Telecom/1996-04-telecom-walnutcreek.iso/back.issues/recent.single.issues/V16_#2

Internet Message Format | 1996-01-02 | 34.5 KB

From [e-mail]  Wed Jan  3 10:17:19 1996
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.1/NSCS-1.0S)
    id KAA13204; Wed, 3 Jan 1996 10:17:19 -0500 (EST)
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 1996 10:17:19 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Patrick A. Townson)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Bcc:
Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #2

TELECOM Digest     Wed, 3 Jan 96 10:17:00 EST    Volume 16 : Issue 2

Inside This Issue:                        Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Say NO! to Metered ISDN Service (Francois D. Menard)
    Compuserve Censors USENET in Europe (Jean B. Sarrazin)
    *77 and *87 in 860-land (David A. Cantor)
    Billing Telecom Conference ([e-mail])
    More on Canada==>US Caller ID (Mark Cuccia)
    A Phone Number is NOT a Credit Card! (Mike Wengler)
    How Do You Tell if Your Phone is Tapped? (Rich Sagall)
    France Telecom Offers Voice Mail For Publiphones (JeanBernard Condat)
    Germany: Another Deutsche Telekom Disaster (Juergen Ziegler)

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

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

                 * [e-mail] *

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

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

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

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

Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.

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

From: Francois D. Menard <[e-mail]>
Subject: Say NO! to Metered ISDN Service
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 1996 15:14:26 +0000
Organization: Praline Internet


This is a copy of a message that I posted in a mailing list of ISP's
in Quebec discussing about "metered ISDN services".  I would like
to collect as many opinions about what I wrote.  I would rather have
your replies CC'ed to me via email, but I will also watch the
follow-ups in the newsgroups.  This will cartainly make for an
interesting thread.  Happy new year!

Following up to a message by Dave Collier-Brown <[e-mail]>,

> In my considered opinion, this is merely a tactic to get a metered
> service, **any** metered service, into place.  I have suggested in
> writing to the CRTC that this indicated that Bell is unable to do it's
> own required homework in pricing the home service, and that it should
> not be permitted to have a metered service to the home in any case.

> In fact, the cost to Bell is dominated by call setup (routing), and
> is not time-related at all.  If they must admit they cannot estimate
> their costs, then let them do so and let them base their prices on their
> costs, not on a third, irrelevant, factor.

I wrote:

You are absolutely right !

The day Bell Canada starts to bill ISDN as a metered service, it will
be the beginning of the end.  SAY NO TO ANYTHING THAT IS METERED.  It
is on this philosophy (of dedicated / not metered ) that we've built
on the Internet, damn it!

I pay many K$ a month for the right to say "Bell, Shut up !"  If I
want to do IPhone, I can do IPhone, if I want to pay for a T1 just for
the fun of toying with a packet sniffer, that's my OWN problem.

Say Yes to Metered service, and watch the pricing structure of Bell's
ATM service.  Remember guys, Bell/RBOC's have to keep on making as
much money as they are making right now (read more)... Their only
problem is that in the months to come, people will stop believing that
it costs more to Bell to establish a Comm Link between Montreal and
Vancouver than Montreal and Toronto.  Hence, people will finally light
up and realize that they have been fooled for years.  This will be the
end of Long Distance tariffs as has been mentioned by the article of
the Economist.

Remember my message about how the CEO of Bell Canada, has quoted the
Economist as saying the the "advancements in telecomm technologies
will be the single most economic force shaping the next 50 years"
instead of using the real text wich rather talk about the "Death of
Distance" as being the single most important econominc force to shape
the next 50 years.  I tell you, by year 2000, I foresee the gradual
disappearing of ALL topologies of Long Distance billing.

Everything will soon become "cost to access the network". Start
allowing for this cost to be invoiced via a "metered" method and we
are ALL shooting ourselves in the feet.

I do NOT want to see Bell starting to sell their ATM-Internet (aka
Beacon/Sirius) as the UNCONGESTED Internet.  Leaving us with what they
will refer to as an "inferior and poorly managed T1/T3 based
IP-network".

