall
  7 be construed to limit the authority of the States to take
  8 actions, consistant with the findings and purposes of that
  9 Act, to ensure thae availability of telephone exchange serv-
 10 ice at resonable rates in areas served by rural exchange
 11 carriers (as such term is defined in section 3(kk) of the
 12 Communications Act of 1934).

 13 SEC. 304. APPLICABILITY OF OTHER PROVISIONS OF COM-
 14           MUNICATIONS ACT

 15     Nothing in the amendments made by this Act shall
 16 be construed to relieve a divested operating company or
 17 affiliate thereof (as such terms are defined in section
 18 227(m) of the Communications Act of 1934) of any of
 19 the obligations, limitations, or responsibilities imposed by
 20 any other provision of the Communications Act of 1934,
 21 as amended.

 22 SEC. 305. APPLICABILITY OF ANTITRUST LAWS

 23     (a) APPLICABILITY OF THE MODIFICATION OF FINAL
 24 JUDGEMENT-- A divested operating company shall remain
 25 fully suubject to the Modification of Final Judgement in all

H.R. 3515            102nd Congress, 1st Session           [Page 34 of 35]

  1 respects except as expressly provided in the amendments
  2 made by this Act.

  3     (b) NO ANTITRUST IMMUNITY-- Nothing in the
  4 amendments made by this Act shall be construed to create
  5 any immunity to any civil or criminal action under any
  6 Federal or State antitrust law, or to alter or restrict in
  7 any manner the applicability of any Federal or State anti-
  8 trust law to the actions of a divested operating company
  9 or affiliate thereof (as such terms are defined in section
 10 227(m) of the Communications Act of 1934).

 11     (c) DEFINITIONS-- For purposes of this section--

 12              (1) FEDERAL ANTITRUST LAWS-- The term
 13     'Federal antitrust laws' means --

 14                 (A) the acts as cited in section 1 of the Clay-
 15          ton Act (15 USC 12),

 16                 (B) section 5 of the Federal Trade Com-
 17          mission Act (15 USC 45); and

 18                 (C) any law enacted after the datr of en-
 19          actment of this Act by the Congress which pro-
 20          hibits, or makes available to the United States
 21          or to any person in any court of the United
 22          States any civil remedy with respect to, any re-
 23          restraint upon, or monopolization of, interstate or
 24          foreign trade or commerce.

H.R. 3515            102nd Congress, 1st Session           [Page 35 of 35]

  1              (2) MODIFICATION OF FINAL JUDGMENT -- The
  2     term 'Modification of final judgment' means the
  3     order entered August 24, 1982, in United States -vs-
  4     Western Electric Co., Civil Action No. 82-0192
  5     (United States District Court, District of Columbia)

[END]

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

The full text of this can be obtained from eff.org via anonymous ftp as file
HR3515.Z


[e-mail]     Just my opinions!











Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa01841;
          1 Dec 91 15:55 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA30066
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 1 Dec 1991 14:26:33 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA07924
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 1 Dec 1991 14:26:21 -0600
Date: Sun, 1 Dec 1991 14:26:21 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #990

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 1 Dec 91 14:25:53 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 990

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Logic Bombs (Rob Borsari)
    Recommendations Wanted: (Trans-)Portable Cellular Phones (Peter Dotzauer)
    Violated! (John Higdon)
    1A2 to 2500 Set Adaptor (Patton M. Turner)
    Help Needed: Return Charge Calls to USSR (Vahe Ganapetyan)
    Ringing Signals (Nigel Allen)
    Re: Answering Machines for the Hearing Impaired (Michael J. Logsdon)
    Re: How Does The Law Handle Crank Calls? (Phillip J. Birmingham)
    Re: Sneaky! Michigan Bell Pulls a Fast One on Everybody (Jack Decker)
    Re: E911 System Brought to it's Knees By a Prank (Michael A. Covington)
    Help Needed With Wyse-50 Terminal and Printer (TELECOM Moderator)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Rob Borsari)
Subject: Logic Bombs
Date: 1 Dec 91 17:23:34 GMT


The story:

   I was asked to look at the BASIC code for a commercial logging
system used at a radio station.  They had just fired the General
Manager and a relative of his was running the department responsible
for the software.

   I made a complete backup of the system a week after the GM was
fired.  After the reletive left the station his replacement started
having problems with the logging software.  When I reexamined the
software comparing it with the backup I had made I found a line
removed that would cause intermittent problems with the reports
generated for billing.  In the version on the backup I found a line
that would erase all the billing info and station logs on the day
before Christmas.  It would also print the message "Sorry about that
XXX!"  (name removed).  In the current version that same line runs a
file which deletes all the data and the software.

    I removed the bomb line and fixed the report problem, but I can't
be sure that there are no more 'bombs' in the code without going
through each line.

The questions:

    Have any laws been broken?  If so who do I tell?  Would a sane
person write a logic bomb in BASIC?  The answers would be clearer in
my mind if the 'Bomb' had gone off.  As it was the only damage was to
my Thanksgiving vacation.

    If there is a better forum for this please point me to it.  Thanks.


[e-mail]    Rob Borsari

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

From: [e-mail] (Peter J Dotzauer)
Subject: Recommendations Wanted: (Trans-)Portable Cellular Phones
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 1991 21:10:33 GMT


I'm in the market for a (trans-)portable phone, and I'm inquiring
collctive net wisdom as to what to look for in such a phone. Any
specific brands or models that can be recommended (or that cannot be
recommended)?

Although it would mainly be used from the car, in emergency
situations, I believe a transportable phone (one you can carry down
the street) would be the best choice, unless you have to carry a
backpack of equipment to make it functional outside of a car ... and
unless the price difference to portable phones makes it worth it.

A local electronics discounter has an offer of a 3-watt portable phone
for $ 47, with one year of cellular service subscription required. I
wonder if that one can be any good, but maybe the price is
artificially low because it is used as a tool to hook consumers to the
service and milk them later. But then again, the phone wouldn't be of
much use if one didn't get a cellular service subscription, too.

(I posted a similar note to misc.consumers, but received no reactions
from there yet).


Peter Dotzauer, Analyt.Cart.& GIS, Dept.of Geogr., OSU, Columbus, OH 43210-1361
 TEL [phone]   FAX [phone]    FIDO 1:226/50    IRC/Relay Ratzer
 INTERNET [e-mail]          BITNET pjd+@ohstmail           UUCP ...guug!pjd

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

Date: Sat, 30 Nov 91 18:31 PST
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Violated!


I feel violated! In today's mail, my new AT&T card showed up -- the
real one with the REAL AT&T number on it. After dutifully memorizing
it, I went to the supermarket where there is a known COCOT with an AOS
(ComSystems).

I dialed '0-714-972-0699' (a busy test number down south) and got the
ComSystems ka-bong. After dialing my AT&T card number, an operator came
on the line and asked what type of call this was. "Calling Card", I
replied. "What type of Calling Card?" "AT&T" "Card number please ...
just a moment ..." The ComSystems operator was gone for about a full
minute. When he came back, he said, "Thank you for using ComSystems --
have a nice day."

Then I got my busy signal. Now, I can imagine that while he was gone
he was trying my card on a test number for verification. But my
question is: how can ComSystems bill a call made on an AT&T number?
How would it show up? Is AT&T STILL sharing its database with the
slime?


        John Higdon         |   P. O. Box 7648   |   [phone]
    [e-mail]      | San Jose, CA 95150 |       M o o !

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

Date: Sat, 30 Nov 91 22:51:20 CST
From: Patton M. Turner <[e-mail]>
Subject: 1A2 to 2500 Set Adaptor


I'm trying to locate a 1A2 to 2500 set adaptor for use with a hybrid
for a radio station.  I've tried about ten different suppliers, but
none of them carry these anymore.  The sales person from Graybar
didn't even know what I was talking about.  Does anybody have any
ideas?  Also a source for 1A2 documentation would be helpful, so they
will have something to refer to in the future.

The adaptor I'm looking for has a RJ-21X connector on one side, a
RJ-11 on the other, and the standard six 1A2 buttons on top.  The
adaptor basically connects the 2500 (or 500) set to any of the lines,
and can put the caller on hold.  They will need two of these, and I
want to make sure I can locate them, before trying to scrounge up a
1A2 system.

Disclaimer: I have no financial interest in this, I'm just trying to
help out our campus radio station.


Pat Turner    [e-mail]     KB4GRZ @ K4RY.AL.USA

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Help Needed: Return Charge Calls to USSR
Date: 1 Dec 91 15:50:32 GMT
Organization: Oxford University VAXcluster


Does anybody know how can I make Collect (Reverse charge) phone calls
to the Soviet Union from Britain. Please let me know. (The operators
at BT seem to be anaware but somebody told me that's possible). Thank
you very much.


Vahe Ganapetyan, Oxford University, [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: I was unaware the Soviet Union telco was willing to
accept anything other than sent-paid into their network from anyone. I
know AT&T can only send-paid or via their Calling Card.   PAT]

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

Date: Sun, 1 Dec 1991 10:37:14 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Nigel Allen)
Subject: Ringing signals
Organization: FidoNet node 1:250/438, Echo Beach, Toronto


This is especially for those who design or specify central office
switches.

You have probably picked up a phone to make a phone call and, instead
of hearing a dialtone, found someone on the other end of the line
trying to call you. The call had been switched through to your line,
but the phone hadn't rung yet.

I think it would be preferable if a phone line could start ringing the
instant the switch received the call, rather than up to four or five
seconds for the line's regularly scheduled time to ring. This would
reduce call set-up times by two seconds or so on average, thus
allowing operating companies to get more billable time out of the
samenumber of trunks.

It would also eliminate the problem of calling a BBS and getting
silence because the call has completed before the line has begun to
run (and hence the BBS modem doesn't send an answering tone).

(I realize that the ringing tones heard by the caller may not be
synchronized by those heard by the called party. My concern here is
exclusively with the ringing signals sent to the called party.)


Nigel Allen - via FidoNet node 1:250/98
INTERNET: [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Long ago -- maybe 1960-ish -- a couple of real old
(even then!) clunky step switches here *always* gave a full ring to
the called party before the caller heard anything other than the usual
clack-clack-crash-bang from the switch train as it moved along to its
destination. The old Chicago-Wabash CO, which included WABash-2, along
with DEArborn-2, WEbster-9 and HARrison-7 was nicknamed the "Wabash
Cannonball" for good reason. Included in that office was Chicago's
very first exchange, (312-236) which was CENtral-6 in those days, and
just plain "Central" before the start of the 1900's. Even the busy
signal was out of synch! If called party was engaged, the caller would
get at least one and usually two or three rings -- then with a crash,
the rings would stop and the busy signal start. About half the time if
called party was quick to respond, the caller would hear no rings at
all even though called party got a ring, or ring-and-a-half.   PAT]

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

Date: Sat, 30 Nov 91 23:47:43 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Michael J. Logsdon)
Subject: Re: Answering Machines for the Hearing Impaired
Reply-To: [e-mail]


This is a very timely topic for me.  I am system administrator for a
SRX system at a prep school, and our college guidance administrator
has a profoundly-deaf daughter.  I feel that we have an obligation to
provide 1) hearing-impaired service, especially TDD for her, and 2)
perhaps an answering machine as is being discussed on the net.  We
have DISA and POTS available.  I would be _VERY_ receptive to
suggestions.


Mike Logsdon / University School / Cleveland   [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Phillip J. Birmingham)
Subject: Re: How Does The Law Handle Crank Calls?
Date: 1 Dec 91 13:58:08 GMT
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Lab


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Andy Sherman) writes:

> Actually, one reason why they are ineffectual is that judges still
> consider hacking a victimless crime.  Certainly Robert Morris got off
> with a slap on the wrist.

    ACK! If a ten-thousand-dollar fine is a slap on the wrist, I'd
hate to get punched in the nose!! :-)

        It seems that every time one of these computerized
troublemakers gets caught and sentenced, the "string 'em up" crowd is
complaining about the leniency of the punishment! Considering that
Morris didn't intend to bring the Internet to its knees, I think ten
thousand is more than enough to say "Hey!  That was STUPID! Don't do
it again!" Surely it is also plenty to show that propogating 'malware'
on the Internet is not condoned by society.


   Phillip J. Birmingham    [e-mail]
   Vanderbilt University    [e-mail]
The above opinions are not those of Vanderbilt University, unless they turn
out to be patentable, in which case it was their idea all along....

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

Date: Sun, 1 Dec 91 10:36:17 CST
From: Jack Decker <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Sneaky! Michigan Bell Pulls a Fast One on Everybody


In a message dated 24 Nov 91 15:30:47 GMT, [e-mail]
(david.g.lewis) writes:

>> You see, the phone company would like
>> you to THINK you are somehow "using up" their resources when you place
>> calls, but it just isn't so.  Virtually all modern exchanges have
>> plenty of capacity to handle the highest calling volumes that would
>> ever be expected.

> Well, yes, but that capacity costs money to provide.  The more traffic
> on a switch, the more capacity which must be provided, and the higher
> the cost.  A switch in an urban/business setting seeing 10 CCS/line
> for a given number of lines, with 20% intra-office traffic is going to
> be more costly than the same switch with the same number of lines in a
> rural/residential setting seeing 3 CCS/line with 65% intra-office
> traffic.  Telco engineers, like all engineers, build in spare capacity
> -- but that spare capacity costs money.

I'm leaving town for the Thanksgiving weekend in just a few minutes,
so I don't have time to write a lengthy reply, but I would just point
out that Michigan Bell was ALREADY charging BUSINESS customers a
little over nine cents per call (with *NO* "free" allowance) before
this new plan ever saw the light of day.  So they can't use heavy
daytime business traffic as justification for this because they were
ALREADY getting compensated for that!

> The analogy presented with cable TV is somewhat erroneous; since CATV
> is broadcast, once you have the bridge tap on the line, the signal's
> there whether you watch it or not.  Switched service, however, uses
> resources (processor, memory, switchpaths, service circuits) when it's
> in use that it doesn't use when it's not.  There is, therefore, an
> incremental cost of use for switched services.

Well, you could look at it that way ... but my point was that once you
install the equipment, there's really very little added cost
regardless of whether the service is "used" or not.  What you are
essentially saying is that the telephone company has to install enough
equipment at the outset to handle peak loads (usually caused by
business-related calls, which as I've pointed out, they were ALREADY
being compensated for, and WELL compensated in my opinion).  I'll
agree with that but once that equipment is installed, there is only a
very tiny additional cost when it is actually USED.

> Usage-based pricing is part of a general trend towards cost-based
> pricing; It recovers costs based on the use of resources in way which
> is generally deemed by regulators to be fair and equitable, and the
> usage of those resources is relatively easy to measure.

That's the problem ... the regulators (whom I suspect are "wined and
dined" by telephone company executives) are NOT in touch with the
telephone CUSTOMERS on this one.  Just remember the 1986 votes in
Maine and Oregon ... in one of those states the telephone company
spent a substantial chunk of change (in advertising and various other
forms of propaganda) to try and convince folks that measured service
was really in their best interest, and the public just didn't buy it,
by about a 60-40 margin.


Jack Decker   [e-mail]    FidoNet 1:154/8

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

From: [e-mail] (Michael A. Covington)
Subject: Re: E911 System Brought to it's Knees By a Prank
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens
Date: Sun, 1 Dec 91 16:17:36 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
writes:

> So, if something had happened to the DJ, how did he start the song
> again when it was over?  Who was it who said "never underestimate the
> stupidity of the public"?

Endless tape cartridges are fairly common, aren't they?

Even commoner are semiautomatic turntables that have a mode in which
they will play a record over and over.


Michael A. Covington, Ph.D.  |  [e-mail]   |  N4TMI
Artificial Intelligence Programs | U of Georgia | Athens, GA 30602

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

Date: Sun, 1 Dec 1991 14:19:28 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Help Needed With Wyse-50 Terminal and Printer


This one could be re-titled, "The Moderator Needs Counseling". :)
Here's my problem:

I have a couple of Wyse-50 terminals with their printer/auxilliary
ports connected through an A/B switch to a Black Box buffer. This goes
to a serial --> parallel interface, and then on to another A/B switch
which allows the choice of two printers:

    1)    Epson MX-80
    2)    Silver Reed EX-43 typewriter for 'letter quality' printing.

Both the Epson and the Silver Reed use various ESCape sequences to set
up things like the margins and tab stops. The Epson also uses such
codes to turn on/off italics, double striking, subscript, etc.

But the Wyse-50 terminals use many/most of the same ESCape sequences
for their own purposes and they seem to trap the codes and act on them
at terminal level rather than pass them through to the printers. Is
there any way to 'escape' what is entered at the Wyse keyboard in much
the way we 'escape' certain things in Unix to get them passed along
rather than acted on?

Also, although I have a large manual telling what codes do what in the
Epson, I have no documentation at all for the Silver Reed typewriter,
and no idea what codes or ESCape sequences set the margins, etc.

Any help appreciated!

PAT

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #990
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa22600;
          2 Dec 91 3:50 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA10783
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Mon, 2 Dec 1991 02:07:27 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA22523
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Mon, 2 Dec 1991 02:07:09 -0600
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1991 02:07:09 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #991

TELECOM Digest     Mon, 2 Dec 91 02:06:32 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 991

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: E911 System Brought to it's Knees By a Prank (Gordon Burditt)
    Re: E911 System Brought to it's Knees By a Prank (Shawn Beltz)
    Re: E911 System Brought to it's Knees By a Prank (John Higdon)
    Re: Hacker Convicted (Andrew M. Dunn)
    Re: Hacker Convicted (Carl M. Kadie)
    Re: MCI Friends and Family: How Bad Does it Get? (Neil Feiereisel)
    Re: 950 No-Surcharge-Card Info Wanted (Robert L. McMillin)
    Re: Alabama Gets CNID (Patton M. Turner)
    Re: Pseudo-Area Code 311 (Russ Nelson)
    Re: Intra-Lata LD Using PC Pursuit (Steven H. Lichter)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Gordon Burditt)
Subject: Re: E911 System Brought to it's Knees By a Prank
Organization: Gordon Burditt
Date: Sun, 1 Dec 1991 07:17:03 GMT


> [Moderator's Note: Had the same DJ aired a 'news bulletin' saying
> several areas of the USA were currently under a nuclear attack from
> some foreign nation, would you also blame the 'idiots' who would swamp
> 911 asking for instructions or confirmation? I'm not interested in

Probably the original stunt of this type was H.G. Wells' "War of the
Worlds" broadcast in the 1930's.  It terrified a lot of people.  Does
anyone know whether the radio station was held liable for any damages?

There have been lots of re-enactments of that broadcast, with warnings
about every 15 minutes that what was being broadcast was fiction.  It
still manages to startle people.  When WRPI had the Martians destroy
RPI and Troy, quite a few people gathered around the radio in my dorm
room on the RPI campus, and at the announcement, it turned out half of
them were surprised that it wasn't real, and the other half was
surprised they didn't know, even though they'd been discussing it.  If
anyone had picked up the phone and called the police, they would have
been stopped.  I thought it was the best re-enactment of many I've
seen, mostly because of the care given to all the local references.

Then there's "Special Bulletin", a TV movie which appears to be
(between the disclaimers and fake TV shows) live coverage of
terrorists threatening to detonate a nuclear bomb if their demands
were not met.  Some people might be suspicious that they had never
heard of the 'RBS' network news before.  If I lived near Ground Zero
and watched for five minutes, I could get rather scared and also miss
the announcement that it wasn't real.  It was a lot scarier than Three
Mile Island coverage (my parents live about 10 miles away from the
reactor, and I was living in Texas) and I knew that WAS real.

Several times people managed to mistake old World War II movies for
coverage of the Vietnam war (when it was happening).


