ISSUE 451 WAS LATE IN ARRIVING AND APPEARS FOLLOWING 452 IN THIS ARCHIVE.  Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa06767; 14 Jun 91 3:11 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab31134; 14 Jun 91 1:28 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab02025; 14 Jun 91 0:04 CDT Date: Thu, 13 Jun 91 23:51:05 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #452 BCC: Message-ID: <9106132351.ab01796@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 13 Jun 91 23:50:33 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 452 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Share FAX, Modem and Voice Line [Ken Jongsma] Re: Easy Fax to ASCII? (And Back Again, And...) [Jamie Hanrahan] Re: Military Telecom Museum Well Worth a Visit [Steve Gaarder] Re: German Telephone Unification [Claus Tondering] Re: Looking for Inexpensive Outside Wire [Wolf PAUL] Re: Looking for Inexpensive Outside Wire [Rolf Meier] Re: Busying Out a Phone With a Resistor? [Toby Nixon] Re: Transporting a Bitstream on a Video Channel [Ken Thompson] Re: Rotary Dial Phones Forgotten But Not Gone [Julian Macassey] Re: 213 / 310 Split [Carl Moore] Re: Question About Crackling on Phone Circuits [Fred E.J. Linton] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ken Jongsma Subject: Re: Share FAX, Modem and Voice Line Date: Wed, 12 Jun 91 16:03:43 EDT Please note that the FAX number below is incorrect (typo on my part). > There have been a number of people looking for devices to allow the > use of one phone line for several purposes. I received a catalog from > TigerSoftware (1-800-888-4437, FAX 1-304-444-5010) that has a couple > of these devices: The correct FAX number is 1-305-444-5010. Ken Jongsma ken@wybbs.mi.org Smiths Industries jongsma@esseye.si.com Grand Rapids, Michigan 73115.1041@compuserve.com ------------------------------ From: cmkrnl!jeh@decwrl.dec.com Subject: Re: Easy Fax to ASCII? (And Back Again, And...) Date: 12 Jun 91 13:22:22 PDT Organization: Kernel Mode Consulting, San Diego CA In article , learn@piroska.uchicago.edu (William Vajk) writes: > There was another fax related message here the other day, and I was in > process of responding when the computer went bye-bye. It was a request > for an easy conversion to ascii from fax. Because of the graphic > nature of fax, and the fact that there is no assurance of the style > and pitch of type received, one would actually have to be at the edge > of some serious AI to achieve the goal requested. Anyone who has used > an optical scanner and worked to convert a long document to ascii from > typed sheets can attest to the difficulties of accurate conversion > given only one character set to decipher. > On the other hand, to convert from ascii to fax is relatively easy, > but certainly not easy enough to make a fax machine into a computer > peripheral. I dunno. I've seen an add-in board for PCs that gives you the ablity to send FAXes from common sorts of PC documents, including imbedded graphics, and receive to files on disk. For hardcopy you print the files on your regular computer printer. Received faxes could be imported to PC applications as if they were scanned graphics images. Cost was only $250. The board also behaved as a 2400 bps data modem. Of course, if you want to fax somebody a copy of a piece of paper as opposed to a document within your computer, this won't help you unless you have a scanner handy. Which brings up a related problem ... if I buy a Fax, why should I also have to buy a scanner for my PC? For example, I notice that H-P is selling a "FaxJet" which sits between your compute and your LaserJet printer. This machine sells for around $1400 and handles document feeding for multiple-page transmission, unattended receive, etc., etc. In other words, one of these things plus your LJ gives you a complete high-end plain-paper fax plus a laser printer. It even has a 300 dpi mode for ultra-high-res (by fax standards), when communicating with other FaxJets. But if you think you could also use this gadget as a scanner for your PC, you're mistaken! (At least according to the manual I perused.) If you want to scan a document at 300 dpi and send it to another FaxJet for printing, you can do that, but if you want to scan a document and collect the bits locally, you have to buy a separate scanner for that! Bah. What a waste. (Of course HP will gladly sell you a ScanJet for, what, $1200 or so?) HP could have REALLY set the market on its ear with a combined fax/scanner unit. Oh well. (While we're at it, we should be able to receive faxes directly into PC graphics files too.) --- Jamie Hanrahan, Kernel Mode Consulting, San Diego CA Chair, VMS Internals Working Group, U.S. DECUS VAX Systems SIG Internet: jeh@dcs.simpact.com, hanrahan@eisner.decus.org, or jeh@crash.cts.com Uucp: ...