Has anyone of you looked at the RSVP IETF draft or what Mr.  Huitema
in France is working on for IPNG (IPv6). REAL soon!, we'll be able to
do "quality-of-service"-based routing and bandwidth allocation.  Sure,
ATM will be better, but not at the expense of letting us all being
shoved-up-in-the-ass a painful METERED-ATM service without doing
something about it...

The key to all of this is for us to demonstrate that we are capable
of doing intelligent bandwidth management ourselves on exinsting
network backbones.  If Telcos can do it, why not ourselves also ! Our
only overhead is a protocol called IP, which soon will be intelligent
enough to do QofS (Quality of Service) bandwidth allocation and
routing.

I admit that this is a little far from the original topic of metered
ISDN, but, permit me to make an allusion.  This thing about allowing
metered services, would be like failing to protect your "(C)
copyrights".  If you fail, even only once, nobody will render a
judgment in your favor in the future.  We do not have metered service
right now (make an exception of CIR on Frame Relay networks, which is
already too much), and we are perfectly cool about this.

If we let this happen, that will be our own fault.

Once again, our OWN fault.

So lets get to work.


Francois

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

Date: 02 Jan 96 08:48:19 EST
From: Sarrazin, Jean B <[e-mail]>
Subject: Compuserve Censors USENET in Europe


Today CNN announced that in response to a request from the German
government, Compuserve has disabled access to *all* USENET newsgroups.

It seems Compuserve has taken to exercising censorship continent-wide,
as CIS USENET access is also scrapped for all their European
subscribers.

Does Compuserve realise that the German government has no authority
over other European nations? Furthermore, Compuserve has made no
announcement to its members to that effect.

I consider it unacceptable that Compuserve has not only complied to
such a feeble attempt from a single European government at controlling
Net access and contents, but also penalised a large number of
subscribers without explanation or compensation.

What is this knee-jerk reaction? What is Compuserve afraid of? As far
as I know, the other ISP's in Germany have not been affected.


Comments from outside and inside Compuserve are eagerly awaited.

Jean B Sarrazin [e-mail] Amsterdam, the Netherlands


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You are confused. You are having a
knee-jerk reaction of your own. First, let us understand the correct
use of the term 'censorship'. By definition, only the government can
censor soemeone. Compuserve is not the government. 'Censorship' is
when the government physically stops you from speaking or writing on
whatever topics you wish. 'Censorship' is *not* when some private
organization or person refuses to collaborate or cooperate with you
and assist in your speech-making or printing. No one owes you any
printing press or pulpit. If the government -- and they are the only
ones who can do it -- forbids you to own a printing press or to use
it as you see fit or forces you to remain silent, then you have been
censored. If I do not agree to print your messages or allow you to
speak on my radio station, I am exercising my freedom of choice. You
are still free to go get a press elsewhere and you are still free to
exercise your vocal chords all you want. You have not been censored.

Compuserve is a private organization. It is not an agency of the
government. They pick and select programming they wish to make avail-
able to their subscriber-members. They have not censored anything
because they are incapable of censoring anything. They cannot forbid
you to sit at your computer and peck away at the keyboard to your
heart's desire. They cannot forbid you to read any collection or
arrangement of pixels on your computer screen that you wish to view.
They have said they do not wish to be part of the distribution
process of certain 'types' of messages. They are exercising their
freedom of choice, their business judgment, just as you are free
to exercise yours. You may suggest that the only reason they came
to this decision was due to some heavy-handed actions by the German
government, and that may be correct, but if it is, then it is the
government doing the censoring; not Compuserve.