Gordon L. Burditt    sneaky.lonestar.org!gordon

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

From: disk![e-mail] (unknown)
Subject: Re: E911 System Brought to it's Knees By a Prank
Organization: Digital Information Systems of KY
Date: Sun, 01 Dec 1991 23:12:22 GMT


> [Moderator's Note: Had the same DJ aired a 'news bulletin' saying
> several areas of the USA were currently under a nuclear attack from
> some foreign nation, would you also blame the 'idiots' who would swamp
> 911 asking for instructions or confirmation? I'm not interested in
> censoring his speech, but I believe I have the right to condemn and
> scorn him for the speeches he makes. I also believe the greater one's
> ability to speak, by virtue of being entrusted with major resources
> for doing so, ie a radio commmentator, newspaper editor, even someone
> entrusted, if you will, with more than average net access -- a Moderator
> perhaps? -- then the greater your obligation to use what has been
> entrusted to you in a responsible way.

   Irresponsible speech is not illegal ... :) It is sad but true that
the AVERAGE US citizen has an IQ quite lower than most of the people
in this discussion.  Unlike us, they probably wouldn't think to listen
to another source for verification first.  This brings up some civil
rights questions.  Should citizens with more than average
intelligence/resources be hindered by those with less?  Should my
right to listen to something humourus or obscene on a radio be limited
because of others who can't deal with it?

You really see this whenever you think about the government.  You may
ask yourself why we don't reduce the amount of welfare or have more
liberties.  Usually the answer is because the law is there to "Protect
the people."  And those people are generally the people with the least
knowledge on the subject involved.  Most of the new laws restricting
telecommunications were brought about by or because of people who
really lack knowledge or more importantly practical experience with
telecom equipment.

The law is the lazy person's substitute for work.  It's so easy to
leave your system open and sue whoever enters it than it is to set up
moderate security.  Survival of the fittest has been left to the
"animal" world.  And really it's better that way because we don't need
hitler-types running around.  But when it comes to our civil-rights,
what's right?  Should we sacrifice our rights to make it easier on
those with less knowledge, or should they be responsible for their own
business?  I beleive the answer lies more towards the latter.  Life
isn't easy for everyone.  Deal with it.  I'm not giving up my rights,
and I'm sure there are at least a million people that support me.


Shawn Beltz     :) :) :)  [e-mail]  uunet!coplex!disk!unknown

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

Date: Sun, 1 Dec 91 13:57 PST
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: E911 System Brought to it's Knees By a Prank


[e-mail] (Michael A. Covington) writes:

> Endless tape cartridges are fairly common, aren't they?

Yes, but they have "stop cues" and do not simply play over and over.

> Even commoner are semiautomatic turntables that have a mode in which
> they will play a record over and over.

Not for on-the-air use at radio stations. But that all misses the
point. First, the DJ announced what he was doing (so I infer from the
original message) and that the audience chose to ignore that. Second,
radio stations do not operate in a vacuum. At any given moment, there
are station employees listening to any metropolitan radio station. If
any one of them had heard something amiss, a call would have been made
on an internal number to the DJ and if there had been any problem
(including no answer), the appropriate aid would have been summoned.

As the person responsible for the transmission of several stations, I
am continually amazed at how many listeners think that radio stations
operate in the dark. Listeners complain about reception problems (both
real and imaginary) as if the station itself does not have a radio to
hear its own product. It is not necessary for one to call a station to
inform its personel that it is off the air or that one channel is
missing -- the engineer is generally painfully aware of the problem.

By the same token, it is not necessary for members of the audience to
report the perceived distress of a DJ to 911. If some wiseguy DJ said,
"Help. Please call 911. [description of some emergency]", that would
be a serious matter. But that is not the case in this instance.

People that would call 911 for a non-verified "emergency" (that is one
that is occurring in the mind of the 911 caller) belong to the same
fraternaty as those who do me no favor by reporting my modem-answered
lines to telephone repair service. I would rather be spared from these
idiots than from "offensive DJs".


        John Higdon         |   P. O. Box 7648   |   [phone]
    [e-mail]      | San Jose, CA 95150 |       M o o !


[Moderator's Note: I had a part time job back in 1969-70 working for a
radio station here when some crazy people broke into the studio and
shut down the transmitter as part of their protest against the war in
Viet Nam. The announcer on duty convinced them to let him put the
station back on the air 'just for a minute, so he could sign off the
air in accordance with FCC regs ...' The crazy people let him go back
on, and he did in fact announce the station would leave the air at
that time and promptly turned the transmitter off again to appease
the crazy people; but in the minute or so on the air he said a secret
phrase also -- something known only to a few people, one or another of
whom would *always* be monitoring. He got the message across without
once actually saying "help", and within about two minutes, lots of
police officers were there.  PAT]

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

Date: Sun Dec  1 11:35:52 1991
From: mongrel![e-mail] (Andrew M. Dunn)
Organization: A. Dunn Systems Corporation, Kitchener, Canada
From: [e-mail] (Andrew M. Dunn)
Subject: Re: Hacker Convicted
Organization: A. Dunn Systems Corporation, Kitchener, Canada
Date: Sun, 01 Dec 1991 16:35:42 GMT


> [Moderator's Note: But the point is, both the computer and your home
> are your personal property, and should be free from invasion. Also
> please remember that the law protects the weakest of us. If I am not a
> Unix Wizard but you are, and both of our systems are broken into,
> should the fact that you might have known better mean that I should
> have also known better? ... PAT]

Ah, but we were talking about access to SECURE information.  If you
are running a UNIX system with sensitive stuff on it, and you're not a
UNIX Wizard, you should consult one.  That's common sense, and in most
legal definitions, you ARE expected to exhibit common sense.

But you're righ t... the law protects the weakest.  If you're not a
Wizard and your system gets broken into, you should get damages.  But
if you had something EXTRAORDINARILY valuable on your system, you may
not be able to claim EXTRAORDINARY damages unless you could prove you
had taken a reasonable standard of care (standard tort law
definition).  If you had a two-million-dollar-valued painting in your
home and you left your front door open, you might not recover two
million dollars!


Andy Dunn ([e-mail])  ({uunet...}!xenitec!mongrel!amdunn)

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

From: [e-mail] (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Hacker Convicted
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Sun, 1 Dec 1991 23:55:13 GMT


[e-mail] (Dave Niebuhr, BNL CCD, 516-282-3093) writes:

> Both sides have agreed on repayment of $1,100 in collect calls he
> placed to the computer system, but they differ on whether Wittman
> should be held responsible for the cost of new software.

I can see charging him for the cost of changing passwords (like
charging a house burgler for changing the locks), but charging him for
new, more secure software is like charging a house burgler for a new
alarm system.

Whatever secure software NASA needs now, they needed it just as much
before the cracker struck.


Carl Kadie -- [e-mail] -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

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

From: [e-mail] (Neil Feiereisel)
Subject: Re: MCI Friends and Family: How Bad Does it Get?
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Date: Sun, 1 Dec 1991 18:30:17 GMT


[e-mail] (Andrew Klossner) writes:

> Aw heck.  My mother, without asking me first, gave my unlisted home
> phone number to MCI as part of a Friends and Family solicitation, and
> I got my first dinner-time junk phone call since I went unlisted.  The
> solicitor was unusually rude.

I was pleased recently when adding a new number to my MCI Friends and
Family list that the customer service representative asked me "do we
have your permission to contact this person?"  I refused and got no
hassle.

> Is MCI now going to distribute my number on marketing lists?

Why don't you call 1-800-FRIENDS and ask?  They really listen to the
concerns of their customers and potential customers, so make it clear
that you don't want them giving out numbers given to them by other
people!

MCI F&F is getting better and better.  They have changed the method of
calling and getting a listing of members in your circle from using
part of your phone number to using part of your account number.  They
have started asking for permission to contact the people you add to
your F&F list.  Finally, they now allow you to add one international
number to your F&F circle, giving you 20% more off!  We call Taiwan
frequently at $0.62 per minute.  The best AT&T can do (with some plan
of theirs) is $0.80 per minute.  At 45 minutes a month, that's $8.28
savings per month, $99.36 per year on one phone number alone!


Neil Feiereisel    e-mail: [e-mail] OR [e-mail]

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

Date: Sun, 1 Dec 91 12:23:06 PST
From: rlm@ms_aspen.hac.com (Robert L. McMillin)
Subject: Re: 950 No-Surcharge-Card Info Wanted


Douglas Scott Reuben asked about others' research into 950-xxxx access
without a travel card surcharge.  I called up Cable & Wireless here in
Los Angeles, and again (through a rather convoluted transfer) at San
Francisco.  It turns out that once I got past the usual official
nonsense about how they couldn't carry intra-LATA phone calls, they
told me that there was a fixed rate of $0.146 per minute, with no
seperate first-minute rate or surcharges, this for 950-xxxx access,
which, one would assume, is fairly universally available.  (Your
mileage may vary, etc.)

Of course, this isn't much of a bargain unless you're calling a
considerable distance; the break-even point seems to be at about
thirty miles or so, where the rates get to $0.19 per minute.  It IS,
however, about half of the Pac*Bell first-minute rate, and since C&W
only charges by the tenth of a minute, you could easily save money
because of that, too.


Robert L. McMillin                     | Voice:    [phone]
Hughes Aircraft/Hughes Training, Inc.  | Fax:      [phone]
Los Angeles, CA                        | Internet: rlm@ms_aspen.hac.com

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

Date: Sun, 1 Dec 91 19:28:58 CST
From: Patton M. Turner <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Alabama Gets CNID


Scott Hinckley writes:

> The rep was not clear on whether CNID boxes would be offered. The rep
> was likewise unclear on the rulings for Per Call Block, Line Block,
> and (Block Block?) [SCB in Alabama]

If I remember, the PSC said per call blocking will have to be offered.
Mobile has had CLASS features for some time now, however SCB decided
that CLID was not worth the hassle, but has apparently changed it's
mind.

I imagine per line blocking will be offered to those with a good
reason (women's shelters and such), although I don't think this is in
the tariff.  South Central Bell is usally pretty good about things
like this.

BTW, SCB's exchanges in Alabama are 100% SPC switches.


Pat Turner    [e-mail]     KB4GRZ @ K4RY.AL.USA

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

From: [e-mail] (Russ Nelson)
Subject: Re: Pseudo-Area Code 311
Reply-To: [e-mail] (aka [e-mail])
Organization: Crynwr Software, guest account at Clarkson
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1991 02:36:28 GMT


TELECOM Moderator noted:

> Many years ago, the old Bell System always had the number
> 311-555-2368 shown on the dial of phones in advertisements and
> display windows, etc. I think this would have been 1960-ish.

Why doesn't the FCC mandate a number (or two) in each exchange to be
permanently out of service?  Then when someone wanted to use a fake
phone number for any purpose, they could use that number and be
assured that they weren't causing trouble for anyone.


russ  <[e-mail]>

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

From: /PN=GLORIA.C.VALLE/O=GTE/ADMD=TELEMAIL/C=US/@sprint.com
Subject: Re: Intra-Lata LD Using PC Pursuit
Date: Mon  2 Dec 1991 00:00:00 CST


PC Pursuit has two types of non business accounts. The $30.00 a month
for 30 hours of non prime time 6 pm local to 7 am local M/F and all
day weekends and some holidays, $50.00 for 60 hours of the same. So it
does cost between $.83 1/3 to $1.00 an hour to use the system.  It can
in some local cases save money.

As Pat pointed out they don't like you using it that way. I don't use
it for the same port but do on other calls to different ports. I for
the most part us it to call across the country and my BBS is part of a
Network so calls do add up. They also have a third plan for
handicapped. It is $30.00 for 90 hours of non prime calls. Should you
go over the limits you will get charged the going rate which could
really increase the bill.


Steven H. Lichter
COEI   GTE California

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #991
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa23995;
          2 Dec 91 4:27 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA29043
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Mon, 2 Dec 1991 02:47:54 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA24792
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Mon, 2 Dec 1991 02:47:38 -0600
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1991 02:47:38 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #992

TELECOM Digest     Mon, 2 Dec 91 02:47:35 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 992

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Making Annoying Calls *To* Telemarketers! (Robert J. Woodhead)
    Re: Making Annoying Calls *To* Telemarketers! (Jamie Hanrahan)
    Re: Legitimate Reasons For Ringing My Phone (John Palmer)
    Re: Call-Waiting Signal is Different (Alan L. Varney)
    Re: Capacity Limits of Digital CO Switches (Russ Nelson)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Making Annoying Calls *To* Telemarketers!
Date: Mon, 02 Dec 91 12:53:59 JST
From: "Robert J. Woodhead" <[e-mail]>


John Higdon responded:

> Thank you, conscience. If I ever wake someone out of a sound sleep or
> interrupt his meals, work, or recreation by carelessly dialing a call
> intended for a business that normally receives a great number of calls
> daily, then I will deserve the punishment you decree and I will accept
> it graciously. In the forty years or so that I have been using the
> telephone, this has yet to happen. Perhaps someday it will.

No, you will not deserve such, John, for in that case, as in the case
of the people who _accidentally_ called you, you will be guilty only
of misdialing a telephone.

This is merely one of life's little accidents that befalls us all from
time to time; it is not the fault of Hilton, you or the people you
were called by that you were called, merely an accident.  Nor is it
the phone company's fault, unless their equipment was causing the
misdialing.

In such cases, courtesy requires that you provide the caller with the
correct number (if you know it).

> The inconvenience caused to me does not count?

Sure it counts for something.  My point is, you were venting your
spleen upon the wrong people.  You were messing around with the lives
of people whose sole crime was misdialing a phone, or as our Moderator
has pointed out, had the misfortune to use an ill-maintained
instrument.

> I'll admit it; my aim was to cause the maximum harm and inconvenience
> in the hopes that these people would complain mightily to the intended
> callee, who would abandon the use of the number or at least make some
> effort at having its callers dial correctly.

If so, you did it in a spectacularily ineffective way.  Please
consider that it would be very difficult for said inconvenienced
customers (and Hilton) to trace back to you a vast number of the
reservations you "took".  It would have been far easier to (a) tell
them the right number and (b) ask them to mention to the Hilton
operator the misdialing problem and pass it on to management.  This,
coupled with some letters to Hilton, would have more likely resulted
in positive action.

> And now, perhaps you can explain to me why it was incumbent upon me to
> change MY number (having had it first) rather than Hilton? My goal was
> to possibly force a change on their part. In the end, I caved in; but
> it was worth a try.

First of all, I never implied that it was incumbent upon you to do
anything concerning your phone number.  FYI, I was in a similar
situation at my old house in the USA, which had a number that was at
one time used by the Cornell University Summer School.  I got regular
calls in the early spring on that line the first year.  I redirected
them as I described above.  The calls the next year were 10% of the
previous one.

In the real world, it would have been much less economic for Hilton to
change their number than for you to do so.  If you had dealt with the
situation in a less confrontational manner, Hilton may well have
shouldered the burden for changing your 800 number; in fact, you
should have pointed out to them that taking over your current number
would be adventageous to their business as it would capture many
misdialed calls.

> Thanks again!

Always a pleasure.

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Making Annoying Calls *To* Telemarketers!
Date: 1 Dec 91 16:09:12 PST
Organization: Kernel Mode Consulting, San Diego CA


In article <[e-mail]>, mole-end![e-mail]
writes:

> What about ANSWERING an unsolicited call in that way?  If I were to
> switch to heavy breathing when I discovered that I had been called by
> a stockbroker, or ask about the individual's intimate life, would I be
> breaking any laws?  [...]

> I know I'd get a bad reputation with SOMEBODY, but with whom?  Would
> it matter?

and,

In article <eecs.telecom11.980.>, [e-mail] (John Higdon)
writes:

> My old 800 number used to receive wrong numbers for both a local boat
> tour company and the Hilton Hotel chain. When I was feeling
> particularly mean I would answer with either "Thank you for calling
> Hilton", or with the name of the boat company. More often than not, I
> would score and some unsuspecting person would book a tour or a room,
> which of course would be non-existent upon arrival.

The trouble with both of these. um, clever ideas is that it targets
the wrong person.  While Hilton may be arguably responsible for the
number of wrong numbers you get -- they (at least used to) advertise
their 800 number as 1-800-4HILTON, could this be transposed to your
number? -- surely the caller is not responsible and should not be
punished for making an honest mistake. (Oh, by causing them to arrive
without a reservation, you are also making hassles for some poor desk
clerks, maybe even a night manager, within the Hilton organization ...
but in no way are you affecting the people you want to affect, namely
the management responsible (which I think is arguable in any case) for
your wrong-number calls.)

Similarly, the person making the telemarketing call is just an
employee who would no doubt be in a more rewarding line of work if
they could.  They have enough problems without people being rude to
them.  (I was in a mall two days ago -- the Friday after Thanksgiving,
traditionally the busiest shopping day of the year -- and I had no
problem finding a parking space!  And the mall was no more crowded
than usual!  Can there be any doubt that we're in a recession?  Tell
me, if faced with unemployment vs. placing telemarketing calls, which
would you choose?)

As for this complaint ...

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(David Ash) writes:

> This brings up a problem with dealing with telemarketers.  I get a
> *lot* of telemarketing calls from Citibank offering to sell me the
> latest Citiscam.  I'm not sure just how rude to be with them, and I'm
> also forced to listen to their pitch long enough to find out whether
> there's some legitimate problem with my account that I should know
> about.  I find this type of activity by Citibank reprehensible.

Then why didn't you simply *tell them to stop*?

Again, the person on the other end of the line is just an employee and
is not responsible for the decision to call you.  In fact, the people
s/he works for are probably not directly responsible either -- they're
most likely a telemarketing firm employed by Citibank.  Annoying the
poor shmuck who happened to be so unlucky as to be the one to call you
will only make a second person (besides yourself) unhappy.  ("God, I
hate this job.")

I got about three such calls from Citibank, at 'prox two-month
intervals.  During the third one, I said, "Look, I've gotten three of
these calls from Citibank, and I'm *really* not interested.  Can you
somehow flag my records to tell them that I don't want to be called
again?"  "Yes, I can do that.  It may take about six weeks for it to
take effect, but we can do it." (Hmm, the telemarketing folks'
computer must *not* be directly on-line to their master records --
something which I'm happy about.)  "Fine."  Sure enough, no calls
since then.

Later I got a credit account with another major bank, and a few months
after that I got a similar call from them, for *their* travel service,
catalog shopping service, et cetera.  I asked to be "taken off the
list" on the first call.  Again, no more calls.

At least try this approach ("Hey, that annoys me, would you please
stop doing it?") before retaliating in kind. I think that everybody,
even telemarketing callers, could use a little more politeness in our
lives.

As for obscene callers, though, you are striking right at the source,
and all is fair.  John Higdon wrote:

> A couple of weeks ago I got a call from a whisperer who said, "I
> wanna _____ your _____." To which I replied, "You wanna _____ my
> _____? Great! When can we get together?"  I don't think I ever heard
> anyone hang up the phone as fast as this caller did!

This reminds me of a friend's story about one of *her* friends, who
upon getting her very first obscene phone call (while my friend was
present), took the phone partly away from her ear and exclaimed:

    "Listen to this!  It's my first obscene phone call!"

The caller stopped in the middle of his description of what he wanted
to do to this sweet young thing; there were a few seconds of dead
silence from the other end of the line; and then he hung up, never to
call again.

All the funnier because it was a completely impromptu and honest
reaction -- she really *was* excited about getting the call.


Jamie Hanrahan, Kernel Mode Consulting, San Diego CA
Chair, VMS Internals Working Group, U.S. DECUS VAX Systems SIG
Internet:  [e-mail], [e-mail], or [e-mail]
Uucp:  ...{crash,eisner,uunet}!cmkrnl!jeh

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

From: [e-mail] (John Palmer)
Subject: Re: Legitimate Reasons For Ringing My Phone
Organization: CAT-TALK Conferencing Network, Detroit, MI
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 91 23:43:42 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
writes:

> [e-mail] (Wolfgang Zenker) writes:

>> As a side note: Here in Germany any unsolicited calls on phone, fax or
>> telex are considered unfair trade practice and illegal, unless the
>> caller and called party already have some business relations.
>> Telemarketing calls during night-time would break an additional law
>> that prohibits disturbing noise between 10 pm and 7 am.

At the office here, we've been getting some annoying faxes every day
from some computer mail order house (nothing against them for being a
mail order house -- that's one of the things we do here). Every day,
like clockwork.  I sent this company a registered letter the other
day, return reciept. It stated that "If you wish to send unsolicited
faxes to my machine, you may do so, but the fee we charge for this
service is $1500. Any use of our FAX machine by your company beginning
the calendar day after the receipt date is your agreement to these
terms".

Now, I don't know wether this is enforcible, but I heard a similar
thing being done by some anti-junk mail organization who would send
out letters on behalf of consumers who didn't want junk mail. The
letters stated that each junk mailing from that company would cost
$50. If such junk mail was sent after such a letter was sent, then
this organization would act as the collector on behalf of the
consumer. The junk fax company in question in my case is in
California. Does anyone know if I can enforce (legally) the letter
which I sent them? (ie: If they send a FAX after the receipt of my
letter, are they contractually liable for the $1500/page??)


CAT-TALK Conferencing System   | E-MAIL: [e-mail]
[phone] (USR HST)      | [phone] (TELEBIT PEP)


[Moderator's Note: Robert Bulmash is using that approach with junk
phone calls and he claims it works reasonably well. Someone once
suggested a guerilla warfare tactic with junk fax senders: First,
remove your name, phone number or any ID which may appear on your
outgoing faxes. Then after the office where the offenders are located
is closed for the night, put a sheet of paper in your fax machine with
the two ends taped togther, making sort of an endless loop of paper
which goes through your fax machine, comes out, cycles around to the
top and goes through again, and again, and again ... write a message
of enduring significance on the endless length sheet of paper, then
fax it to the other guy! :)

Let it run for say 20 minutes or maybe an hour if you feel like it ...
if the offender has his fax machine on an 800 number, so much the
better!  When they come to work the next day the machine will
obviously be out of paper and what they'll find is all the fax paper
with your message hundreds of times on it, unraveled all over the
floor when the collection hopper overflowed.  Of course as Moderator
of this forum, I cannot suggest you actually *try* this technique on
offenders, but people have done it in the past.   PAT]

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

Date: Mon,  2 Dec 91 00:14:18 CST
From: [e-mail] (Alan L Varney)
Subject: Re: Call-Waiting Signal is Different
Organization: AT&T Network Systems


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(david.g.lewis) writes:

> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
> (Marcus Adams) writes:

>> It used to be that when I got a call on my call-waiting, there would
>> be a click that was audible to whoever I was talking with at the time...

>> Sometime a couple years back, I noticed that this click disappeared on
>> my phone ...

   [Analog/Digital explanation deleted...]

>> I really hate not having that audible click because its a
>> pain to stop someone mid-sentence to tell them I have another call,
>> and some people don't believe me, saying "I didn't hear a click ..."

> All together now: "That's not a bug, that's a feature!"  I can see it
> now -- 5E10 will have a new feature in the 1AESS Transparency Features
> category called "far-end call waiting notification", which will bridge
> the far-end party to a service circuit which generates <click> on call
> waiting ...

> [Moderator's Note: Well believe it or not, some people considered the
> old way, with the click to be invasive, since 'everyone' knew what the
> click meant when they heard it, and some people did not like the other
> person knowing they had a call-waiting (if they planned to ignore it
> in favor of the present call.)  PAT]

   Well, David, I hate to tell you, but ...

<anecdotal mode on>

   It seems that several 1A ESS(tm) Centrex sites were cut over to our
newer PBX (and 5ESS(rg) switch) products.  Not long after the cut
over, users would complain that three-way calling, call-transfer, etc.
did not have the "audible feedback" they wanted.  In fact, these
complaints were escalated to an Engineering Complaint.  They wanted
the "clicks" back -- so it already is a "Transparency" issue!  One
major complaint came from a manager whose secretary always answered
the phone, then "transferred" the call to the manager's phone.  The
complaint stated that, without the "click" when the secretary dropped
off of the call, the manager could not tell if the secretary was
"listening in" after the transfer.

   About the same time, an Engineering Complaint was filed complaining
about the "clicks" associated with 1A ESS call transfer features!
This was a case where a digital PBX was replaced with Centrex.

   I know the customer is supposed to be "right", but which one???
And David, will National ISDN support the "click" feature ...?

<anecdotal, I heard this third hand>


Al Varney, AT&T Network Systems, Lisle, IL

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

From: [e-mail] (Russ Nelson)
Subject: Re: Capacity Limits of Digital CO Switches
Reply-To: [e-mail] (aka [e-mail])
Organization: Crynwr Software, guest account at Clarkson
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1991 01:54:11 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John
Nagle) writes:

> A question arises, are current-generation switches (5ESS, DMS100,
> etc.)  non-blocking?  Does the TDMA bus that is the main switching
> mechanism in a 5ESS actually have one time slot per line?

This is a real fuzzy answer, but a contact of mine with a private 5ESS
says that his seven Ameritec ISDN load boxes (32 lines/box) can overwhelm
his switch.  That's 223 calls every five seconds.  I don't know if he
was referring to call setup/disconnect, or maximum number of calls at
any one time.  Probably the former, which doesn't answer your
question.  There are lots of options on a 5ESS; I don't know how his
switch was set up.

It *does* say something that it takes seven load boxes to overwhelm the
switch as opposed to six.


russ <[e-mail]>

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #992
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa03603;
          2 Dec 91 23:47 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA21452
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Mon, 2 Dec 1991 22:02:18 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA11202
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Mon, 2 Dec 1991 22:02:05 -0600
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1991 22:02:05 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #993

TELECOM Digest     Mon, 2 Dec 91 22:02:00 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 993

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    900-Number Trade Show and Exposition (Nigel Allen)
    Prison Phone System Curbs Scams (Ken Sprouse)
    TV Show Ignores Risks of Radio Phones (Russ Nelson)
    Calling Card Advice Wanted (Juergen Ziegler)
    Dial up Access to the Internet (Allison Pihl)
    Pay-per-Call Scam (John David Galt)
    CLID and Answering Machines (Paul Wexelblat)
    Annoying Computer Payphones (Michael Rosen)
    Panasonic KX-T3910 Information Wanted (Michael Rosen)
    Prime Time Freeware (Advisory Board, etc.) (Rich Morin)
    How Do I Contact PC Pursuit? (Bill Berbenich)
    Re: Oddities About 809 (David Lesher)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Nigel Allen)
Date: 2 Dec 91 (00:54)
Subject: 900-Number Trade Show and Exposition
Organization: Echo Beach, Toronto, Ontario


Since readers of TELECOM Digest tend to have fairly strong feelings
about 900-numbers, I thought I should mention the upcoming
Pay-Per-Call Exposition in Atlantic City January 7, 8 and 9, 1992.

I'm sure there will be many nice people there explaining how to make
an honest living as an operator of a 900-number. :-)

For information, call PPC Expo, Inc. at [phone].

If anyone does get more detailed information on the PPC Expo, could
you please post it here? If I lived in New Jersey, I would be tempted
to drop by.


Canada Remote Systems.  Toronto, Ontario   NorthAmeriNet Host

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

Subject: Prison Phone System Curbs Scams
Date: 2 Dec 91 02:36:34 EDT (Mon)
From: [e-mail] (Ken Sprouse)


 From the local new section of the {The Pittsburgh Press} Saturday,
November 30, 1991.  Interesting to say the least.


     A pilot program designed to curb telephone scams by Western
Penitentiary inmates appears to be working.

     Since the 120-day program went into effect this month, both
federal and city authorities say they received a single complaint that
can be traced to the inmates.

     Authorities have estimated prisoners bilked merchants nationwide
out of more that $1 million worth of goods through the scam.

     "We still get calls all the time about phone scams originating
from within the city, but we don't believe any of it's attributable to
Western Pen," said Dan Mayer, special agent in charge of the U.S.
Secret Service in Pittsburgh.  "There is no evidence any of it is.
The system apparently is working so far."

     One Secret Service agent told me the system is working well,"
added Sgt. Mark Ninehouser, head of city burglary squad.

     "I haven't heard anything one way or the other," said Ben
Livingood, spokesman for the state Department of Corrections.  "It's a
120-day program, and we've really just got started with it."

     Before the system went into effect, Mayer said his office
received three or four complaints a day from merchants throughout the
county who were ripped off by prisoners.  Ninehouser said his office
also received daily complaints.

     Before the system went into effect the scam worked this way:

     An inmate using a prison pay phone called an accomplice on the
outside who had three-way calling on his phone.  The accomplice
patched the inmate through to a store that accepted phone orders, and
the inmate used a fraudulently obtained credit card number to order
items and have them send to a prearranged address.

     A key feature of the new system is that is disconnects when it
detects a signal that a the telephone call is being forwarded.  Should
a call get through without being disconnected, there is a taped
message that warns whoever answers that phone that the caller is
dialing from the State Correctional Institution in Pittsburgh.

     Inmates, who can only make collect calls, have received personal
identification numbers needed to make calls, which are allowed only to
preapproved numbers.

     Prisoners are unable to make calls to 800 or 900 numbers, and
prison officials can limit the number and length of calls.

     American Telephone & Telegraph Co. is paying for the 120-day
pilot program.  The utility has said it will continue the program,
free of charge, if the state wishes.

     Livingood said he doesn't expect any decision to be made about
either continuing the program or expanding it to other state prisons
until officials evaluate the program further, probably near the end of
the 120 days.


Ken Sprouse / N3IGW
[e-mail]      GEnie mail ksprouse     Compu$erve 70145,426

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

Date: Sun, 1 Dec 91 23:25:40 EST
From: Russ Nelson <[e-mail]>
Subject: TV Show Ignores Risks of Radio Phones
Reply-To: "aka [e-mail]" <[e-mail]>


I was watching "P.S. I Luv U" last night.  The Heroine was using her
cellular phone to communicate with the office.  Immediately after she
hung up the Bad Guy called her back and commented on the contents of
her conversation.  And she was surprised!

The screenwriter blew it, though.  Instead of pointing out the
insecurity of wireless communication, the Bad Guy had bugged the home
office, and that end of the conversation had been overheard that way.

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

From: [e-mail] (|S| Juergen Ziegler)
Subject: Calling Card Advice Wanted!
Date: 2 Dec 1991 15:01:38 GMT
Organization: University of Karlsruhe, FRG (Informatik Rechnerabteilung)


I am a German reader of TD. For about two months I have an MCI and
AT&T calling card. So far I am very pleased about those cards, because
they save me a lot of money (approx. 30%) to call the US from Germany.

By next year I want to travel to the US and use my cards over there.
Very frequently some readers post messages about problems with card
billing from AOS. So what is AOS and what are the risks? Are there
other risks for a card holder that are not mentioned on the calling
card bill?

I think the majority of us (overseas) with a calling card would
appreciate if someone could make a list of useful hints for the use of
calling cards in the US.

But please do not mention that you should not give your calling card
number to someone you do not know, like at a hotel/motel reception for
identification purposes. I am stupid, but I am not THAT stupid.


Thanks,


Juergen


[Moderator's Note: You are not stupid if you read TD every day! :) The
letters AOS mean 'Alternate Operator Service'. These are companies set
up to service privately owned coin operated telephones (COCOTs) which
are not otherwise eligible for regular coin service by the regular
telephone companies in the USA. Where the regular telephone companies
and the rates they charge for coin telephone service are regulated by
tariffs in the USA -- and generally very reasonable in cost -- the
operators of privately owned phones have very little regulation. They
frequently locate and design their telephones in such a way to make
them appear to be 'genuine Bell' instruments, and you only find out
you have been decieved when you receive a very large bill for the call
you placed using their instruments unless you listen very closely when
placing calls. Be sure to use only telephones which identify either
AT&T or Sprint or MCI as the long distance provider, and to be certain
of who you get, place your calls using 10222, 10288 or 10333 as the
prefix before the number.  PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 2 Dec 91 15:45:08 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Allison Pihl)
Subject: Dial up Access to the Internet


JvNCnet has been asked to respond to this newsgroup with information
about our dial up services.

JvNCnet is a global data communications network headquartered at
Princeton University. JvNCnet offers gateway and host services which
provide full Internet connectivity, and such services as electronic
mail, ftp, telnet, and network news.  The host services support V.32
connections, and can be used in terminal access mode or using SLIP in
Internet host mode.

JvNCnet offers dial up access at the following locations: Princeton,
NJ, Newark, NJ, Philadelphia, PA, Long Island, NY, Bridgeport, CT, New
Haven, CT, Storrs, CT, and Providence, RI.

For further information about JvNCnet's Dialin'Tiger, please contact
me at 1-800-35TIGER or [e-mail].


Allison Pihl    [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Pay-per-Call Scam
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 91 23:19:38 PST


This item appeared in my company's newsletter; I'm sure we're not the only
people being victimized.

Some person or group is calling people's electronic pagers, and giving
a call-back number of 212-540-xxxx.  (This prefix in New York acts
just like a 900 number.)  When the callee dials 212-540-xxxx, s/he is
connected to a recording and is billed $55.

Has anyone else heard of/experienced scams like this?


John David Galt


[Moderator's Note: Here we go again! Please post this in your company
newsletter also, and try to give it wide circulation so we can put an
end to this once and for all: 212-540 numbers do carry premium
charges, but they are usually not dialable outside New York, in the
212, 718 and 914 area codes. *If* you are in the environs of New York
City then you might have this problem, although I doubt it since the
person who is alleged to have been doing it was charged several months
ago and is probably still on trial (maybe not). If you are not in the
New York City area then you have nothing to worry about. Even if your
call did go through, the only charge would be the toll, which would be
a few cents at night and maybe a dollar during the day.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Paul Wexelblat)
Subject: CLID and Answering Machines
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Univ. of Lowell CS Dept.
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1991 18:53:07 GMT


The last time I asked this, I got no response, but that was months
ago ...

Does anyone know of any answering machine that has/plans-to-have the
capability to access/store CLID info of caller?

[If you think this is a good idea and make a fortune on it, at least
send me one of the machines.


Wex

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

From: [e-mail] (Michael Rosen)
Subject: Annoying Computer Payphones
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1991 23:29:11 GMT


I hate these damn independent computer payphones.  Does anybody know
why, upon dialing a number, sometimes touchtones are disabled?  I once
tried to call my bank to check my balance on the automatic system.
Once connected, touchtones would no longer work after I think one
touchtone press -- I could not use the menu system to check anything;
the phone was completely useless for my purposes.


Mike


[Moderator's Note: Perhaps our German reader with questions about AOS
earlier in this issue is also reading this message. COCOTS are very
seldom intended for anything except to make fast money for their
owners, and what you mention is not uncommon, nor is the blocking of
long distance carriers and outrageous prices for calls they route
through their own operators.  Best advice is to avoid them completely
whenever possible.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Michael Rosen)
Subject: Panasonic KX-T3910 Information Wanted
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1991 23:33:38 GMT


Has anyone had any experience with the Panasonic KX-T3910 cordless
phone?  I'm wondering if anyone has had any problems with the phone
and if they have figured out, from use, about how far it will actually
go from the base.  Also, how does the auto security system work?  I
used to use a Southwestern Bell Freedom Phone that had a dip-switch
security code system.  At times I could pick up other conversations
without them hearing me, which I assumed was due to the security code
 -- they couldn't cut in on my phone but I could on theirs.  Is this a
correct assumption?  Should I feel reasonably safe that no one will
overhear my phone calls on this Panasonic phone?


Thanks,

Mike

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

Date: Sun, 1 Dec 91 20:20:18 PST
From: cfcl![e-mail] (Rich Morin)
Subject: Prime Time Freeware (Advisory Board, etc.)


Hi-

I am putting together a CDROM of "Prime Time Freeware" (PTF).  The
first release is scheduled for early 1991, at a list price under $100
US.  It will contain over 600 MB of compressed freeware (1.5 GB
uncompressed), along with a small (introductory and descriptive)
booklet.

To be considered for inclusion in the first release, packages must be:

  current        (no dusty decks, please)
  portable        (no vendor-specific patches)
  redistributable    (Copyleft, PD, etc.)
  substantial        (> 1 MB, in general)

Given the diversity and size of the distribution, packages need not be
of widespread interest or general utility.  Any substantial package
will be interesting and/or useful to *somebody*, and that is enough
for me.  If the distribution is a success, I will issue new releases
on a semi-annual basis.  This will be frequent enough for many users,
the rest can pick up desired updates via FTP.

I think it's about time that a collection like this existed.  FTP is
not available to everyone.  Even with archie, current versions of
packages can be hard to find.  Large packages will always be a
nuisance to copy.  I know how to create useful freeware distributions
(e.g., the last two SUGtapes), so I'm electing myself to try.  In any
case, here's the pitch:

Would you be willing to serve on the PTF advisory board?
Alternatively, could you suggest a friend or associate who might be a
better candidate?  The members will participate electronically,
advising me in selecting and arranging the collection.  The duties
will be minimal; look over package lists and documentation files, make
comments and suggestions, etc.  I can't offer fortune or much in the
way of fame, but active participants will be eligible for:

    1    a free copy of each disc, as it comes out,

    2    a mention in the advisory board listing file,

    3    the chance to promote favorite freeware packages
    to folks who might otherwise never hear about them.

Can you suggest any other candidates for the board?  (Who are *your*
resources for freeware?)  Eventually, I'd like to have board members
from every major freeware hotspot (topical and/or institutional).  To
get there, I'll need lots of referrals ...


Yours,

Rich Morin, Canta Forda Computer Lab.
UNIX consulting, training and writing
cfcl![e-mail]    [phone]

P.S.  If you are interested in helping out for the first release,
please get back to me ASAP.  My time schedule on this one is *very*
short, so I will be sending out the first lists for examination in
about a week.

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

Subject: How Do I Contact PC Pursuit?
From: wabwrld![e-mail] (Bill Berbenich)
Date: Mon, 02 Dec 91 11:12:26 EST
Organization: Wabworld, Atlanta, Georgia, USA


    Well, because of all of the discussion here about the PC Pursuit
service, I went to look for the phone number which I know has appeared
in back issues of the Digest.  I didn't have any luck finding it, but
I only went back as far as my archives do - about six months.

    What's the phone number for PC Pursuit Customer Service?


Appreciatively,

Bill

         domain - [e-mail]
       UUCP (on the maps) bangpath - wabwrld!bill  (Bill Berbenich)



[Moderator's Note: If you were grepping, you should have grepped for
'Telenet' or 'Sprintnet'. Anyway, call 703-689-6000 and ask for
Customer Service. In fact, I called today to talk to Sarah in the
Billing Department about something.  PAT]

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

From: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Oddities About Area 809
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 91 20:14:04 EST
Reply-To: [e-mail]  (David Lesher)
Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers - Beltway Annex


PAT correctly answered that it depends on which were independent. But
it also, ISTM, depends on which were unable to assume the burden of
running a ?ITU? country toll switch, or whatever we should call it.
The present setup passes much of this job back to whoever runs 809. I
*guess* that's ATT, but IS it? Previous discussions centered on where
809 information is, with no solid answer.

Oh, and in the case of Martinique, please remember it is a "state" of
France, just as Hawaii is of the USA. In fact, if you rent a circuit
from Fort de France to the USA, it goes through Paris. (Is this a case
of Most Cost Routing ;-?)