Next, it is my understanding they have chosen only to discontinue
the 'alt' groups, *not* Usenet groups.  If I stand corrected, please
advise me. You might be amazed at how many sites in the USA do not
carry 'alt' and in fact only carry a limited portion of Usenet. It
is a choice they have made as to how their resources will be allocated.
Furthermore, Compuserve like the other online commercial services
only began carrying any Internet news groups at all as of about two
or three years ago. Where is there something written in stone saying
they must continue to carry them? Your argument might have some
validity if it were not for the fact that historically, every time
a commerical site has connected with Internet for the purpose of
the exchange of news, the 'establishment' on Usenet has stunk up
the place with flaming which went on and on about the poor calibre
or quality of messages coming from the commercial sites. I first
began hearing that argument from the 'establishment' here about
ten years ago, when Portal Communications in San Jose, California
'came on board' back in 1986 ... the feeling was the net was
going to hell in a handbasket 'if those commercial sites and their
users are allowed to participate ...'

And now you are mad because they are no longer participating, and
you refer to them as 'censors' ...

Next, my understanding is they only 'pulled the plug' on the alt
groups until such time as they have made modifications in their
software to selectively allow and disallow the use of some services
based on the member's node, or point of connection to their system.
I believe it is their intention to arrange the software so that if
you call via (let us say) a node or local number in Frankfurt or
Berlin, then upon trying to access certain newsgroups you will
receive the response, 'you are not allowed to use this service via
the node from which your call is originating ...'

At first, the gurus there said it was impossible to identify the
members in such a way that some could be denied access to portions
of the service but not other portions. In other words, either you
are a member in good standing and get it all, or you are not a member
in good standing and don't get any of it. I, and a couple of others
have pointed out to them that indeed, distinctions can be made at
both the User-ID level and the node, or local phone number level,
and in fact some distinctions are implemented now and have been for
a long time. It was pointed out for example that certain members
with full service totally free 'house accounts' -- for example, the
forum managers -- are unable to dial in via the 800 number.  When
Compuserve gives someone a totally free account as a 'valued
member' of their system, it only adds insult to injury for the free
user to dial in on the 800 number as well <smile> ... and the
attitude of CIS has always been if we give you a free account then
at the very least you can pay for the local phone connection to
get in. So as a result, User-ID numbers in the block 753xx,xxxx
cannot enter via any of the 800 numbers. The software forbids it.

So the suggestion was made, fine, then block all 100xxx,xxxx users
out of the newsgroup service, but it was pointed out that 100xxx
is a relatively new invention. There are lots of European users
over the years in the 7xxxxx series, and furthermore it is not unique
to Germany. But the BDx (for example BDE, BDF, BDG) and DEx (for
example DED, DEF, DEG, DEH) nodes are unique to Germany, as Berlin
in the former case and Dusseldorf in the latter case, so what you
do is say those nodes cannot have certain services if that is the
way the German government feels about it. And you say to those users
and the German governnment that Compuserve will not knowingly or
willfully deliver to Germany any verboten (I knew I would have a
use for that word someday! grin) newsgroups. If a German subscriber
wants to call long distance via France or something and get in,
there is little Compuserve can do about that of course, but they can
cease delivery of 'certain things' to known German locations since
regardless of User-ID (i.e. an American visiting in Germany with
his 7xxxxx or 102xxx/103xxx account logged in) the Germans don't want
it.

I understand CIS is now looking at ways to flag the nodes and/or
establish specific blocks of User-ID numbers for customers from
certain places to identify what CIS will and won't provide. They
thought they could not do that; they have been told they could, and
now they are working on it.

And seriously, I can't blame them for dropping 'alt', although it
would be sort of radical if they dropped all of Usenet in the process.
Let's face it: the newsgroups on Internet have long been a thorn in
the side of the commercial services anyway: they cannot collect money
on them the way they do their own forums, etc. They have their own
users pretty much under control and collect money from them, then here
come the troublesome, flaming users from Usenet to cause them a lot
of grief, flooding their postmaster with cranky replies, etc.  They
need it like we need more heat in July.