[e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: 809 Directory is run by AT&T and located in South
Carolina somewhere. Calls from the USA to St. Pierre and Miquelon also
used to be routed through Paris. The French keep tight reign on their
circuits.  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #993
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa05995;
          3 Dec 91 1:10 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA29863
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Mon, 2 Dec 1991 23:13:24 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA22222
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Mon, 2 Dec 1991 23:13:10 -0600
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1991 23:13:10 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #994

TELECOM Digest     Mon, 2 Dec 91 23:13:09 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 994

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Making Annoying Calls *To* Telemarketers! (Carl Moore)
    Re: Making Annoying Calls *To* Telemarketers! Ed Greenberg)
    Re: 'Easy' Numbers, Teleslime, Wrong Numbers, etc. (Scott Coleman)
    Re: Hacker Convicted (Weaver Hickerson)
    Re: Hacker Convicted (Rob Boudrie)
    CNN Cueing (was "Touch Tone on Videotapes") (Lauren Weinstein)
    How to Test if a Sprint (X.25) Line is Good? (Eric Ho)
    Automated Dialers (Joshua E. Muskovitz)
    Strange Long Distance Calls (John Bertot)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 2 Dec 91 13:22:12 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Making Annoying Calls *To* Telemarketers!


I just saw the note listing Hilton Hotels and John Higdon (latter
since changed 800 number).  445-8667 spells HILTONS on the dial.

Responding to the Moderator's Note about John Higdon's old 800 number:
There's not enough information as to what the wrong-number problem was
(sending such information is another matter); it could have been
number similarity, for all I know.

Please, if you get a lot of wrong number calls, try to find out what
happened.  Don't impersonate.  I sometimes make a hotel reservation
myself and then arrive very late at night to claim it, and I'd be
quite upset if it turned out to be non-existent.


[Moderator's Note: You came to the wrong establishment is all ... your
reservation is at Higdon House!  At 6:00 AM go bang on his door, and
when he answers tell him to get his lazy carcass out of the bed and
fix you a hot breakfast, room service style.  :)   PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 2 Dec 91 10:14 PST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Making Annoying Calls *To* Telemarketers!


In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David
Ash) writes:

> ...  I get a *lot* of telemarketing calls from Citibank offering to
> sell me the latest Citiscam.  I'm not sure just how rude to be with
> them, and I'm also forced to listen to their pitch long enough to find
> out whether there's some legitimate problem with my account that I
> should know about.

And Mr. Tilley writes:

> There is a simple solution to this. Think about it!

And the Moderator notes:

[Moderator's Note: The first thing which comes to mind is that if he
pays his bills on time he won't get the other kind of calls :), but I
don't know if that is the answer you had in mind.  PAT]

Citibank goes to great length to advertise that they will call you if
they suspect fraud on your account, and they could be calling about a
payment that you made, but they didn't properly credit.  A call from a
bank that you do business with should not be dismissed.  Using that
trusted relationship to empower telemarketers probably seems like a
great idea to them, but a bad one to those on the receiving end.

The solution Mr. Tilley suggests has merit ... just close your account
and tell them why.  Of course, this implies that there is a better
service available elsewhere, otherwise, it's the cost of doing
business.

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

From: [e-mail] (Scott Coleman)
Subject: Re: 'Easy' Numbers, Teleslime, Wrong Numbers, etc.
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1991 18:14:01 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(ED HOPPER) writes:

> In article, [e-mail] (Ron Dippold) writes:

>> I doubt that the phone company would give out a number with 7448 or
>> 3825.

> Ah ... not so.  Some years ago, while working for the late Mountain
> Bell, I received a phone call from a local radio station.  They wanted
> a new "info" number. [...] So, I called Dial Assignment and asked for a
> number. They gave me XXX-3825.

Here in Illinois, there are at least two communities (Urbana and
Evanston) where 328 is a valid prefix. Back before Ill Bell got greedy
and started charging customers for requesting special numbers, I asked
for and received 328-7448, no questions asked. I thought it was a
great phone number. Picture if you will the following exchange:

Acquaintance: What's your phone number?

Me: EAT-SH*T

Acquaintance [shocked]: Did I say something wrong???

It had the added advantage of being a hard phone number for people to
forget. ;-)

And no, it's not my phone number any longer.

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

Date: Mon, 2 Dec 91 17:28 EST
From: holos0![e-mail] (Weaver Hickerson)
Subject: Re: Hacker Convicted
Organization: Holos Software, Inc., Atlanta, GA


In article <[e-mail]> John Higdon <john@zygot.
ati.com> writes:

> On Nov 28 at 22:46, TELECOM Moderator noted:

>> If industry and professional standards for security are met, then we
>> have done what should be expected of us.  PAT]

> Very much agreed! But I submit that ANY computer that can be entered
> as a result of two hours worth of hacking is not meeting those
> industry standards. For one thing, callback security is now
> commonplace and SOP in most businesses that are even remotely (pardon
> the pun) concerned about the protection of their data.

> Even without callback, normal prudent procedures would keep almost
> anyone out for much longer than two hours. But when I see systems that
> have unprotected administrative logins, inadequate modem control that
> allows a shell to survive after an inadvertant user disconnection,
> encrypted passwords that can be accessed by all users, and systems
> that allow direct root login via modem, it is hard to get very
> indignant over a kid sliding in through the open door.

(Entering the religious fray)

In other words, you blame the victim for the crime.  It is commonly
known, even among teenage phreakers, that such things are frowned
upon.  Just as it would be frowned upon by me if he wandered in my
front door to alert me that it was unlocked (alluding to your post
thanking this criminal for pointing out how insecure our government
systems are).  If he slides in through my "open door", I'll damn well
do everything in my power to see he does time in prison.  Do you
seriously believe that, by being open, the door constitutes an
invitation to random entry?

Sure, there are problems with security on government and private
systems.  Encouraging phreaking and cracking is not a useful measure
for solving these problems.

In article <[e-mail]> John Higdon <john@zygot.
ati.com> writes:

> On Nov 30 at 14:13, TELECOM Moderator notes:

>> She took normal security precautions just as the books told her to
>> do. Two weeks after she went on line, some phreak broke in and wiped
>> her disks clean, effectively shutting down her BBS. Should she have
>> been judged by your standards?  I don't think so.  PAT]

> I do not think so, either. But there is still this matter of degree.
> While not degrading the importance of one's BBS, my computer has my
> life's work on it in every detail. It has my client lists, all matter
> relating to work in progress, all source code for all of my voice
> machines, and sensitive matter relating to legal cases that I am
> involved in. For this reason, I have taken more than moderate
> precautions to keep this data secure while still having the system on
> line and in communication with the world.

Very touching, John, and very eloquent.

Suppose you were the same you, but a little more trusting.  Suppose
you had only 19 levels of password protection instead of the commonly
used, anti-phreak, 149 levels.  And one day I logged into your system,
recieved a copy of your client list, changed every occurance of client
name and address to some filling station in Dinosaur, Utah, and erased
everything else and replaced your UNIX Kernel with CP/M.

I mail all your clients an official looking FBI document stating that
you are actually John H. Don, the famous con man who the FCC has been
searching for for years, and would they please call 1-800-moo-coww
when you next call or write, and please, no matter what, do not spend
any more money with you.

Would you blame yourself?  Just because you did not "adequately"
protect yourself?  Hell no.

> To carry this one step further, a computer with sensitive government
> information on it should be far more protected than my personal
> machine. My point, which should be obvious, is that the more sensitive
> the system, the more it should be protected. This principle is applied
> to physical security, is it not? A bank does not use the same security
> to protect its cash and negotiable assets as I do to protect my
> privacy when on the throne.

I agree, it should be protected.  But should lack of "adequate"
(anytime something is ever breached, it was not adequately protected.
Period) protection excuse someone from breaking into these systems.
Hell no.


Weaver Hickerson   Voice [phone]   :  ..!edu!gatech!holos0!wdh

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

From: Rob Boudrie <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 91 16:01:39 EST
Subject: Re: Hacker Convicted


I have noticed several posts claiming that a hacker recieved lienient
punishment being allowed to plead guilty to a computer tampering
felony and pay only $1100 in costs.  While I don't condone criminal
activity, it is significant to note that conviction, or a plea to a
FELONY has *SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES*, some of which last a lifetime,
including :

- The hacker is a CONVICTED FELON for the rest of his life.

- He will probably be precluded from obtaining any sort of government
  security clearance as a convicted felon.

- If he ever gets into trouble in the future, the prospects are very
  dim as a repeat offender.  If he gets caught in a third felony, some
  states will throw away the key under "predicate felon" statutes
  designed to rid society of habitual offenders.

- Some employers may (in many cases legally) discriminate against
  convicted felons in job selection.

- If he ever tries to start a company and raise capital, any investor
  is likely to find out about the felony record as part of the "due
  dilligence" process.  [ I recently spoke to the founder of "Cartoon
  Corner", a chain of in shopping mall retail stores ... his investors
  found out about his criminal record, but didn't mind since it was
  for selling stuffed cartoon animals on the BU campus without a permit. ]

- He will never be permitted to own firearms or vote unless he recieves
  a "relief from disabilities" from an approprite court.

- The legal fees in this case were probably MUCH greater than $1100.

- I've probably missed quote a few more adverse consequences of this
  guilty plea.

Therefore, I would conclude that an individual with a clean record,
who is not of criminal culture, disposition or mindset (except for the
hacking transgression) is being seriously punished by any a felony
conviction even if the associated fine/restitution appears small.

Would be hackers should seriously consider the lifelong consequences
of a felony record.


Rob Boudrie   [e-mail]

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

Date: Sun, 1 Dec 91 11:59:34 PST
From: [e-mail] (Lauren Weinstein)
Subject: CNN Cueing (was "Touch Tone on Videotapes")


Greetings.  Just to close off this thread (which is starting to drift
off of TELECOM), the touch tone signals that used to be heard on CNN
(and many other cable services) were used for local cable company cue
control.  This included local commercial insertion and control of
"off-air" periods when some services run their promos for taping.
Whether or not any particular cable system paid attention to these
tones was totally situation specific.

Most cable services (including CNN) have now moved away from audible
tones to the use of separate satellite subcarriers or encoded video
signal techniques.  In either case, you won't be able to hear these on
the typical MTS (stereo/sap) receiver at home.  In the case of
satellite subcarriers, you'd need to be at the cable company headend
to pick up anything at all -- such extra subcarriers are not propagated
down the cable.


 --Lauren--

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

From: [e-mail] (Eric Ho)
Subject: How to Test if a Sprint (X.25) Line is Good?
Date: 1 Dec 91 21:48:48 GMT
Organization: Salomon Brothers Inc.


Hi netlanders,

I've a Sprint (X.25) line that will eventually go into a Sparc.  The
Sparc will eventually run some kind of X.29 as distributed from the
Sunlink/X.25 unbundled package so that when I'm at home with my
Compaq, I can dial up a local Sprint number and it will then
eventually connect (or pad) me up to my Sparc.

Now, is there a way (or some hardware box I can buy) to test that my
Sprint line is "working" before my Sparc arrives -- i.e. the Sprint
line is in the "right" (or synchronous) mode and providing all the
right signals?

Any pointers will be much appreciated.

[ Please reply to the email described below. ]
Eric Ho   Email: [e-mail]   Phone: [phone]

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

Date: Mon, 2 Dec 91 11:18:21 EST
From: "Joshua E. Muskovitz" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Automated Dialers


A funny thing happened while I was at my folks' house over
Thanksgiving ...

I answered their phone only to get a "Please hold for an important
call" message, pause for five seconds, "Sorry to keep you holding,
please wait", pause for five seconds, "Sorry to keep you holding",
pause for five seconds, and then FINALLY a human answers.

Turns out, it *NOT* a telemarketer!  It was American Express calling
(undoubtedly) about some billing snafu.  (They always say "It's a
personal business matter", hee hee.)  When I told the person from AmEx
that the *only* reason I stayed on the line was to find out who the
telemarketing slime was, and that I suspected that A LOT of people
would hang up before 20-30 seconds of waiting for a human, they were
without a clue.  The AmEx rep was unable to grasp the concept of
someone NOT taking a call from a machine.  I tried and tried to tell
them that they should change their system, but to no avail.

Has anyone else run into this?


Josh


[Moderator's Note: The only chance you have for possibly getting them
to change their system is by immediatly disconnecting whenever a
system like that calls you. They'll ring back eventually if they want
anything.  PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1991 09:15:24 EST
From: John Bertot <[e-mail]>
Subject: Strange Long Distance Calls


Here's one for the strange and unusual files.  A friend of mine, who
lives in Silver Springs, MD, got a phone call two Fridays ago.  He
picked up the phone and heard ringing in the receiver (as if he had
dialed).  The other person answers with the usual "Hello."  Each of
them insisted that the other person dialed him.

After a few minutes, the other person asked my friend where he was
from.  "Silver Springs" was the response, and the other person didn't
know where that was. My friend elaborated, stating that he was two
blocks from the metro.  "Metro?  What's that?" replied the other
person.  Turns out that this guy lives in Ohio.  This gets better.
While on the phone, my friend's 'call waiting' goes off.  A woman
answers with "hello."  Once again, my friend says she called him and
visa-versa.  Turns out that she is also from Ohio.

This has subsequently happened again, with the same people.  The
gentleman from Ohio claims that this happens to him on weekends.  No
phone bills have been received as of yet, so can't tell if calls are
being charged.

I have asked my friend to try and find out who the callers' carriers
are to see if there is some connection.

Any ideas on what is going on?  Has anyone heard something similar?
As an aside, the C&P (Maryland's phone co.) operator claimed that this
was an "impossible" occurrance.


John Bertot   Syracuse University   JCBERTOT@SUVM


[Moderator's Note: Your friend and the other people involved are the
victims of a phreak who has probably reached the kindergarten level of
mental maturity. He is patching everyone together using three way
calling on various lines under his control which are in turn patched
together, then sitting back with his mouthpiece mute laughing at the
bunch of you. He thinks it is funny and since he is probably stealing
the phone calls from Sprint anyway using phone equipment he ripped off
 from AT&T or Radio Shack, he's getting cheap thrills at your friend's
emotional expense.  He probably figures after hooking enough people
together at random, eventually someone will say to the other party,
"well since we are connected, what shall we talk about?" Next time it
happens, have him explain this carefully to the other party while the
phreak is on the line listening, and encourage the person to ignore
the calls in the future. I'd venture the calls will stop about that
time.   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #994
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa07874;
          3 Dec 91 2:01 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA05569
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Mon, 2 Dec 1991 23:59:09 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA10763
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Mon, 2 Dec 1991 23:58:59 -0600
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1991 23:58:59 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #995

TELECOM Digest     Mon, 2 Dec 91 23:58:51 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 995

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: E911 System Brought to it's Knees By a Prank (Ralph W. Hyre)
    Re: E911 System Brought to it's Knees By a Prank (Dan Fain)
    Re: E911 System Brought to it's Knees By a Prank (Patton M. Turner)
    Re: E911 System Brought to it's Knees By a Prank (Tad Cook)
    Re: US West: BBSs are Businesses (Ralph W. Hyre)
    Re: US West: BBSs are Businesses (Peter Marshall)
    Re: US West: BBSs are Businesses (Walter Scott)
    Re: Sneaky! Michigan Bell Pulls a Fast One (Tim Gorman)
    Re: Preparing for ISDN ... How? (Russ Nelson)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Ralph W. Hyre)
Subject: Re: E911 System Brought to it's Knees By a Prank
Date: 2 Dec 91 18:05:08 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Ralph W. Hyre)
Organization: AT&T OSS Development, Cincinnati


This suggests a design flaw in how San Mateo implemented E911, to my
mind.  There has to be some way to shed excess load in an emergency
commuinications system.  The 'please hold.  All operators are
currently busy' may be one way.  Another way would be an E911 'FAQ'
file which the dispatchers could modify for new circumstances.

If calling about the earthquake, press '1'

If heart attack, press '2'.
If fire, press '3'.
If calling about radio station KQED, ignore it ... it's a joke.

The lack of 'user' training is another (I generally wouldn't call 911
unless I needed police, fire, or ambulance -- imminent loss of life,
limb, or property, etc.)

Were there stats on how many called the station vs calling 911?


Ralph W. Hyre, Jr.
E-mail: [e-mail]    Snail: Box 85, Milford OH 45150-0085
Phone: [phone]        Radio: N3FGW

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

From: [e-mail] (Dan Fain)
Subject: Re: E911 System Brought to it's Knees By a Prank
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 1991 03:57:51 GMT


The Moderator speaks:

> [Moderator's Note: Had the same DJ aired a 'news bulletin' saying
> several areas of the USA were currently under a nuclear attack from
> some foreign nation, would you also blame the 'idiots' who would swamp
> 911 asking for instructions or confirmation? I'm not interested in
> censoring his speech, but I believe I have the right to condemn and
> scorn him for the speeches he makes.

In fact a television show has been broadcast several times with
impunity, as noted by a later poster, which *did* announce that the
USA was under attack. ("Special Bulletin")

I am a bit surprised that you compare playing an MC Hammer song
repeatedly to announcing nuclear war.  Do you think that clogging of
the E911 system is a forseeable result of setting a station's CD
player on infinite repeat?  I am giving the DJ the benefit of a doubt,
but I can't imagine he could have known people were going to call 911!
This is not inflammatory or misleading speech, this is *very* stupid
people responding in a nonsensical way to an obvious joke.  I mean,
this DJ didn't fake an accident, did he?  Did he sound sick?

Yes, I blame the idiots (no quotes here) who called in.  If I were a
DJ, and I wanted to live up to your standards, what would I be allowed
to do or play?  Should I refrain from doing anything surreal or
confusing, for fear that some idiot will be worried about my sanity
and call 911, the CIA, or the White House?  Should I not play heavy
metal music, for fear some fool might call the FBI and tell them a
bunch of satanists were running the station?

I am sorry, but I do not understand what you are trying to say.


Dan Fain   Argonne National Lab, Argonne IL
Evergreen State College, Olympia WA


[Moderator's Note: If you were a DJ 'living up to my standards' then
you'd follow the instructions WNIB (a classical music station at 97.1
FM in Chicago) gives their announcers: no opera or twentieth century
organ music before 10 AM; contemporary American composers late on
Sunday night after most listeners have gone to sleep; frequent news
and weather reports during the early morning get out of bed / leave
for work time with short Mozart, Handel and Vivaldi pieces filling the
intervals. They went off the air for 45 minutes about a month ago when
their sole overnight employee locked himself out of the building by
accident, and had to wait for someone to come from home.   PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 2 Dec 91 22:43:30 CST
From: Patton M. Turner <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: E911 System Brought to it's Knees By a Prank


> At any given moment, there
> are station employees listening to any metropolitan radio station. If
> any one of them had heard something amiss, a call would have been made
> on an internal number to the DJ and if there had been any problem
> (including no answer), the appropriate aid would have been summoned.

A friend of mine in high school DJ'ed for a small town AM station that
I used to listen to.  His first week on the job, he went off the air
in the middle of a PSA.  After giving him a few minutes to call the
engineer or GM, I called him up to see what happened.  He answered the
phone and had no idea they were off the air. I asked him if he ever
checked the modulation monitor (it sits within easy view of the
console).  He said no one ever told him to.  He was unable to reach
any of the station personnel for hours, until signoff when one of the
daytime DJ's would call up and shut-off the transmitter.  Real legal!

On another note, a radio station that I had some part in installing a
STL for had a switch on the console resembling a pot that would
activate an autodialer for key personnel.  The dialer will go down the
list, until someone could enter the proper code to acknowledge the
message.  The switch could be used if someone was under duress, as
well as a convenient way to contact crucial persons in an emergency,
without having to list unlisted numbers, cell phones,etc.

I discounted the need for this, until reading a column in Radio World
about security for personnel working at radio stations.  Apparently
there is some cause for concern among engineers in parts of CA, or
prehaps the article overstated the problem.


Pat Turner    [e-mail]     KB4GRZ @ K4RY.AL.USA

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

Subject: Re: E911 System Brought to it's Knees By a Prank
From: [e-mail] (Tad Cook)
Date: 2 Dec 91 06:51:49 GMT


Pat sez:

> [Moderator's Note: Had the same DJ aired a 'news bulletin' saying
> several areas of the USA were currently under a nuclear attack from
> some foreign nation, would you also blame the 'idiots' who would swamp
> 911 asking for instructions or confirmation?

But the DJ didn't air any false news bulletins.  All he did was play
the same record over and over, a gimmick that has been done many times
on top 40 radio since the 1950s, at least.  How can you compare this
with telling the audience that they are under nuclear attack?  Is MC
Hammer THAT BAD?? :)


 Tad Cook     |  Phone:  [phone]             |   MCI Mail: 3288544
 Seattle, WA  |  Packet: KT7H @ N7DUO.WA.USA.NA   |   [e-mail]
              |  USENET: [e-mail]          or...sumax!ole!ssc!tad


[Moderator's Note: I'd rather have heard several hours of J.S. Bach.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Ralph W. Hyre)
Subject: Re: US West: BBSs are Businesses
Date: 2 Dec 91 16:22:32 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Ralph W. Hyre)
Organization: AT&T OSS Development, Cincinnati


In article <[e-mail]> John Higdon <[e-mail].
com> writes:

[describing the situation in CA]

> And only those lines in the home used for business need be that class
> of service. You are also entitled to live in your home and have
> residence service also.

Not in Ohio, alas.  Cincinnati Bell enforces the tariff that doesn't
let you mix measured and unmeasured service in the same residence.  (I
actually called the PUC on this one, and confirmed it, since it was
counter to my experience in every other state.)

Since all business service is measured, there is apparently no way to
run a home-based business without potentially impacting your residence
service.


Ralph W. Hyre, Jr.
E-mail: [e-mail]    Snail: Box 85, Milford OH 45150-0085
Phone: [phone]        Radio: N3FGW

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

Date: Mon, 2 Dec 91 09:08:50 PDT
From: [e-mail] (peter marshall)
Subject: Re: US West: BBSs are Businesses


In Issue 985, Randy Bush asserts that an upcoming hearing on a sysop's
complaint to the OR PUC has been "forced by ... sensationalists"
because the sysop "got a lawyer and petitioned the PUC for the
hearing."

Not quite.

No one "petitioned," and such a hearing is normal procedure for a
formal complaint, which is what was actually filed here. Further, this
sort of response goes very little distance to explain the hyberbolic
notion of something here having been at all "forced," or that filing a
PUC complaint is at all the behavior of a "sensationalist." This is
stretching.  The further assertion that US West said nothing about any
other OR BBSs is just flatly wrong.


Peter Marshall ([e-mail])
"Lightfinger" Rayek's Friendly Casino: 206/528-0948, Seattle, Washington.

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

Subject: Re: US West: BBSs are Businesses
From: [e-mail] (Walter Scott)
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Walter Scott)
Date: Mon, 02 Dec 91 13:26:13 PST
Organization: The 23:00 News and Mail Service


[e-mail] (Randy Bush) writes:

>> While he's at it, does he want to explain how the upcoming OPUC
>> hearing has been "forced by ... sensationalists," too?

> Well, how about that Wagner got a lawyer and petitioned the PUC for
> the hearing?  US West did not request one, nor did they say peep about
> any other BBSs in Oregon other than the two which were flaunting the
> rules.

     I think we need to define what constitutes sensationalism and/or
"sensationalists". I'm not sure if either play a role in this matter.
But if they do, then let's identify who they are and how they operate.

     On Randy's response to Peter: It would seem that, logically,
Randy is labelling Tony Wagner as a sensationalist since he points to
Wagner's action of retaining legal counsel and filing a "complaint"
before the Oregon PUC as an example of how sensationalists have forced
the Oregon to respond to "sensationalists". We should not be so naive
that we would not expect Wagner, or anyone, to emphasize what is in
their favor and diminish what is not.

     In all this, Wagner is not so much the point of concern to the
BBS community as the impact of how the OPUC deals with the complaint,
and how it does or does not deal with statements issued forth from the
company. We may or may not feel that Wagner is an ethical SysOp when
claiming to run a noncommercial system. And we may feel that sleeping
dogs would have been better left sleeping. Unfortunately, this one is
awake. Whether it is bark or bite, the company has asserted things, or
been quoted to assert things, that seem to globally label bulletin
board systems as a business.

Although equitably processing Wagner's complaint is important, the
greater imperative, encompassing the hearing and what follows, should
be to clear up what has been said.  Oregon SysOps now deserve to know
if the OPUC buys into the idea and interpretation that ALL BBS
operation is a business operation and that SysOps in Oregon should be
paying business rates on phone lines accordingly. If the company erred
or was simply unclear in its statements, then clarification would do
us all some good in any case.


Walter Scott

  The 23:00 News and Mail Service - [phone] - Seattle, WA USA
                          PEP, V.32, V.42bis
                  +++ A Waffle Iron, Model 1.64 +++

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

Date: 01 Dec 91 21:37:58 EST
From: tim gorman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Sneaky! Michigan Bell Pulls a Fast One o


Re: Cost recovery based on usage.

This may be a subject which will never be resolved. First, I think
everyone agrees there are costs to be recovered. In a most simplistic
breakdown there are debt payment, maintenance costs, administration
costs, and depreciation expense. These are the "added" costs after
installation. For the most part, they are NOT usage dependent but they
are costs that add up day-after-day, month-after-month, etc. Based on
the usage in the switch, these costs may be higher or lower than
another switch.

Now comes the problem. Those whose use the network not at all (or very
little) want their bill to be very low. Those who use the network a
lot want their bill to be very low. In the first case, having all
usage based pricing makes the most sense. In the second case, strictly
flat rate pricing makes the most sense.

What the regulators have done in the past is try to reach a happy
medium between these. Recover some costs based on a flat rate basis
and some on a usage basis. This made sense because there was a fixed
investment associated with everyone (e.g. outside loop, line relay,
etc.) and a usage based investment associated with everyone (line
concentrators, switch fabric, etc.)

I also agree with Mr. Lewis: "Usage-based pricing is part of a general
trend towards cost-based pricing; It recovers costs based on the use
of resources in way which is generally deemed by regulators to be fair
and equitable, and the usage of those resources is relatively easy to
measure." In fact, I think we will see this trend accelerate as more
competition is introduced into the network. This is how differentiation
between competitors is best introduced. The lower cost competitor has
a market advantage assuming equivalent (or at least adequate) service
is provided. Ultimately, there is even a good probability this will
result in milage charges being applied based on your distance from the
serving location, both for residence and business service. Assuming
other competitors price their service this way, the RBOC's will be
forced to follow.

Let me also make one other observation. I made it in another message
and was amazed to get no response. I have never seen anyone question
usage based charges in the toll arena. Yet the switches and facilities
(i.e. investment) are exactly the same as are used in the local
network. If usage based charges in the toll network are acceptable,
why not in the local network? Is it just perception?


Tim Gorman - SWBT
* opinions are my own, any resemblence to official policy is coincidence*

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

From: [e-mail] (Russ Nelson)
Subject: Re: Preparing for ISDN ... How?
Reply-To: [e-mail] (aka [e-mail])
Organization: Crynwr Software, guest account at Clarkson
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1991 02:31:31 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Steve Rezsutek) writes:

> A friend of mine recently purchased a "fix-me-up" house, and will be
> pulling wires (phone, CATV, etc.) throughout. Assuming that it is even
> feasable at this time, what sort of wiring [number of conductors,
> connectors, etc] would be needed for him to be "ISDN ready" (in the
> sense that he could take full advantage of all that it promises to
> offer)?

Basically, the ISDN T interface is like Ethernet.  You need to have a
single run of cable with terminators at each end.  The details are a
little different, like you need two twisted pairs, and the terminators
at each end are 100 ohms.

A wise person would run an extra twisted pair, in case Bellcore's
extension hack gets approved.  The problem, you see, is that people
are using to just picking up an extension phone to join an existing
call.  Bellcore's idea [1] is to parallel the digital signal in an
analog signal on an extra pair.  Then, multiple extensions use the
analog pair to join a call.  Pardon me while I hold my nose.

[1] I saw this idea mentioned in a Bellcore white paper on
perceived ISDN problems.  If it's not their idea, I apologize for
attributing it to them.  I wouldn't, however, forgive them for
republishing it.

I think the hack is a piece of crap.  If you want to join an existing
call, get a NT-2 (ISDN PBX) and do a conference call.  That's why we
have standards, right?

> Is there a document somewhere that specifies all this?

Yes.  It's ANSI T.605-1991.  That's very similar to a CCITT spec, but
I don't know the CCITT number off the top of my head.


russ  <[e-mail]>

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #995
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa09576;
          3 Dec 91 2:39 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA21324
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 3 Dec 1991 01:00:22 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA09815
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 3 Dec 1991 01:00:12 -0600
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 1991 01:00:12 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #996

TELECOM Digest     Tue, 3 Dec 91 01:00:10 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 996

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Legitimate Reasons For Ringing My Phone (Robert J. Woodhead)
    Re: Legitimate Reasons For Ringing My Phone (Stephen Friedl)
    Re: Pseudo-Area Code 311 (Carl Moore)
    Re: Pseudo-Area Code 311 (Doug Konrad)
    Re: Ringing Signals (Alan L. Varney)
    Re: Bell Canada to Offer Caller-ID "Alternate Number" Option (Paul Wallich)
    Re: Hacker Convicted (Charlie Mingo)
    Re: Logic Bombs (Ed Greenberg)
    Re: KLondike and YUkon (Carl Moore)
    Re: Strange Chat Line Number (Carl Moore)
    Re: Making Annoying Calls *To* Telemarketers! (Juan Jimenez)
    Re: Pseudo-Area Code 311 (Ed Greenberg)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Robert J Woodhead)
Subject: Re: Legitimate Reasons For Ringing My Phone
Organization: Foretune Co., Ltd.
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1991 10:28:05 GMT


PAT writes:

> [Moderator's Note: Robert Bulmash is using that approach with junk
> phone calls and he claims it works reasonably well. Someone once
> suggested a guerilla warfare tactic with junk fax senders: First,
> remove your name, phone number or any ID which may appear on your
> outgoing faxes. Then after the office where the offenders are located
> is closed for the night, put a sheet of paper in your fax machine with
> the two ends taped togther, making sort of an endless loop of paper
> which goes through your fax machine, comes out, cycles around to the
> top and goes through again, and again, and again ... write a message
> of enduring significance on the endless length sheet of paper, then
> fax it to the other guy! :)

At least on my fax machines, this will not work, as there is a maximum
length a "page" can be.  I found this out when I tried to fax a
printout.  The endless loop probably won't work, unless you figure out
how your fax machine detects the end of a page, and perhaps cut a slot
in the loop at that point in order to fake it out.

I would also venture to mention that, certainly in the case of an 800
number, and possibly in other situations, your victim will be able to
get your phone number.


Robert J. Woodhead, Biar Games / AnimEigo, Incs.   [e-mail]

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

Subject: Re: Legitimate Reasons For Ringing My Phone
Date: 2 Dec 91 10:09:56 PST (Mon)
From: [e-mail] (Stephen Friedl)


> Then after the office where the offenders are located
> is closed for the night, put a sheet of paper in your fax machine with
> the two ends taped togther, making sort of an endless loop of paper
> which goes through your fax machine, comes out, cycles around to the
> top and goes through again, and again, and again

Use black paper and you might even burn out the other guy's thermal
printhead (and may reduce your paper cycling rate, cutting down the
chance of the paper jamming).


Stephen Friedl   |  Software Consultant   |   Tustin, CA  |     [phone]
3b2-kind-of-guy  |  --- This posting inspected by #9 ---  | uunet!mtndew!friedl

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

Date: Mon, 2 Dec 91 14:19:38 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Pseudo-Area Code 311


What do you mean, "fake phone number for any purpose"?  The 555 prefix
is available if you have a script which calls for a phone number,
otherwise you risk getting the actual number of someone's residence
or business.

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

From: [e-mail] (Doug Konrad)
Subject: Re: Pseudo-Area Code 311
Organization: University Of Alberta, Edmonton Canada
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1991 23:43:09 GMT


[e-mail] (Russ Nelson) writes:

> Why doesn't the FCC mandate a number (or two) in each exchange to be
> permanently out of service?  Then when someone wanted to use a fake
> phone number for any purpose, they could use that number and be
> assured that they weren't causing trouble for anyone.

The entire 555 exchange is reserved for telco use. And the telco's and
Hollywood have come to an agreement to prevent juveniles of all ages
from harassing people with phone numbers the same as are used in
movies. It's been years since I've seen or heard a phone number in a
movie that wasn't 555-something. Even the first three touchtones heard
in a movie I saw were the same.


Doug Konrad    [e-mail]

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

Date: Sun,  1 Dec 91 23:41:05 CST
From: [e-mail] (Alan L Varney)
Subject: Re: Ringing Signals
Organization: AT&T Network Systems


In article <[e-mail]> Nigel.Allen@f438.n250.z1.
fidonet.org (Nigel Allen) writes:

> This is especially for those who design or specify central office
> switches.

   I know such folks; is that close enough?

> You have probably picked up a phone to make a phone call and, instead
> of hearing a dialtone, found someone on the other end of the line
> trying to call you. The call had been switched through to your line,
> but the phone hadn't rung yet.

> I think it would be preferable if a phone line could start ringing the
> instant the switch received the call, rather than up to four or five
> seconds for the line's regularly scheduled time to ring. This would
> reduce call set-up times by two seconds or so on average, thus
> allowing operating companies to get more billable time out of the
> same number of trunks.

   Within the technical limits of the switch, this happens today.
There is no reason for a switch to deliberately delay "ringing", is
there?  So any such delay must be due to:

  1) "Pre-ring" actions taken between line seizure and "ringing" or
  2) Some limitation in starting "ringing" immediately after "pre-ring".

   Pre-ring actions taken by a switch include such things as a "power
cross" testing (prevents Kvolts from hurting the switch), tests for
short to ground (non-ground-start lines) and a final test for on-hook
(prevent power ring into a line that just went off-hook).  These take
time, but the switch has committed itself by giving (or preparing to
give) audible ring to the caller.  So if you go off-hook during the
"pre-ring" period, the switch just completes what it started.

   The limitation on immediate "ringing" AFTER the "pre-ring" actions
can come from various sources.  In analog ESS(tm of AT&T) switches
such as the 1A ESS switch, the real "ringing" power and audible ring
tone come from a common ringing-and-tone (R/T) plant.  There is no
ability to "start" ringing -- a connection is made from the called
line to a power ring circuit; when the circuit actually starts the
ring cycle is up to the R/T plant.  Same with audible ring tone.

   To assist in cutting down on the delay, 1A ESS switches actually
have three choices of power and audible ring circuits, each phased 1/3
of a complete cycle away from the others.  Assuming there is an idle
circuit, a connection is completed to the phase ready to give
immediate (or almost) power/ audible ring.  The worst case (other than
all appropriate circuits busy) occurs when the "immediate" circuit
would result in a very short burst of ringing; rather than give a
"ping" on the bell, the next phase of ringing is chosen.  Such a call
will have the maximum delay between seizure and first ring.

   Digital switches typically have a similar mechanism for power ring,
or may be able to interrupt a common constant-ring current at
arbitrary intervals.  The latter case should allow as close to
immediate ring as possible.  There might also be a requirement to keep
the ring current usage "balanced", by delaying power ring where
needed.

> It would also eliminate the problem of calling a BBS and getting
> silence because the call has completed before the line has begun to
> run (and hence the BBS modem doesn't send an answering tone).

   Not sure I understand.  If the modem (BBS end) is off-hook, it is
either attempting a call (waiting for Dial Tone) or attempting to
answer a call (so it should send answer tone).  What do you mean by
"the line has begun to run"?  Maybe the interval from detection of
carrier-loss to disconnect is too long?

   Just remember that telephone lines (and early trunks) were designed
to have a human ear at each end.  Any attempt to use mechanical
devices on the line must face the limitations this implies.  The
alternative is to have the "line" interface upgraded to something
"tuned" to an electronic interface.  ISDN is one such answer (for
lines).  Trunk interfaces were re-designed long ago to handle a
machine interface (a switch or PBXs in some cases).

   Your telephone company would probably be happy to discuss the
various alternatives to the "line" interface that are available to you
or the BBSs you call.  "Ground-start", for example, will positively
prevent the situation you mention.  On the other hand, don't expect a
different interface to be available at the same price as the standard
"line"; it does cost more to provide an alternative interface.


Al Varney, AT&T Network Systems, Lisle, IL

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

From: [e-mail] (Paul Wallich)
Subject: Re: Bell Canada to Offer Caller-ID "Alternate Number" Option
Date: Sun, 1 Dec 1991 23:17:10 GMT


In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jamie
Mason) writes:

[about the some-other-number for caller-ID]

>    That is GROSS.   That is REALLY AWFUL and DISHONEST.
> Even per-line blocking is better.  If someone blocks, it could be
> arranged for me to see 'Blocked'.  I could then automatically ignore
> such calls.

>    But if Bell lets them randomly pick some random number, I
> can't filter such calls.  Telemarketers will be harder to avoid, as
> they will be using their CNID-du-jour.

On the other hand, as a journalist I find this a potentially
interesting concept. Ever since Caller-ID started coming, I've been
having these horrible not-so-paranoid fantasies about trying to reach
a source at <pick-your-major-corporation-or-government> and finding
that their PBX no longer accepts calls from the media or else
transfers them to the PR office. (Ditto for blocked calls) Remember
that sources already have to think twice about calling reporters
because it's easy to compare the outgoing call log to published
numbers for people you don't want called.

Somehow I think that, judiciously applied [e.g. if you can
microregulate closely enough to say reduced rates for certain classes
of subscriber, you could probably jack up rates for other classes s/a
telemarketers] alternate-number caller-ID could solve many of the
problems that regular caller ID brings into being.


paul


[Moderator's Note: If you 'have fantasies' about people not accepting
phone calls from newspaper reporters, has it ever occurred to you that
the way some reporters and newspapers abuse people, totally fabricate
some stories while mis-reporting others may be part of the reason they
would not accept your call? I am not singling you out -- I am saying
many reporters shape their stories to match their preconcieved ideas.
Consider the ridiculous things which have been printed about this net
at one time or another.  People and companies have been burned by the
media many times.  Then there are those reporters who always are given
gracious access to whomever they wish. Why is that?  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Charlie Mingo)
Date: 01 Dec 91 18:30:20
Subject: Re: Hacker Convicted


[e-mail] (John Higdon) writes:

> Well, now let's see. If the government had installed secure software
> in the first place, how much would it have cost them? Have you ever
> heard of the term "mitigation of damages"? It says that if someone
> leaves his front door wide open and someone walks in that he is
> entitled to less than full damages. I hardly think that a computer
> that can be entered with less than two hour's worth of hacking would
> qualify for the term "secure".

     The term "mitigation of damages" is a doctrine from contract law,
and has no applicability to intentional torts (such as trespass).

    Even if a computer cracking was considered as a mere nuisance
(instead of as a crime), the law remains very clear:

     A person injured by a nuisance is not precluded from recovery by
the fact that he might, by a small exertion and a small expenditure,
have prevented the injury, the rule being that it was the defendant's
duty to abstain from the creation of the nuisance, and having created
it adjoining owners are not bound against the consequences ensuing
therefrom, when in order to do so they are required to expend time or
money.

     A party is not bound to expend a dollar, or to do any act to
secure for himself the exercise or enjoyment of a legal right which he
is deprived of by reason of the wrongful act of another.

[Wood on Nuisances, ss. 884, 435]

   If Mr. Higdon is aware of any authority for his usage of the term
"mitigation of damages" with respect to intentional torts, I would be
glad to hear of it.