But you have a way to 'censor' Compuserve in return: you can cancel
your membership and go to a service you like better. And that, I
think is where this whole thing is going to shakedown over the next
couple years: ISP's will decide they do or do not want the alt.sex
stuff and the grief that goes with it. They will develop signatures
or styles for themselves and quit trying to be all things to all
people. They'll quit packing their suitcases to go on a long trip --
a long guilt trip -- everytime some freshman student at a university
somewhere accuses them of 'censorship' for not carrying a newsgroup
he happens to like reading.  And please folks, no cable television
analogies and how the cable has to carry Playboy Channel, etc ...
Most of us have only one cable provider in town ... we all have dozens
of ISP's who want our business.   PAT]

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

From: David A. Cantor <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 1996 00:20:04 -0500
Subject: *77 and *87 in 860-land


I've discovered that rejecting calls from callers who block their CLID
(*77) and rescinding such rejection (*87) work here in 860-444.
However, when entering these codes, I get a normal-sounding ring-back
signal (I let them go for five ring cycles) rather than the expected
confirmation tones.


David A. Cantor                 +1 860.444.7268 (444-RANT)
New London, CT  06320-2639      [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Billing Telecom Conference
Date: 02 Jan 1996 14:39:55 GMT
Organization: Planet Access Networks - Stanhope, NJ


Billing Systems in the Telecommunications Industry Conference
March 6 - 7, 1996
Washington, DC

Sponsored by America's Network magazine

Hear from the leaders in the industry:

AT&T, Bell Atlantic, US West Communications, NYNEX, Pacific Bell,
Bellsouth and many more!!!

For more information call:  800-882-8684 or e-mail [e-mail]
Provide your name, address, phone and fax number

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

From: Mark Cuccia <[e-mail]>
Subject: More on Canada==>US Caller ID
Date: Tue, 02 Jan 96 15:13:00 CST


Last night, I received a call from a friend in Whitehorse, YK.
(403-668-xxxx)

I received the full ten-digit number on my Caller ID box, but for the
name part, I didn't get the city (ratecenter) and two letter
abbreviation for Yukon. I didn't even get `YUKON', but rather
`ALBERTA', all caps, left justified, with eight spaces filling out the
remainder of the fifteen character field. (I did get `ONTARIO' spelled
out on a call in early December, from 905-842-xxxx).

It seems that for Caller-ID with Name, on calls within the BellSouth
region (I don't know how calls originating in independent territory
but within the BellSouth nine-state area will show) where the number
transmits, BellSouth can check its own LIDB database to get the name
assoicated with the number. On calls originating in the (continental)
US but outside of BellSouth, if the number transmits, BellSouth can
get the ratecenter (town) name and state.  The state is abbreviated.
They are using the NPA-NXX to check some database, probably with info
from Bellcore's TRA (Traffic Routing Administration)
products/databases.

For calls originating in the US, it wouldn't matter whether they used
a Routing or a Rating database from Bellcore TRA to check the NPA-NXX.
However, Canadian NPA-NXX info is *only* in Bellcore's RATING
database/products. Stentor Canada does not participate in Bellcore TRA
routing products. You will only find Canadian NPA and province info in
the routing products. Information down to the Central Office code
(NXX) level for Canadian NPA's *is* in the Bellcore rating materials,
which Canada does participate in.

The call I received came from the Yukon and not Alberta. Even if Yukon
and the Northwest Territories were to get a single but unique NPA code,
I wonder what the ID box would say -- Yukon for all calls from that NPA?
Northwest Territories? Maybe YK/NWT? If it is spelled out on a max 15
character line, it would say: `YUKON NORTHWEST'

And how about calls from Prince Edward Island? Both it and Nova Scotia
share the same 902 NPA. Except for maybe political identity, I don't
see Prince Edward Island getting its own areacode anytime soon.

I haven't yet received any calls from Alaska, Hawaii or the Caribbean
since inter-State/LATA CID began. I don't know how these calls would
appear if anything other than `out-of-area'. Alaska, Hawaii and the
Caribbean do participate in Bellcore's routing products, though.