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

Date: Mon, 2 Dec 91 10:33 PST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Logic Bombs


According to the seminar I attended last week, your only safe
alternative is to reload the system from backups that were secure
before the miscreant hit.  You might reload the system from the
original disks, or from replacement disks from the vendor.  You
absolutely CAN'T be sure that the relative didn't leave any more
little presents in the code, although you can choose to compromise
between your security and your efforts at some point.

By the way, if this is on a system with timestamps, how are the date/
timestamps and file sizes of the affected files, vs the (assumed)
unaffected files?

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

Date: Mon, 2 Dec 91 13:36:49 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: KLondike and YUkon


WYman was used for prefixes starting 99 at Newport, Delaware (next
door to the downtown Wilmington exchange).

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

Date: Mon, 2 Dec 91 10:37:13 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Strange Chat Line Number


That New Jersey number is on 609-490, as I recall; that's a Hightstown
prefix.  Hightstown is near exit 8 of New Jersey Turnpike, and a
little north of Trenton.

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

Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1991 03:21:28 -0500
Subject: Re: Making Annoying Calls *To* Telemarketers!
From: Juan Jimenez <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]


[e-mail] (Robert J Woodhead) writes:

 > What you did was malicious, petty, insensitive and rude.

What did you expect him to do, call Hilton and demand that they
correct the error from wherever the customers were getting the wrong
phone? What John said did not sound like a misdial at all.

I've tried that route before when someone (our local city government,
in my case) did that to =my= business phone, and it didn't work. They
just wait until the stock on the literature runs out and -then-
correct it.  In the meanwhile, the poor slob who's number was
published incorrectly has to go through hell with all the phone calls
at all times of the night.

The only way to get someone's attention in a situation like that is to
do whatever will get their -customer's- attention.


Juan Jimenez    MCA, San Juan, Puerto Rico    dbk!dbkaux!j.jimenez


[Moderator's Note: An important key is (1) who created the problem,
(2) whose responsibility is it to fix it, and (3) did they refuse to
do anything about it?  We don't know who created John's problem, and
thus have no one on whom to fix responsibility. If you recall the
story about Irnalee some time ago, it was a bit different. The county
government misprinted their official documents. Thus we can answer (1)
and (2). They refused to correct the problem (3) until a considerable
bit of pressure was put on them. We have no evidence Hilton gave out
John's number or in any way contributed to the problem.   PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 2 Dec 91 09:46 PST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Pseudo-Area Cosw 311


[e-mail] (Nigel Allen) writes:

> I saw a message on Fidonet's FCC echo from Roger Stark (1:125/28)
> saying:

>> The AT&T Phone Home card (whereby college kids can phone home free
>> and ask for money) uses 311 as an access code.  It's 311 + A/C +
>> local phone + four-digit passcode.

> Is this true?

Moderator then notes:

>> I think his information on Call-Me cards is wrong.

I think that Roger was referring to the fact that the first three
digits of the phone home card (call me card) was, in one or more
observed cases, 311.  This makes more sense, since these "fictitious
number" cards, must have non standard digits where the area codes go.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #996
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa12649;
          3 Dec 91 3:50 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA05531
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 3 Dec 1991 02:09:37 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA25393
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 3 Dec 1991 02:09:19 -0600
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 1991 02:09:19 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #997

TELECOM Digest     Tue, 3 Dec 91 02:09:17 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 997

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: How Illinois Bell Really Chose AC 708 (Clive Feather)
    Re: Dial Tone After Hangup (Raymond C Jender)
    Re: Long-Distance at Local Rates (Fred R. Goldstein)
    Re: Calling Card Wars (John David Galt)
    Re: Help Needed: Return Charge Calls to USSR (Kirill V. Tchashchin)
    Re: Making Annoying Calls *To* Telemarketers! (Paul S. Sawyer)
    Correction - Re: Caller-ID Specifications (Carl Moore)
    Re: Caller-ID Specifications (Kevin Kadow)
    Re: How Do I Disable Call Waiting on Incoming Calls? (Kevin Kadow)
    Re: IMTS Mobile Phones (Ken Sprouse)
    Re: Preparing for ISDN ... How? (Harold Hallikainen)
    5-ESS Tricks and Traps? (Scott Hinckley)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Clive Feather)
Subject: Re: How Illinois Bell Really Chose AC 708
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 91 10:47:46 GMT


Other contributors have mentioned the cost of an area code split --
the costs of new business cards, letterheads, and so on. Robert
Woodhead suggests that the Tokyo change may have been the biggest such
ever.  One candidate for this prize may have been the UK's first ever
area code split [London (1) split into Inner London (71) and Outer
London (81)] (we don't often have area code splits -- we have area code
merges!).

However, the real winner is going to be the Great Renumbering on
Easter Sunday 1994 -- *every* number in the UK is going to change. For
those interested in the details, simultaneously: every area code will
be prefixed with a 1, the international access code will change from
010 to 00, and a second emergency number (112) will be added to the
existing number (999). Thus dialing will change:

  National          0 223 462 131      -> 0 1223 462 131
  International     010 1 npa nxx xxxx -> 00 1 npa nxx xxxx


Clive D.W. Feather     | IXI Limited
[e-mail]          | 62-74 Burleigh St.
Phone: [phone] | Cambridge   CB1 1OJ
(USA: 1 800 XDESK 57)  | United Kingdom

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

Date: Mon,  2 Dec 91 16:21:55 EST
From: [e-mail] (Raymond C Jender)
Subject: Re: Dial Tone After Hangup
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Monty
Solomon) writes:

> I have recently moved to Framingham, MA and the central office serving
> my new location exhibits behavior which I have never experienced
> before.

> If someone calls me and then hangs up (or gets disconnected) my line
> doesn't immediately get a dial tone.  The line stays quiet for a while
> and then I get a recording which states that I should hang up the
> phone if I want to make a call.

There is no problem here. You are experiencing disconnect timing,
which is 10-11 seconds. During this time, the terminating party can
re-originate and still be connected to the originating party provided
the originating party is still off hook.

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

From: [e-mail] (Fred R. Goldstein)
Subject: Re: Long-Distance at Local Rates
Date: 2 Dec 91 23:31:38 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Peng_H.Ang) writes:

> This may sound hokey but it's true. I just spoke to a Japanese lawyer
> from the Ministry of Post and Telecommunications and he says there is
> something called ATM (Asynchronous Transfer Mode) that is supposed to
> lower long-distance rates to local rates.

That's a rib!

ATM is a real technology, but any notion of rates is far away.  ATM is
the heart of Broadband ISDN, a futuristic network with access rates of
155 and 622 Mbps.  ATM also exists in the LAN environment, which may
make for a (relatively) seamless LAN-WAN interconnect.

But price?  The monthly cost of a B-ISDN line is likely to be a lot
more than any residential customer can afford, for years, since it
requires a new optical local loop.  Per-cell or per-minute usage rates
are far from determined.  Long distance carriers will begin offering
ATM in 1992, via dedicated T3 (or such) access lines, but then you'll
be paying LD rates for local traffic, not the other way around...


Fred R. Goldstein   [e-mail]
or [e-mail]  voice:  [phone]


[Moderator's Note: ATM is discussed in Fred's new book "ISDN In
Perspective", scheduled for release in January, 1992.    PAT]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Calling Card Wars
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 91 07:35:59 PST


> I seem to remember something like if I use my PacBell card to
> place a call that PacBell cannot handle, my default (1+) long distance
> carrier gets billed for the call (who then bills me).  So, I can use

Not quite.  Assuming you don't dial a 10xxx or 950-xxxx company code,
any out-of-area call will go to the default carrier for the phone you
are calling from (NOT necessarily your own carrier).  It is not safe
to assume that J. Random Carrier won't be able to bill to your card,
as some carriers (or is it just AT&T?) have arrangements with your
local telco to verify these cards for them.

The only sure solution is to always check whether your call is out-of-
area, and if it is, dial your company code first.

I see no reason why multiple carriers' cards can't all begin with your
phone number.  Even if the PIN happens to match (with or without
independent databases), the company code (or calling phone's default)
determines the carrier, therefore no ambiguity exists.  Besides, cards
that begin with "nonsense Area Codes" will become ambiguous when NXX
area codes are issued (I estimate within the next two years).

Unlike the Moderator, I do feel that the breakup was morally necessary
and will ultimately improve our phone service; but it could have been
better managed!


John David Galt


[Moderator's Note: Didn't you say once that you took your present name
from Ayn Rand's fictitious character of (almost) the same name? What do
you think *he* or Ms. Rand would have said about AT&T's divestiture?  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Kirill V. Tchashchin)
Date: Mon,  2 Dec 91 19:35:49 +0200 (MSK)
Organization: Newsbytes News Network / Moscow Bureau
Subject: Re: Help Needed: Return Charge Calls to USSR


NO ...

if you mean making calls using regular phone network, where people pay
in roubles and book the call overseas a day in advance, I would
DEFINITELY say NO, it's IMPOSSIBLE to call TO the (former) Soviet
Union collect.

The feature is ESPECIALLY disabled here. No operators will assist you
in such a call.

Maybe those who're calling to US from here using satellites and
cellulars at USD 4 to 7 a minute has a collect calls accepting
option. But I haven't, and won't have in the foreseable future.

> somebody told me that's possible.

He's not right. :-)


kirill tchashchin    newsbytes news network moscow bureau chief

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

From: [e-mail] (Paul S. Sawyer)
Subject: Re: Making Annoying Calls *To* Telemarketers!
Organization: UNH Telecommunications and Network Services
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1991 21:01:44 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Robert J Woodhead) writes:

> It is my sincere wish that, the next time you accidentally misdial a
> phone number while attempting to make an important reservation, you
> end up talking to someone as witty as you are.

> What you did was malicious, petty, insenstive and rude.  You punished
> strangers for the heinous crime of misdialing a telephone by
> inflicting the possibility of great inconvenience upon them.

> Way to go.

Sometimes people who get lots of wrong numbers have reason to act as
John originally described ... I often get calls for someone with a
similar name, who happens to sell meat.  One day one of his regular
customers looked at the wrong name in the phone book and called me.  I
was not home, and my son answered.  "Let me speak to your father!"  My
son told him that I was not there, which he did not want to believe.

"Tell him it's about a large chicken order!"  My son then tried to
tell him that he had the wrong number, and what the right number was.
"Look, kid, don't argue with me, just write down this order!"  So my
son said "Yes, Sir!" and wrote down the order.  When I got home, we
both had a laugh, and wondered what the guy would do without all that
chicken.  I had always taught my sons to be polite on the phone, even
when the other guy wasn't, but I did not forward the message for
several reasons, mainly that this guy USED UP any courtesy I might
have owed him by being rude to my son.

For some reason, people who get a wrong number are hard to convince
that they could have dialed wrong ...


Paul S. Sawyer   -  University of New Hampshire CIS - [e-mail]
Telecommunications and Network Services             - VOX: [phone]
Durham, New Hampshire  03824-3523                   - FAX: [phone]

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

Date: Mon, 2 Dec 91 14:01:12 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Correction - Re: Caller-ID Specifications


I have seen the Moderator's Note saying that this article will be
filed in the Telecom Archives.  At the bottom, Bellcore's address and
phone number are given.  The area code should be changed from 201 to
908.  Also, I find 08834 is the zip code for Little York, NJ.  Should
that be 08854 for Piscataway?

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

From: Kevin Kadow <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Caller-ID Specifications
Organization: Technology News, IIT, Chicago, IL
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 91 05:25:38 GMT


The document mentions "configuring the modem to accept the CND
information."

I find this VERY interesting indeed.

Could a modem be used to read the CND signal then answer?

If I felt like hacking up a 1200 baud modem, would it be possible to
fix it so it MONITORS the data on the phone line but never takes the
phone off hook?


[e-mail]  kadokev@iitvax (bitnet)   My Employer Disagrees.

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

From: [e-mail] (Kevin Kadow)
Subject: Re: How Do I Disable Call Waiting on Incoming Calls?
Organization: Technology News, IIT, Chicago, IL
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 91 05:18:04 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail].
edu (Cliff Stoll) writes:

> OK, if you're calling out, and you don't want your conversation
> interrupted by Commstar / call-waiting, you preface your dialing with
> *70.  So you see a lot of modem dialing strings that look like ATDT
> *70,234-5678 (rotary dial folks use 1170)

> But how do you disable call waiting on incoming calls?  If I have my
> fax or modem programmed to autoanswer, how do I prevent another call
> from stomping on my carrier?

If you have three-way-calling you can switch to the "second line" dial
*70 and call-waiting will be disabled on incoming calls (here in
Chicago.)

I'm not sure if you could have a modem do this, but you *CAN* set up
most modems so they will not hangup after a short interruption of
carrier, and error-correcting modems should ignore the BEEP signal,
but they may disconnect if your switching station does the KER-KLUNK
type signaling where the line is actually physically interrupted.


[e-mail]  kadokev@iitvax (bitnet)    My Employer Disagrees.

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

Subject: Re: IMTS Mobile Phones
Date: 2 Dec 91 02:32:33 EDT (Mon)
From: [e-mail] (Ken Sprouse)


> IMTS is the mobile car telephone service in use before cell phones
> were invented.  They used something like 13 radio channels in the VHF
> band.  In order to talk and listen at the same time, each channel used
> a split channel pair, ie, talk on something like 152.xxx megahertz,
> and listen on 157.xxx megahertz.  The big players in this market were

If you take any scanner that will search between two frequency limits
and program the lower limit to 152.51 and the upper limit to 152.81
you will find an IMTS transmitter every 30 kHz in most large metro
areas.  Now if you do this, make sure you do not LISTEN to anything
you hear on any of these channels as too do so would be in violation
of the ECPA.  I would never do this myself but I have been told by
others that almost all of the available service on IMTS here in the
Pittsburgh area is now used by the local phone company (Bell of Pa.)
for cable installation and or repair persons.  There are a few
construction contractors and doctors that have held onto their IMTS
phones but for the most part it has been abandoned in favor of 800 mHz
cell phones.

> The actual protocols were kind of fun.  The telco end of this used
> very large base radio stations located at fairly substantial towers.
> I recall that they were something like 250 watts of power max (where
> as the mobile units were 25 watts max).  An available telco channel
> would transmit all the time and emit a continious tone.  The IMTS user
> would hear this as a dial tone.  The IMTS telephone would scan all
> channels with this tone listening for its phone number to be dialed.
> If it heard the right series of pulses, it would "ring" (or beep the
> vehicle horn).

Back in the early days of scanning radios Electra (makers of Bearcat
since bought out by Uniden) had Ma Bell on the warpath when they
introduced their model BC-210.  This was, if not the first, one of the
first scanners with digital display and keypad entry of frequency from
the front panel.  One of the "features" of this radio was that it had
a tone decoder built in that would "listen" for the "available
channel" tone put out by the IMTS base stations and skip over that
frequency while scanning.  This made it MUCH eaiser to listen to all
of those moble telephone calls.  I heard quite a few of the calls in
the early days of that radio and I can tell you that there were lots
of people using those phones that had a FIRM belief that they had the
world longest roll of four-wire twist in their trunk! :-) I guess that
same could be said for today's cordless/cellular users.  Anyway, I
talked with the tri-state sales rep for Electra one evening and he
told me that Ma was turning the screws hard to have that tone decoder
taken out of the radio.  It did indeed disapppear from latter models
and Electra said that it was due to a lack of demand.

> I recall these mobile phones selling for about $1500-$2500 used back
> in 1980 -- and in some areas, someone literally had to die before a
> mobile phone number would become available.  I bet the bottom dropped

Very true!  I knew of a Westinghouse corporate executive who waited
for over two years for a moble phone number.  He told me that had he
not been with circle W (lots of pull in the Pittsburgh area) he would
not have gotten it when he did.


Ken Sprouse / N3IGW
[e-mail]      GEnie mail ksprouse    Compu$erve 70145,426

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

Date: Mon, 2 Dec 91 22:43:40 -0800
From: [e-mail] (Harold Hallikainen)
Subject: Re: Preparing for ISDN ... How?
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo


In article <[e-mail]> you write:

> A friend of mine recently purchased a "fix-me-up" house, and will be
> pulling wires (phone, CATV, etc.) throughout. Assuming that it is even
> feasable at this time, what sort of wiring [number of conductors,
> connectors, etc] would be needed for him to be "ISDN ready" (in the
> sense that he could take full advantage of all that it promises to
> offer)?

    Another possibility on all this is to put conduit to each
outlet location.  This could be some plastic tubing or something so
each time you want to change something or have a wire fail, you don't
have to rip out the wall.  Each outlet could just have a stub into the
basement or attic, or could drop into raceways or junction boxes in
the basement or attic.  They could also do a "home run" to a telephone
closet.


Harold

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

Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1991 08:00:36 -0600
From: Scott Hinckley <[e-mail]>
Subject: 5-ESS Tricks and Traps?


I am about to move to a place served by a 5-ESS switch. I would be
interested in any information on tricks, traps, features, and
liabilities of this switch. I am especially interested in features
affecting modem use (9600baud V42bis MNP-5 soon I hope). I do not have
the ability to FTP from this site, so I cannot scan the archives.


Thank you,

[e-mail]    UUCP:...!uw-beaver!bcsaic!hsvaic!scott

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #997
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa19101;
          4 Dec 91 0:33 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA00268
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 3 Dec 1991 22:46:15 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA15824
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 3 Dec 1991 22:46:05 -0600
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 1991 22:46:05 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #998

TELECOM Digest     Tue, 3 Dec 91 22:46:00 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 998

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Sending Mail to France (Paul Gauthier)
    Wanted: Combination Answering Machine and Cordless Phone (H. Hallikainen)
    CNID 'Availability' (Juergen Ziegler)
    IMTS Channel Designators (Chris Arndt)
    Can Long Distance Companies Provide Local Service? (Glenn F. Leavell)
    Dumb Question (Ken M. Blumberg)
    Where to Find Caller ID Devices? (David Vrona)
    How Does a Cellphone Duplex? (Jim Rees)
    PBX and Voice Mail Information For 20 Users (Bill DenBesten)
    New Kinds of Roamer Charges ;-{ (Phydeaux)
    Re: Panasonic KX-T3910 Information Wanted (Alan Marc Gallatin)
    Re: Limited Bandwidth PBX (Martin Harriss)
    Re: TV Show Ignores Risks of Radio Phones (Steven King)
    Re: CLID and Answering Machines (Randall L. Smith)
    Re: How Illinois Bell Really Chose AC 708 (Bob Goudreau)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Paul Gauthier)
Subject: Sending Mail to France
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1991 23:29:14 -0400


This has probably been asked before, but I couldn't find any info in
the archives ...

I have a friend living in France for a year. I was wondering if there
was a way for us to exchange mail via France's Minitel service and my
Internet account. Do gateways exist, and how hard will it be for this
non-computer-type person to work the system in France?


Thanks,

Paul Gauthier / [e-mail]
President, Cerebral Computer Technologies
Phone: [phone]    Fax: [phone]

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

Date: Mon, 2 Dec 91 22:34:43 -0800
From: [e-mail] (Harold Hallikainen)
Subject: Wanted: Combination Answering Machine and Cordless Phone
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo


    My father lives on a boat.  He has a Sony cordless phone that
works great, but he still has to "plug the boat in" when he's in the
harbor.  What'd be ideal would be a combination answering machine and
cordless phone base station he could leave in a locker on the dock.
He'd just have a charger for the phone on the boat.  If he doesn't
answer a call (because either he or the boat (or both) are not there),
the answering machine would pick up the call.  Now, the trick is to be
able to pick up messages without having to go out on the dock in the
rain.  Ideally, the cordless phone handset would have a message
waiting indicator and allow the remote pickup of messages.  Anything
like this exist?  At present, the best approach seems to be getting
voice-mail from PacBell, then using his existing cordless phone with
some sort of a battery charger.