I also haven't (yet) received any calls from outside of the North
American Network since CID across state/LATA lines began. The number
being available would probably also depend on the originating country
and any international carriers. *If* Mexico has any form of CID, I
would *guess* that it would show a 52X-XXX-XXXX number. But how will
CID number display work with international calls between various
numbering plans? Are there yet any standards/specs on this for for
non-ISDN lines? I know that many European countries do have Caller-ID
type service.


MARK J. CUCCIA   PHONE/WRITE/WIRE:     HOME:  (USA)    Tel: CHestnut 1-2497
WORK: [e-mail]          |4710 Wright Road| ([phone])
Tel:UNiversity 5-5954([phone])|New Orleans 28  |fwds on no-answr to
Fax:UNiversity 5-5917([phone])|Louisiana(70128)|cellular/voicemail

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

Date: Tue, 2 Jan 1996 14:54:04 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Mike Wengler)
Subject: A Phone Number is NOT a Credit Card!


The ten digit phone number is being used as a credit card, but with
rules and procedures that are sloppy stupid and slimey by comparison
to those used by Visa, MasterCard, Discover, and a host of other
credit cards which are voluntarily and knowingly acquired by
customers.  I knew I was getting credit from the phone company when I
got my phone number, but I had no idea that I was getting a credit
account for use at "dating" services and other slimey crap.

It is high time that telco be held to the same standards as Visa,
MasterCard, and Discover when providing a credit and billing service
for other companies.  Especially on standards of customer entering
into the contract.  TELCO: DON'T BILL ANYTHING WHICH IS NOT
SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED BY CUSTOMER!  Failing to hang up is a
"low-bandwidth" way to aquire such authorization: try using the
standards of Visa, MC, and Discover: real verbal "OK, sounds good"
type response to get authorization.

I have been following the comedy of billing that is reported in this
group when completely random and idiotic services manage to use a
local telephone company to bully large charges from "customers."

The outstanding conclusions I reach are:

1) The ten digit phone number is being used as a credit card, and local
telco is being used as the credit agency, or at least the billing/coll-
ections branch of that agency.

2) Rules and practices for such phone number credit activity are
slimy, loose and crappy by comparison to the rules and practices for
"real" credit cards: Visa, MC, Discover etc. which don't masquerade
their credit service behind some other front.

I think it is no accident and no coincidence that the billing fraud
reported here allegedly committed by ITA, Integratel and others is
carried out using phone numbers and not real credit cards.  The
practices they employ are crap compared to the practices employed on
behalf of real credit cards.

Specifically, I have been billed on real credit cards after making an
800 number call.  In EVERY case, a live human being 1) informed me of
the total charge and 2) asked me if I agreed to that.  I might further
add that in every case another difference exists: 3) I received some
real product (airline ticket, clothing, flowers, etc), quite
knowingly, as a result of a very consciously entered into transaction.

In every case of fraud alleged in this group, the "service" committing
the fraud either gave an automatic message informing that there would
be a charge, or claimed later that they had done so.  The defrauders
never bother claiming that you specifically authorized this charge,
only that you heard you would be charged and didn't bail out fast
enough.

Visa has NEVER tried to make me pay a charge because someone announced
to me that there would be a charge.  It seems to me that they have
never suggested even that I pay a charge that I had not explicity
authorized.

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Pac Bell -- nor any other telco is
> being deceptive when they say that calls to 800 numbers are free to
> the calling party. Where the *toll charge for the call itself* is
> concerned, it is reversed to the called party. In other words, yes
> indeed, Absolute Communications did pay for the carriage of your call
> in an effort to get you to do business with them. This is no different
> than any other 800 number you call; the person owning the number
> *does* want to hear from you and agrees to pay for the call.

PAT seems to want to defend the slime on technical grounds that the
800 number call is still free, even though the telco bills you for it,
citing number of minutes of the call and generally at a time sensitive
rate.  This is indeed a technicality: the technicality which is
apparently behind these lousy practices.  If telco delivers the
service to me, and telco bills it, any attempt to call that a "free"
phone call will fall successfully on telecom nerds ears, but ring
oddly in the ears of customers who should not have to learn the whole
industry in order to avoid a $100 dating service bill coming with
their phone bill.