    Thanks for the assistance!


Harold

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

Date: Tue, 3 Dec 91 15:21 MET
From: [e-mail]
Subject: CNID 'Availability'


  From time to time some readers report about CNID 'availability' in
their area or state. But how do you define 'availability' in that
respect.

It is obvious that when you can *receive* CNID information over your
phone line that CNID is 'available' at your area. But if you do not
have that service 'availability', will your CNID information not send
to the remote switch or will it? So can you control that even if you
have no way to receive CNID information?


Juergen


[Moderator's Note: There is a transition period going on now (and this
will continue for a few years I expect) where some subscribers can
receive Caller-ID, yet the office serving the caller will not be yet
equipped. And in reverse, there are offices sending the ID in most
cases yet not sending it to an office not yet equipped to handle it.
Generally I think we say it is 'available' when we can receive the
information from most callers. It will be be years before this is 100
percent reciprocal, if it ever is.   PAT]

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

Date: Tue, 3 Dec 91 08:42:53 -0800
From: [e-mail] (Chris Arndt)
Subject: IMTS Channel Designators


The recent thread on IMTS mobile telephone service, and the KLondike-
YUkon thread has rekindled a question I have had for a long time.

What is the reason/purpose behind the alphabetic IMTS channel
designations?

Low band freqs are called ZO, ZF, ZH, ZM, ZA, ZR, and ZB.

High band freqs are JL, YL, JP, YP, YJ, YK, JS, YS, YR, JK, and JR.

UHF freqs are QC, QJ, QD, QA, QE, QP, QK, QB, QO, QR, QY, and QF.

At least now Pac Bell uses a numbering scheme for those. (That's a
whole 'nother question. The channel NUMBERS for VHF are 3, 5, 7, 9,
11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, and 23. Channel 1 is a Canadian channel not
used in the US. Where'd the even channel go?)

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

From: [e-mail] (Glenn F. Leavell)
Subject: Can Long Distance Companies Provide Local Service?
Organization: University of Georgia Economics Department
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 1991 17:01:33 GMT


 From time to time, I've used my Sprint Foncard (via 800-877-8000) to
make a local phone call (Athens, Georgia) from a pay phone.  The
charge always appears on my Sprint bill.  Is Sprint actually providing
the service, or is Sprint just handling the billing for Southern Bell?
If Southern Bell is providing the service, is Sprint making any money
off the call?

A related question: Southern Bell now advertises that one can use its
Calling Card to make long distance calls from anywhere in the country.
For instance, I could dial 10 ATT0 503 XXX-YYYY followed by my
Southern Bell Calling Card number to make a call from New York to
Oregon.  In this example, I've chosen to use AT&T as my long-distance
carrier.  Does Southern Bell make any money here?  They obviously
don't provide the service, but their card number was used.


Thanks for any help,

Glenn F. Leavell  Systems Administrator  [e-mail]  404-542-3488
University of Georgia Economics Department. 147 Brooks Hall. Athens, GA 30602


[Moderator's Note: Anytime one telco handles a call over its wires
which originated with another telco, they get paid for it. The process
of telephone companies settling their internal accounts with each
other is a very involved and technical process. Regards the handling
of local traffic by LD carriers, YES, they technically can do it and
NO, it is is not legal for them to do it. Given the present technology
it is easier to permit it than fight with customers about it. But the
LD carriers cannot advertise it nor explain how to do it, etc. Please
read the several messages on this very topic which have appeared in
the Digest in recent days from John Higdon and others.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (KEN)
Subject: Dumb Question
Reply-To: [e-mail] (KEN)
Organization: Univ. of Southwestern Louisiana
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 1991 16:10:11 GMT


Is it possible to connect to and x25 type addresses using the Internet
and a Unix based system?  Do I not know anything?


Ken M. Blumberg       Internet: [e-mail]  or  [e-mail]

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

From: hp1![e-mail] (David Vrona)
Subject: Where to Find Caller ID Devices?
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 1991 14:41:52 GMT
Organization: Hollister Incorporated,  Libertyville, IL


Hi all,

Caller ID is coming to the Chicago suburbs in a month so I have to get
myself a "DEVICE".

I would appreciate it if people would send me phone numbers for
suppliers of caller ID devices.  My preference would be for a device
with a serial port.

Please respond via e-mail!!!


Thanks very much.

David Vrona  708.680.2829      <[e-mail]>
Hollister Incorporated         {well connected}!ddsw1!hp1!dave
2000 Hollister Drive           Opinions expressed are my own and not
Libertyville, IL  60048-3781   those of Hollister Incorporated.


[Moderator's Note: Actually, Caller-ID will be available all over the
northern Illinois area including Chicago starting in mid-January,
1992. And for your convenience, Illinois Bell and Centel are both
selling display boxes. Call them for specifics. Another source of
these is 'Hello Direct' at 1-800-HI-HELLO in San Jose, CA.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Jim Rees)
Subject: How Does a Cellphone Duplex?
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: University of Michigan IFS Project
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 91 19:38:33 GMT


How does a cellphone duplex its antenna for send and receive?  A
traditional cavity duplexor wouldn't fit in a shirt-pocket phone, even
at 800 MHz.  Even if it would, it wouldn't be frequency-agile enough.
So how do they do it?

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

From: [e-mail] (Bill DenBesten)
Subject: PBX and Voice Mail Information For 20 Users
Date: 3 Dec 91 22:25:10 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Bowling Green State University, Computer Science


My department is contemplating installing a voice mail system, and
possibly a PBX.  We will need 32 extensions, though more would be
nice. My initial thought for the switch is a Panasonic 1232.

I am interested in comments about various brands, and your
satisfaction with the switch or voice message system.

I will summarize, if I get interesting replies.


William C. DenBesten is [e-mail] or [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 3 Dec 91 09:09:33 PST
From: [e-mail] (Phydeaux)
Subject: New Kinds of Roamer Charges ;-{


Daily surcharges and high per minute rates -- that's what you have to
pay for roaming.  But now it seems that *everyone* wants to get a
piece of the pie. I thought that roaming agreements between systems
included the 'roam' system sharing a portion of the charges with the
'home' system.

It appears that Celular One here in Chicago recently realized that
there is more money to be made from roamers than just this.  My latest
bill includes the following note "If you incur roaming charges during
a particular month, a roamer administration fee will appear on the
invoice for that month ..."

I'd consider switching carriers, but their 'friends' across town
probably have already matched this 'offer' ... nickel and diming
customers sure adds up when it's $1 here and $2 there ...


reb
-- *-=#= Phydeaux =#=-* [e-mail]  or  [e-mail]
ICBM:  41.55N 87.40W  h:828 South May Street  Chicago,  IL 60607  312-733-3090
w:reb Ingres 10255 West Higgins Road Suite 500 Rosemont, IL 60018 708-803-9500

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

From: [e-mail] (Alan Marc Gallatin)
Subject: Re: Panasonic KX-T3910 Information Wanted
Date: 3 Dec 91 06:53:10 GMT
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.


In article <[e-mail]> Michael Rosen writes:

> Has anyone had any experience with the Panasonic KX-T3910 cordless
> phone?  I'm wondering if anyone has had any problems with the phone
> and if they have figured out, from use, about how far it will actually
> go from the base.

I use the 3910 and, depending upon several factors (including weather
and electromagnetic interference in the area) I've found the phone to
be consistently reliable within 400-500 feet and, in many cases, have
gotten it up to 1/4 mile!!  The general quality has been quite good --
reception is a major plus; I rarely hear annoying static unless I'm at
the fringe of the transmit area and I've experienced no problems as of
yet.

> Should I feel reasonably safe that no one will overhear my phone calls
> on this Panasonic phone?

I'd like to think so, but I suppose we'll never know for sure!!
Occasionally, when I'm close to (or completely) out of range from my
base, I pick up traces of other people's conversations.  I can't,
however, figure out what is being said.  I hope I'm not delluding
myself but I'd like to think they can't decipher what I'm saying,
either!!

Any other specific questions?  E-mail, don't post!


ALAN M. GALLATIN                 Internet:  [e-mail]
 Duke University School of Law              [e-mail]
 Home: [phone]              GEnie:  A. GALLATIN

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

From: [e-mail] (Martin Harriss)
Subject: Re: Limited Bandwidth PBX
Reply-To: bdsgate![e-mail] (Martin Harriss)
Organization: Beechwood Data Systems
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 91 19:51:38 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dave
Martindale) writes:

> We have an Iwatsu digital PBX here.  The manual says that the data
> format is "PCM32".  I haven't found any further details of the
> digitizing process so far.  Does anyone know the answers to these
> questions:

It could be referring to something like a 32-channel PCM system, which
is a European standard.  Like T1, except it has 32 channels and a bit
rate of 2.<something> Megabits per second.


Martin Harriss   uunet!bdsgate!martin

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

Date: Tue, 3 Dec 91 16:38:50 CST
From: [e-mail] (Steven King)
Subject: Re: TV Show Ignores Risks of Radio Phones


[e-mail] (Russ Nelson) writes:

> The screenwriter blew it, though.  Instead of pointing out the
> insecurity of wireless communication, the Bad Guy had bugged the home
> office, and that end of the conversation had been overheard that way.

And, from the Bad Guy's point of view, wiretapping the home office is
much, MUCH easier.  After all, the Bad Guy knew Our Heroine would
eventually phone home, right?  He could just bug the office and wait.
If he had tried to tap the cellular transmissions he'd have had to
find the particular cell and frequency Our Heroine was using, which
would be difficult or at least time-consuming.  Then, if she moved to
another cell in mid-conversation, he'd have to start over!

Cellphones are insecure, but not *that* insecure.

The insecurity of a cellphone mostly comes from random people scanning
random channels.  You can easily listen in to some random
conversation, sure.  On the other hand, trying to find ONE specific
conversation, especially a when it involves a moving person handing
off from cell to cell, is quite like looking for a needle in a
haystack.  First find the cell they're in, then scan all the channels
trying to distinguish their voice.  And be quick about it, because
odds are they'll hang up or hand off soon!

I'd say the screenwriter called this one pretty well, whether or not
they knew it.  Bad Guys are a lazy bunch, and it's just too darned
much work to trail someone and constantly scan for their cellphone!


Steven King, Motorola Cellular  ([e-mail])

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

From: rls![e-mail] (Randall L. Smith)
Subject: Re: CLID and Answering Machines
Date: 3 Dec 91 19:03:55 GMT
Organization: The Internet


[e-mail] (Paul Wexelblat) writes:

> Does anyone know of any answering machine that has/plans-to-have the
> capability to access/store CLID info of caller?

Strangely enough, this was being discussed in rec.humor a month ago.
Furthermore, it was proposed (by me :-) that the answering machine
could discriminate by ID number and play an appropriate message.

Since, IMHO, there isn't a decent answering machine at any price in
the free world, (much less elsewhere) the chances of any
sophistication in the near future seems abysmal.

> [If you think this is a good idea and make a fortune on it, at least
> send me one of the machines.

I think prior art would kill your chances. :-)

Cheers!


randy   [e-mail] | <backbone>!osu-cis!rls!randy |
rls![e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 3 Dec 91 15:42:20 est
From: [e-mail] (Bob Goudreau)
Subject: Re: How Illinois Bell Really Chose AC 708


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Clive
Feather) writes:

> However, the real winner is going to be the Great Renumbering on
> Easter Sunday 1994 -- *every* number in the UK is going to change. For
> those interested in the details, simultaneously: every area code will
> be prefixed with a 1, the international access code will change from
> 010 to 00, and a second emergency number (112) will be added to the
> existing number (999). Thus dialing will change:

>   National          0 223 462 131      -> 0 1223 462 131
>   International     010 1 npa nxx xxxx -> 00 1 npa nxx xxxx

Well, don't leave us hanging -- why is the "1" change necessary?  Are
they planning something special for sequences beginning with 02
through 09 (which will otherwise be rendered completely unassigned by
the change)?  If so, what?  If not, then why the extra digit for area
codes?  Enquiring minds want to know :-).


Bob Goudreau                [phone]
Data General Corporation        [e-mail]
62 Alexander Drive
Research Triangle Park, NC  27709, USA

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #998
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa20418;
          4 Dec 91 1:21 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA20392
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 3 Dec 1991 23:37:10 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA15611
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 3 Dec 1991 23:36:52 -0600
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 1991 23:36:52 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #999

TELECOM Digest     Tue, 3 Dec 91 23:36:49 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 999

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Hacker Convicted (John Higdon)
    Re: Hacker Convicted (Paul A. Houle)
    Re: Hacker Convicted (Tom Gray)
    Re: Hacker Convicted (Robert J. Stratton III)
    Re: E911 System Brought to it's Knees By a Prank Vermillion
    Re: Legitimate Reasons For Ringing My Phone (John Higdon)
    Re: 'Easy' Numbers, Teleslime, Wrong Numbers ([e-mail])
    Re: KLondike and YUkon (Al Stangenberger)
    Re: Legalities of Taping Phone Calls (Damon Schaefer)
    Re: ANI Numbers That I Know of (Douglas Krause)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 3 Dec 91 00:22 PST
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Hacker Convicted


holos0![e-mail] (Weaver Hickerson) writes:

> In other words, you blame the victim for the crime.

I do not condone, encourage, suggest, or advocate intrusive "hacking".
But what is the goal here? Given that hackers exist, what is the most
effective way of keeping them out of other people's systems?
Implementing reasonable security or locking all the hackers up? Do you
think for an instant that it is possible to do that? Do you really
believe that "making an example" of some kids by ruining their lives
will "send a message" (how I hate that phrase!) to would-be hackers
such that you could leave your system unprotected without worry?

> Suppose you were the same you, but a little more trusting.  Suppose
> you had only 19 levels of password protection instead of the commonly
> used, anti-phreak, 149 levels. And one day I logged into your system,
> recieved a copy of your client list, changed every occurance of client
> name and address to some filling station in Dinosaur, Utah, and erased
> everything else and replaced your UNIX Kernel with CP/M.

[etc., etc.]

But you would not do that because you are so intimidated by the law
and the enforcement thereof, right? Thank you very much, but I would
rather just make sure my passwords are non-trivial and all the other
procedures and logging are in place than just assume that the posse is
saddled up and ready to pursue the bad guys.

> Would you blame yourself?  Just because you did not "adequately"
> protect yourself?  Hell no.

Why the obsession with the word "blame"? My sole goal is to keep
unauthorized people out of my system. I care not who is to "blame" if
they are allowed to enter. My opinion is that the most effective
measures to keep them out will come from my actions and no one else's
 -- not the Congress, not judges, not the FBI. How you can twist this
around to inply that I somehow condone illegal entry into systems
escapes me.

Another thing: anti-hacker laws and their associated enforcement would
only deter the kids. Hard core criminal types who want to steal or
worse do not care about any other laws; why would these be any
different? So when I hear that some kid has broken into a government
computer it scares me. Why? Because if the kid can do it, so can real
bad guys. Frying the kid does not solve the problem. Neither does
passing tougher laws.

[e-mail] (Charlie Mingo) writes:

> If Mr. Higdon is aware of any authority for his usage of the term
> "mitigation of damages" with respect to intentional torts, I would be
> glad to hear of it.

I do not pretend to be a net.lawyer so if you claim the term is
inappropriate, so be it. But the bulk of your article seems to imply
that no one has any obligation to lift a finger to protect one's own
property. Are we to just sit back and let the intruders enter and then
let the law take its course? I would rather keep them out in the first
place rather than prosecute later (and try to clean up the mess).

Even though you quote references, I would rather "expend a dollar" and
keep my private things private rather than get all hot and bothered
AFTER my system had been breached. It is too bad, IMHO, that my
government does not feel the same way.


        John Higdon         |   P. O. Box 7648   |   [phone]
    [e-mail]      | San Jose, CA 95150 |       M o o !


[Moderator's Note: Your argument for using 'self-help' to prevent
problems does make a lot of sense. Have you noticed though when the
same kind of 'self-help' argument is used as a good reason for getting
Caller-ID (ie if we can identify the hackerphreak (obscene/nuisance
caller) from the start he is less likely to even bother making the
call) rather than relying on the police and the telco annoying call
bureau after the fact, a lot of people fall back on the 'get the
police involved' argument. Seems like they don't want to ruin a young
phreak's life by giving him a criminal record, but they've no problem
with giving a young 'dirty old man' a rap sheet.  PAT]

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

Date: Tue, 3 Dec 91 11:38:33 MST
From: [e-mail] (Paul A. Houle)
Subject: Re: Hacker Convicted


         At the risk of beating a dead horse, I'd like to bring out
another aspect of the hacker debate.  Most of us would agree that
hacking and phreaking are wrong -- but I think that a large number of
companies that we trust with public information should be charged with
criminal negligence when they take minimal precautions to protect
information that is private or confidential.

        I can think of a number of cases where it was rather easy for
phreakers to get access to telephone company computers (such as
COSMOS).  You know, the ones where the standard accounts were left
unpassworded or which were on a packet switched net which permitted
spoofing (hacker connects to dial-in port, pretends to be network+
cosmos machine).  In these cases, the telephone company made quite a
bit of information which is confidential (like my unlisted telephone
number) very easy for hackers to steal.  When LMOS and test frame
control computers become compromised, phreakers can even listen in on
telephone calls in the privacy of their own homes (if they're dumb) or
at an array of pay phones at the mall without having to climb poles
and put a tap on your phone.  I think it is criminal negligence for
the telephone company to make it so easy for people to do this stuff.

        The same thing goes for companies such as TRW.  Credit
reporting plays a legitimate role in business today, and although it
does diminish privacy, it also makes it possible for me to do business
with thousands of merchants that I've never met, so it's something
that I accept.  But, when it becomes possible for anybody with a
computer, a modem, and just a little bit of knowledge, skill and time
to blow to get my credit report, this is serious irresponsibility on
the part of the credit reporting company.

        Although hacking is wrong, we entrust many companies to store
confidential information on us on computers.  When these companies
break this trust, by not implementing competent computer security,
(and even when switched networks make it real easy to spoof and
eavsedrop) they betray the public trust; and this is criminal
negligence, the same kind of thing that was involved in the oil spill
of the Exxon Valdez.


[Moderator's Note: Remember the children's song about drunken sailors?
'What are you gonna do with a drunken sailor ... put him in charge of
an Exxon tanker ...'   :)    PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Tom Gray)
Subject: Re: Hacker Convicted
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 1991 11:37:13 -0500
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Andrew
M. Dunn) writes:

> definition).  If you had a two-million-dollar-valued painting in your
> home and you left your front door open, you might not recover two
> million dollars!

Yes you would -- from the thief. Your insurance company might have
standards for you to follow in securing your home but the law does
not. If you had left this painting in full view on your front lawn,
nobody would be entitled to take it.

Lets get this topic back to where it began with hackers and phreaks.
Nothing that they do is very complicated or very difficult or requires
much imagination. They cause damage by using well known flaws in
existing systems. Their technological capability is the equivalent to
proving that a window can be broken with a thrown rock.

Hackers and phreaks are just vandals and thieves and should be treated
as any other criminal.

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

From: digex![e-mail] (Robert J. Stratton III)
Subject: Re: Hacker Convicted
Organization: Express Access, Greenbelt, Maryland USA
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 1991 01:29:26 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> PAT writes:

> [Moderator's Note: While it is true we are expected to mitigate our
> losses and make reasonable efforts to protect our property, I have
> some question as to the extent of such efforts expected of us where
> highly complex computing machinery is concerned. We are NOT talking
> about putting a better piece of hardware on the front door of your
> home and a simple lock being physically smashed and the premises
> entered.

You are quite correct, Pat, we aren't talking about installing
hardware, which requires physical exertion and procurement of a
physical device -- we are talking about editing a few files, and
examining a few software bugs, which doesn't even require the system
manager to leave his or her office chair!