> But when you call an airline for example via their 800 number to
> reserve tickets, and you are later billed for same, do you complain
> that you thought it should have been free since you called via 800?

PAT, uhm, have you been billed for plane tickets by telco?  If so,
this is a new service I am unaware of, I have invariably been billed
on my credit cards after explicity authorizing both the company to
issue me the credit card in the first place, and the ticket vendor to
charge me an agreed amount in the second place.  This difference
between a time sensitive charge billed by telco with time on an 800
number being the inventoried item and a plane ticket on Visa is NOT
subtle.

> There is no doubt at all that many/most of the 'adult oriented' sex
> lines operating are run by sleazy people, but in their defense I
> must say they are not trying to make you pay for the phone call to
> them, they are trying to make you pay for the actions they took in
> your behalf.

Billed through telco, by the minute.  Many sex lines do charge on
Visa.  This is more honest, as it does require all sorts of consent on
the part of the customer which phone number billing through telco does
not.

> You call any one of several long distance carriers via 800 to use
> their direct lines to place your call. Do you complain that because
> you dialed 800-CALL-ATT to convey a message or cause some action to
> occur that it should be 'free' to you since you dialed 800 and were
> told by PacBell there would be no charge for your call? Even though
> you dialed 800 at no charge, you expect to pay for resulting services
> don't you?

Only because I agreed ahead of time to do so!  I went through an
authorization process to take on a particular long distance phone service
which may also issue me a travel card.  Integratel and ITA do NOT have that
kind of authorization before they make charges.

> Every one of the adult oriented lines operating via 800 used Western
> Union as their guinea pig: if WUTCO gets to accept calls on a toll
> free number, convey information between the caller and others, etc
> and charge the same to the telephone bill of the caller, *then so
> do we*. And you know what? They are right. Unfortunatly perhaps,
> telco has to treat every one of those services at arms-length, even
> as they hold their own noses to avoid the stench.  The true solution
> is for telco to get out of the business of billing for anything but
> their own services.  PAT]

This simply doesn't cover it.  Why shouldn't telco just write their
standard to say: "credit authorization must include explicit
authorization on customers part for the charge.  Disputed charges will
be returned by telco and you'll have to collect it your own damn self.
Company must maintain less than X% billing complaints to continue to
receive billing service from telco."  I bet this would keep WUTCO and
lose the defrauders.

C'mon, you know I'm right!

> Much of this could be resolved if the IPs would tape record the
> first fifteen or twenty seconds of each phone call, during which time
> they would make a statement similar to this:

> "For billing purposes only, the first few seconds of this call is
> being tape recorded.  Our records indicate you are calling from the
> phone number xxx-xxx-xxxx. If this is correct; if you are of majority age
> in the state from which you are calling, responsible for the payment
> of the telephone bill for this number; agree to pay $xx per minute/call
> for the conversation which follows, and consent to our tape recording
> of this billing verification, please press the 'Y' key on your phone
> now or speak the word 'yes' ... if any part of the above is not true
> then please disconnect now at no charge." (Pause for about five seconds
> to listen for keypress or verbal agreement). Automatically disconnect
> or proceed, as appropriate. After hearing key press or verbal 'yes'
> then system responds, "Thank you. Tape recording is turned off. You
> may continue." (At that point caller is cut over to program in progress
> or handed off to to the person they will speak with, etc.)

Yes, this would be an improvement.  But still:

1) not even this level of authorization is required by telco, even though
WUTCO with a virtual certainty gets a higher, more explicit approval than
this, and they are alleged by PAT to be the camel's nose in the tent here.

2) I still never wanted my phone # to be a credit card, I simply wanted
credit with the phone company itself

3) All my legitimate transactions over the phone get billed to actual
(not telephone number) credit cards.