> Indeed, we should have known and taken stronger actions to
> protect our property. Is it reasonable to expect every computer user
> to be a computer scientist?

No! But it IS reasonable to expect system ADMINISTRATORS to be
competent professionals! If that translates to "computer scientist" in
your book, so be it.

> If industry and professional standards for
> security are met, then we have done what should be expected of us.  PAT]

The most appropriate response to this comment is quite probably: "If
everyone else {jumped in a lake | jumped off the roof | didn't use
passwords}, would you as well?!

Insofar as I'm concerned, any machine that succumbs in two hours is not
protected to "industry and professional standards" in the vast
majority of cases.  The defenses exist, but people aren't using them.

I consult for a wide variety of government and commercial entities,
and I have yet to see more than five facilities in five years that had
competent, dedicated system administration personnel specifically
dedicated to the functions of system administration. In 90% of the
sites I've examined, companies and the gov't merely add system
administration tasks to the already bulging workload of existing
staff.

I have helped many sites tighten up their security systems, but if
they're unwilling to allocate the resources necessary to maintain that
state of security, I have no sympathy for them. (Before anyone accuses
that of translating to "intrusion is o.k.", you have misunderstood
me.)


Bob Stratton           | SMTP: [e-mail], [e-mail]
Express Access         | PSTN: [phone]
Greenbelt, Maryland    | For info on Express Access, write "[e-mail]".

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

From: Bill Vermillion <tarpit!bilver![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: E911 System Brought to it's Knees By a Prank
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 91 1:10:29 EST


In article <[e-mail]-> [e-mail]
(Michael A. Covington) writes:

> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
> (Ron Dippold) writes:

>> It seems that a disc jokey at KSOL decided to play a recent MC Hammer
>> record over and over and over... as a prank.

And here in Orlando, in the 1960 time frame former FCC Chairman Mark
Fowler, was a disk jockey at WHOO radio.

He played Monkey Fever by Sheb Wooley for 24 hours straight.  Claimed
he was locked in!

Now you know why his reign at the FCC was so strange :-)


Bill Vermillion - [e-mail] - ..!{ge-dab|tous|tarpit}!bilver!bill

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

Date: Tue, 3 Dec 91 01:06 PST
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Legitimate Reasons For Ringing My Phone


Robert J. Woodhead writes:

> At least on my fax machines, this will not work, as there is a maximum
> length a "page" can be.

There is another problem that I am surprised no one has mentioned yet:
most junk faxes originate from computers equipped with fax modems.
There is no paper to waste, no print heads to burn out. The most you
might be able to do is waste (perfectly reusable) disk space. But then
that assumes that they have the answer mode set to even receive your
call.


        John Higdon         |   P. O. Box 7648   |   [phone]
    [e-mail]      | San Jose, CA 95150 |       M o o !

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: 'Easy' Numbers, Teleslime, Wrong Numbers, etc.
Date: Mon,  2 Dec 91 20:42:48 PST


I'm reminded of a college prank.  The guy in the dorm room next to
mine was on the phone constantly.  He also went home most weekends,
and his phone would keep ringing and drive us nuts.  This was
pre-breakup, and the phones were plain vanilla hard-wired wall phones.
Anyway.  We found a way to get back at this guy.

One evening, when he went to the bathroom and left his door open, we
lifted the handset and wedged a pencil eraser under the hookswitch,
then hung up.  (Result: the phone was off-hook but it didn't show.)
The next time he tried to place a call, he got so bugged by the
apparently dead phone that he took the handset and beat the ____ out
of the phone!

Too bad I don't live next to that guy from the newspaper ... 8'7

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

Date: Tue, 3 Dec 91 18:02:04 PST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: KLondike and YUkon


In Oakland, CA, TWinoaks was used for the 89x exchanges (botanically, very
appropriate).


Al Stangenberger                 Dept. of Forestry & Resource Mgt.
[e-mail]       145 Mulford Hall - Univ. of Calif.
uucp:  ucbvax!ucbviolet!forags   Berkeley, CA  94720
BITNET: FORAGS AT UCBVIOLE       [phone]  FAX: [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Damon Schaefer)
Subject: Re: Legalities of Taping Phone Calls
Date: 4 Dec 91 02:24:05 GMT
Organization: Hewlett Packard, Vancouver, WA


> Speaking of recording phone conversations:

> The federal government does not require that all parties being
> recorded must give their prior consent or that all parties being
> recond must hear a 'beep'. According to FCC rules, as long as one of
> parties is aware of the conversation is been taped it is legal.

Okay so if *I* am taping every call that involves my home phone,
obviously I am aware that the calls are being taped.  Legal??

> some states impose strict laws such as insisting both parties be
> aware.  For example, in the state of Utah, there are no regulations.

Sure, I'm interested.

Anybody know about the regulations in Washington (state)?

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

From: Doug Krause <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: ANI Numbers That I Know of
Organization: University of California, Irvine
Date: 3 Dec 91 11:32:01 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Stephen Friedl) writes:

> In GTE Los Angeles, either 114 or 1223.
> In PACBell San Diego 211-2111.

> In Pacific*Bell territory in Orange County (the cities of Santa Ana
> and Tustin, at least) the ANI code is 211-2222.

I just tried this from my work phone and the voice gave me the correct
exchange, but wrong last four digits.  I know that our phone system is
some sort of Ericson contraption, so it probably confused things.

P.S.  I was calling from Irvine.


Douglas Krause  University of California, Irvine
Internet: [e-mail]   BITNET: [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #999
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa15727;
          5 Dec 91 4:24 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA03953
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 5 Dec 1991 02:33:15 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA14883
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 5 Dec 1991 02:32:54 -0600
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1991 02:32:54 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #1000

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 5 Dec 91 02:32:42 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 1000

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    A Thousand of These Things! (TELECOM Moderator)
    Re: Making Annoying Calls *To* Telemarketers! (John Higdon)
    Re: Making Annoying Calls *To* Telemarketers! (John Abt)
    Re: Making Annoying Calls *To* Telemarketers! (Richard Tilley)
    Re: Making Annoying Calls *To* Telemarketers! (Derek Billingsley)
    Re: Making Annoying Calls *To* Telemarketers! (Jim Harkins)
    Re: US West & OR BBSs (Peter Marshall)
    Re: Long-Distance at Local Rates
    Re: E911 System Brought to it's Knees By a Prank M. Turner
    Re: Preparing for ISDN ... How? (Fred R. Goldstein)
    Re: AT&T Model 4600 Cordless Phone Problem (Michael Silano)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1991 00:41:34 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: A Thousand of These Things!


Who would have expected TELECOM Digest to ever reach the point there
would be in excess of 1000 issues each year?  But that is where we are
at with this issue, and we still have about three weeks left until the
end of the year, when the volume number changes and the issues start
numbering over again.

Four years ago we had 200+ issues per year, and two years ago we had
603 issues. Where will it end?


Patrick Townson

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

Date: Tue, 3 Dec 91 01:51 PST
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Making Annoying Calls *To* Telemarketers!


On Dec 3 at  1:00, TELECOM Moderator writes:

> We have no evidence Hilton gave out
> John's number or in any way contributed to the problem.   PAT]

Possibly, but on those several occasions when I DID ask what number
the caller was dialing, s/he would say, "800 445-8886" (my number). In
those same instances I would ask who they were trying to reach
(invariably Hilton) and I would give the correct number. Two calls to
Hilton's national headquarters netted absolutely no help whatsoever.
NO ONE was even remotely interested in my problem.

It was after receiving no cooperation from Hilton that I started
taking reservations. This apparently had some effect since I got a
threatening call from someone at the chain telling me to stop it.
After that little threat, I started giving out "800 325-3535" to
callers. Then the calls suddenly stopped. When they started up again
from people trying to reach yet another company, I changed the number.

Hilton may not have been responsible for its customers getting and
using my number, but the company made no effort to help me solve the
problem. Contrary to what those of you who have bashed me in the
Digest and in e-mail have claimed, the reservation-taking was the
first EFFECTIVE thing that I did. It at least got Hilton's attention.
How did they know it was I? I told the person that I talked to on the
second call that if the wrong number calls continued what my course of
action would be -- and left my listed number.

[e-mail] (Paul S. Sawyer) writes:

> For some reason, people who get a wrong number are hard to convince
> that they could have dialed wrong ...

And for the most part they are very rude. Lately, I have noticed an
upsurge of wrong numbers on all of my voice-answerable lines. Over
half simply hang up the instant there is the realization that the
wrong number has been reached. Over half of the remaining start the
conversation with, "WHO IS THIS??!!". Most of the rest utter an
expletive or otherwise express displeasure (at me) for having stupidly
dialed the wrong number. A tiny minority have dialed the wrong number
correctly and are insensed that I am not the desired party. I am even
asked if I know where the intended callee might be!

And just a couple of days ago, a caller upon learning that she had
reached the wrong number simply said, "Oh, I'm sorry. Please excuse
the ring."

Now someone tell me: why, making forty or fifty calls a day, do I not
ever remember reaching a wrong number (at least in the past few
years), and yet I receive five to ten of them a day?


        John Higdon         |   P. O. Box 7648   |   [phone]
    [e-mail]      | San Jose, CA 95150 |       M o o !

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

From: [e-mail] (John Abt)
Subject: Re: Making Annoying Calls *To* Telemarketers!
Date: 3 Dec 91 17:38:42 GMT
Organization: Grass Valley Group, Grass Valley, CA


> What you did was malicious, petty, insenstive and rude.  You punished
> strangers for the heinous crime of misdialing a telephone by
> inflicting the possibility of great inconvenience upon them.

But it gets worse than that. I was once at a friend's apartment when
she received a phone call and said into the phone "Please hold ...
I'm sorry, Mr. Smith and his wife just checked out" When I asked what
was going on my friend explained that her number was similar to a
large hotel's in town and she was very tired of the wrong numbers.

"But what was the bit about checking out?"  "Oh, when I get a call
from a woman asking for a man, that's what I say!".

I was shocked. I tried talking to her about it, but it didn't work.
Neither did our relationship after that.


John Abt

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

From: [e-mail] (Richard Tilley)
Subject: Re: Making Annoying Calls *To* Telemarketers!
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1991 04:00:03 GMT


In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:

> At least try this approach ("Hey, that annoys me, would you please
> stop doing it?") before retaliating in kind. I think that everybody,
> even telemarketing callers, could use a little more politeness in our
> lives.

Perhaps we should be polite while getting raped too. These people are
thieves. They interrupt us without asking. They steal our time.  They
use our equipment. If you don't have permission, you don't take
something.

Telemarketers are a *cause* of rudeness. My daughter's vice-principal
called a few months ago and asked for "Mr. Tilley". I answered with a
very abrupt "Who is speaking". She hesitated and came very close to
hearing something I wouldn't say here. :-)

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

From: [e-mail] (Derek Billingsley)
Subject: Re: Making Annoying Calls *To* Telemarketers!
Organization: University of New Brunswick, Fredericton
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1991 16:44:51 GMT


In the city where I live, the local telco is known for re-using old
telephone numbers before a 'reasonable' amount of time passes. My case
is where the gentleman who had my number before I did didn't live up
to a number of creditors obligations and promptly vanished.  Well,
once I got my phone installed, I began getting interesting
conversations ...  bill collectors, old girlfriends, etc. The most
notable comes to mind one afternoon this summer ...

ME: "Hello?"

Pleasant enough sounding lady: "Hello, I am calling from the cable
company and it appears that you are delinquent in your bill."

At this point I knew it couldn't possibly be for me, so I played along ...

ME: "Oh, I'm sorry but I don't usually watch TV that much anymore."

PESL: "Well sir, it appears that your bill is delinquent and we would
appreaciate you remitting payment by the end of the week."

ME: "Payment?  How much?"

PESL: "Our records indicate that you owe us $ (over two hundred ...
forget exactly) and your account is due to be disconnected on Friday
if your account is not brought up to date."

By this point she was rather fed up with me and was sounding a bit
nasty.

ME: "I'm sorry, I don't think I can help you out ... I don't have any
money to give you."  (I was almost laughing when I was speaking now)

Then, she finally identified the "NAME" she was calling -- she had
assumed (quite incorrectly) that I was him ...  BZZZZT

PESL: "Mr. Stone, when you had cable installed, you entered into a
contract with us to pay us for the service.  It is not only illegal,
but immoral to not pay us what you owe!"

ME: "Mr. Stone?  I'm sorry, you have the wrong number ..."

PESL: "Is this not xxx-xxxx ?"

ME: "Yes, but I don't even have cable ..."

Then she hung up on me ... I suppose I should have told her, right
away, that I didn't have cable, but after so many calls, you can't
help to play around.

I don't have any telemarketers calling me which is disappointing
because in a demented way, that was kind of fun ...  (big evil grin)


Regards,

Derek Billingsley    University of New Brunswick - Electrical Engineering
[e-mail]             -  MUSIC Account (IBM something or other)
[e-mail]    - A real computer, a UNIX box

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

From: pacdata![e-mail] (Jim Harkins)
Subject: Re: Making Annoying Calls *To* Telemarketers!
Organization: Pacific Data Products
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1991 20:49:24 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:

> Tell me, if faced with unemployment vs. placing telemarketing calls,
> which would you choose?)

By your reasoning, if I hire an unemployed bum off the street to break
into your house and get me your stereo them I'm doing a Good Thing.
Sorry, telemarketing is a despicable practice no matter how you try to
rationalize it.


Jim Harkins              [ucsd|uunet]!pacdata!jim
Pacific Data Products    [e-mail]
[e-mail]  pacdata![e-mail]  <Insert wild guess here>


[Moderator's Note: Thanks to all who contributed to this thread, but
it has become quite lengthy and we have to move along to other topics.
No further messages on telemarketers (calls to or from them) will be
printed for awhile ... quite awhile.    PAT]

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

Subject: Re: US West & OR BBSs
From: [e-mail] (Peter Marshall)
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Peter Marshall)
Date: Tue, 03 Dec 91 09:29:20 PST


Although Walter Scott's 12/2 reply to Randy Bush also serves well as a
respose to Tad Cook's 11/29 reply post in this thread, one wonders if
Tad considers {Communications Daily} to be among his "spreaders of
this misinformation." Would assume so; therefore, that the trade pub's
been duped too, or worse.

Further, the US West statements here, also described by this same
trade pub, not only were not used out of context, but as Tad and
others insistently fail to notice, actually supply what is probably
the most relevant context for the current situation. The fact that US
West has apparently not approached this via a proposal to redefine
anything in the tariff, is similarly another indication of what the
significant issues are here.


Peter Marshall

  The 23:00 News and Mail Service - [phone] - Seattle, WA USA
                          PEP, V.32, V.42bis
                  +++ A Waffle Iron, Model 1.64 +++

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

Date: Tue, 03 Dec 91 17:52 EST
From: "Peng_H.Ang" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Long-Distance at Local Rates


Many thanks to those who clarified my (mis?)understanding of ATM
(asynchronous transfer mode). I spoke to the Japanese lawyer who
elaborated on the matter.

Here's a little more info:

The Japanese are really interested in ATM because of high- definition
TV (HDTV). Their HDTV signals require greater bandwidth so they are
looking for transmission technology that would allow them to reduce
costs.

The Japanese telecommunications company, Nippon Telegraph and
Telephone (NTT) In January 1991 began R&D of ATM. Their partners are:
Fujitsu, Hitachi, NEC, OKI, Mitsubishi, Toshiba (all Japanese), AT&T
(USA), Northern Telecom (Canadian company that has a HQ in Washington
and so is called American), and Siemens (German).

After speaking to him, I quite agree with David Lewis and Fred
Goldstein that rates do not seem to have a part to play in ATM.
But his argument is this:

The reason we pay time- and distance-sensitive rates for phone use
is that under present technology we have to monopolize a circuit.
But ATM, which is packet switching, does not monopolize a circuit.
Therefore, *in principle* (key phrase), we should pay only for the
volume of data sent.

I pointed out that a call going 100 miles would use up more plant
and equipment than a call going 50 miles. We went around in
circles on that for a while and he finally said that mine was the
layman's view while he was offering an engineer's perspective.
Also, and this is the kicker, *all* the smaller competitive
carriers were afraid of ATM.

After some more circling, I concluded that ATM could wreak havoc
on the smaller carriers if the major carrier has the lines in
place and they do not. With lines and equipment in place, the
marginal cost then is low. It's not real convincing but that's
about the best I could do to understand why Japanese carriers are
afraid of ATM.

Meanwhile, because they believe that ATM will wipe out the smaller
carriers, NTT has set a five-year deadline for ATM deployment in
exchange and transmission systems.

Goldstein observes that "we'll be paying LD rates for local traffic,
not the other way around." From a policy perspective, this raises
interesting questions: is this what happens with true competition in
telecommunications? Is it the long-distance carriers or the RBOCs who
are out of business?

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

Date: Tue, 3 Dec 91 17:11:03 CST
From: Patton M. Turner <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: E911 System Brought to it's Knees By a Prank


Ralph W. Hyre writes:

> The lack of 'user' training is another (I generally wouldn't call 911
> unless I needed police, fire, or ambulance -- imminent loss of life,
> limb, or property, etc.)

I had an interesting conversation two weeks ago with the Auburn E-911
director.  She told me they have numerous calls to 911 for lock-outs,
where no person or animal is locked in the car.  She also said the
callers have become irate when asked to call the PD directly the next
time it happens.  Aparentaly they also receve a number of repeated
crank, sometimes obscene, calls from persons knowing they have ANI.
She said a call to parents usally end the problem.  They don't involve
police unless callers are persistant or obscene.


Pat Turner    [e-mail]     KB4GRZ @ K4RY.AL.USA

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

From: [e-mail] (Fred R. Goldstein)
Subject: Re: Preparing for ISDN ... How?
Date: 3 Dec 91 22:04:42 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Russ Nelson) writes:

> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]

> A wise person would run an extra twisted pair, in case Bellcore's
> extension hack gets approved.  The problem, you see, is that people
> are using to just picking up an extension phone to join an existing
> call.  Bellcore's idea [1] is to parallel the digital signal in an
> analog signal on an extra pair.  Then, multiple extensions use the
> analog pair to join a call.  Pardon me while I hold my nose.

> I think the hack is a piece of crap.  If you want to join an existing
> call, get a NT-2 (ISDN PBX) and do a conference call.  That's why we
> have standards, right?

No, it's the overall design of the S/T interface that's a piece of
crap.  Basically it's modeled on the German system, where "privacy" is
inherent in the way extension phones are supposed to be wired.
Nobody's digital phones allow residentail-style extensions.  But
somebody (no names, but they're in Lisle, Illinois) around 1982 cooked
up this "passive bus" hack for putting up to 8 devices on one S
interface.  It really badly screwed up the higher-layer call signaling
protocols, and is electrically touchy.  Word has it that same
company's CCITT delegation head ordered developers to _not_ submit
passive bus to the CCITT, so the developers slipped it to the Germans
who pushed for it.

The analog pair is thus a good idea, and basically a necessity in a
residence.  The human factors of using a PBX for conferencing are
really frightening, and the cost will pretty much limit its use for
residential ISDN.  My ideal residential ISDN has an analog line
adapter for the phones, and stays digital to the computer.  Some day.


Fred R. Goldstein [e-mail]
or [e-mail]    voice:  [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Michael Silano)
Subject: Re: AT&T Model 4600 Cordless Phone Problem
Organization: SRA Corporation, Arlington, VA
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 1991 21:50:39 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> plains![e-mail]
(Brett G Person) writes:

> My parents have an AT&T 4600 cordless.  Tonight, I picked it up
> and hit the "on" button only to have the thing beep, go on-ine for a
> split-second, beep twice, and then go off-line again.

> I couldn't find the manual, as usual.  Any idea what's wrong with the
> thing?

This sounds like a bad battery -- replace the battery, charge it up,
and give it a shot ...


Mike Silano

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #1000
*******************************