Mike Wengler

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

Date: Tue, 2 Jan 1996 17:30:24 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Rich Sagall)
Subject: How Can You Tell if Your Phone Line is Tapped


I recently read about a phone number this purported to be a way to
check and see if your phone is tapped. I am somewhat dubious about the
source, so I am asking readers of this list if they know anything
about the number.

Here's the procedure:

Dial 10732-1-770-988-9664

A computer generated female voice recites the number you are calling from,
and then says "8".

The voice then repeats "0" nine times.

According the source, if the voice then says "1" or "2," then your
line is clean. Any other number is supposed to mean your line is
tapped.

Thanks for any information anyone can provide.


Rich Sagall, MD

Publisher of Interesting! ([e-mail]) and
Pediatrics for Parents ([e-mail])
home pages http://www.agate.net/~richs/interesting.html and
http://www.agate.net/~richs/MMPage1.html


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: We've had this little urban legend
(is that what you would call it?) here in the past, but not for
a couple of years now. Would someone care to explain what all those
zeroes and other digits following the phone number read-out are
supposed to mean?   Thanks.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (JeanBernard Condat)
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: France Telecom Offers Voice Mail For Publiphones
Date: 02 Jan 1996 17:14:16 GMT
Organization: FranceNet


Paris (France), January 2th, 1996--France telecom have announce the
creation of a very interesting and usefull service: a voice mail for
publiphone users.  If your correspondant is busy, if you are unable to
wait for somebody on the phone you can leave a 30-seconds voice
mail. The message will be automatically transmit to the called number
at the hour given by the caller.

The service is simple: when a call don't go right, a little message
appear on the digital screen of the publiphone (in all streets in
France). You push the green keyboard (PRICE: 5 UTP = 4,05 FF TTC)...
and you will be ask by the computer system to leave a 30-second
message and the hour at which you will be happy that the message will
be deliver. The person called will be re-call four times by the computer
system (not between 10 pm and 7 am) and the computer will re-call three
new times for voice mail delivery.

All the 158,000 publiphones using a phone card will be equiped with
this service in the three first months of 1996. France Telecom give a
toll free number for more information: 05 15 24 42 (ask for M. Gerard
Merveille for calls out of France: [phone]).

Some years ago, a new service called "3636" was tested in Lyon for the
same service. The success of this test was great and all publiphones
receive the visits of lovers, sellers, students and other people
looking for an hurge telecommunications with other ones  not
responding.


Jean-Bernard Condat
Computer Fraud and Security Expert
Paris, France     [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Juergen Ziegler)
Subject: Germany: Another Deutsche Telekom Disaster
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 1996 19:58:35 MET


Germany, January 1st 1996, the German monopoly telephone company
"Deutsche Telekom AG" has introduced a new telephone rate scheme.  As
the new rate scheme will introduce a hike in local calls (up to 350%),
most long distance calls wil have lower rates. As a result of the
massive hike of local calling charges, there was a massive media
coverage about the unsocial local rates for low income subscribers.

But this massive hike of local calling charges was not enough for
Telekom. On the first day of the new rate system, Telekom switches
charged long distance calls at a higher rate, because these switches
did not use the lower holiday rate. After last year's massive phone
fraud desaster, the first day of the new rate scheme will be another
unforgetable Telekom day.

There is not much technical information available about this Telekom
flaw, but as one Telekom spokesman mentioned, Telekom switches made by
"SEL Alcatel" had a software problem. It was not mentioned, that the
same problem happens to be true for the other system in use, which are
mainly made by "Siemens". But if SEL Alcatel is to blame for this poor
showing, then this is another sour moment for that company. As SEL
Alcatel had to slash thousands of jobs last year, it was also
mentioned, that SEL Alcatel had to pay more than 30 Mio. DM (approx.
$20'000'000) as contract penalties, because they could not deliver
switch software in time.


Juergen Ziegler * [e-mail] * 77815 Buehl (Baden) * Germany

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

End of TELECOM Digest V16 #2
****************************