{crash,scubed,decwrl}!simpact!cmkrnl!jeh ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Jun 91 02:16:12 EDT From: gaarder@anarres.ithaca.ny.us Subject: Re: Military Telecom Museum Well Worth a Visit Nigel.Allen@f438.n250.z1.fidonet.org (Nigel Allen) writes: > If you have an interest in the history of military telecommunications, > you may want to visit the Canadian Forces Communications and > Electronics Museum (formerly the Royal Canadian Signals Museum) at the > Vimy Barracks in Kingston, Ontario. I went there last summer; it's small and low-budget but worth a visit if you're in the area. While "one of the best telephone collections in the world" may be an exaggeration, they do have some interesting ones, including a set with an 11-hole dial (separate holes for 0 and operator, even though both send 10 pulses). Thye also have a British phone booth, complete with A and B button phone. (But without any of the information and instruction cards, unfortunately). Steve Gaarder gaarder@theory.tc.cornell.edu gaarder@anarres.ithaca.ny.us ------------------------------ From: Claus Tondering Subject: Re: German Telephone Unification Organization: Dansk Data Elektronik A/S Date: Thu, 13 Jun 1991 06:53:35 GMT linc@tongue1.berkeley.edu (Linc Madison) writes: > Well, the June, 1991 Oakland phone book has hit the streets, with a > few notable things in it. > But anyhoo, the other thing I noticed is that in the International > calling section, they still list "German Democratic Republic" and > "Germany, Federal Republic of" as separate countries. > First of all, I think that Pacific Bell has had more than enough > notice of the reunification of Germany [...] Pacific Bell seems to be very slow in updating their international telephone information. I just returned from a visit to San Jose, and I was surprised to find that the local 1991 PacBell phone book lists various area codes for Denmark. Denmark did away with area codes in 1988/89 (and I would be very surprised if PacBell wasn't notified of the change), but that information hasn't made its way into the San Jose telephone book. Are other US phone books up-to-date in this matter? Claus Tondering E-Mail: ct@dde.dk Dansk Data Elektronik A/S, Herlev, Denmark ------------------------------ From: Wolf PAUL Subject: Re: Looking for Inexpensive Outside Wire Date: 11 Jun 91 07:37:38 GMT Organization: IIASA, Laxenburg/Vienna, Austria, Europe > [Moderator's Note: > They have buried almost everything. > Of course, there are offsets to this: For the past two weeks, Bell > Avenue (the north/south street at the corner from where I live) has > been torn up for several blocks, all the way from Roseland Cemetery > north to Warren Park. Everyone is in on the act: I see trucks from > People's Gas, IBT, and the Water and Sewer Works all out there every > day, digging, laying new conduits, sewers, etc. They wake me at 6 AM > when they start tearing up the street. PAT] And you are really fortunate in that they are all in on the act all at once. About four years ago the footpath in front of my parent's house was dug up when they put in city water in an area which so far had individual pumps. About three years ago the path was dug up to put down Cable-TV cable. About two years ago the footpath was dug up to put down a phone cable (it had been strung on poles till then). About one year ago the path was dug up again when they put gas pipes in. About two weeks ago the path was dug up again when they put in a power line to a new subdivision down the road. Within the next year or so they will dig it up again to put down sewer pipes -- till now, everyone has their own septic tank. And in Vienna, Austria, these various utilities (except Cable-TV) are not private businesses, but departments of the federal gov't or city hall. But they cannot coordinate their schedules ... W.N.Paul, Int. Institute f. Applied Systems Analysis, A-2361 Laxenburg--Austria PHONE: +43-2236-71521-465 INTERNET: wnp@iiasa.iiasa.ac.at FAX: +43-2236-71313 UUCP: uunet!iiasa!wnp HOME: +43-2236-618514 BITNET: tuvie!iiasa!wnp@aearn.BITNET ------------------------------ From: Rolf Meier Subject: Re: Looking for Inexpensive Outside Wire Date: 13 Jun 91 16:08:04 GMT Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada. In article mailrus!ulowell!wex@uunet. uu.net writes: [recommendation for using garden hose as conduit] > Anyhow, the hose provides very good protection from shovels provides a > conduit for pulling/replacing wire ( if you put in an extra pull wire, > you can later pull something else through. (use separate hoses for AC) > Hose is easier to pull up later if necessary. It is cheap, and gets > some real use out of trash!! I tried this, in an attempt to save some money on the special (thicker sheath) direct burial cable. It turned out that I was unable to pull the wire more than about 25 feet before it started to bind against the hose. Since I had already bought the hose, I ended up splitting the hose the full length, inserting the wire, and then taping the hose together again. It was really false economy. Next time, I would get the true direct-burial cable. Rolf Meier Mitel Corporation ------------------------------ From: Toby Nixon Subject: Re: Busying Out a Phone With a Resistor? Date: 13 Jun 91 17:15:39 GMT Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA In article , varney@ihlpf.att.com (Al L Varney) writes: > On the other hand, would a modem that had a switch that caused the > modem to refuse to drop new calls still conform to Part 68? The first > incoming call would "hang" the line, but you wouldn't have made it > "busy" by just going "off-hook". How picky is the FCC on this section? The FCC, so far, isn't being very picky about it. For example, most AT command set modems include the "ATH1" command, which can very easily be used as a "make busy" ccommand. But the FCC certifies modems that have it, because there are other legitimate uses for the command. I don't think they'll certify any new modems that use Pin 25 of an EIA-232-E interface for "make busy". >> Bellcore is working >> on a DTMF signal that can be sent on the line to tell the switch that >> the circuit is busied-out (like the "Do Not Disturb" function on many >> PBXes). > And what will this "feature" cost on a per-line basis??? I assume that will be tariffed separately by each LEC in each state. There are certainly INDIVIDUALS who would PAY for a Do Not Disturb feature, that either gave a busy signal or invoked their forward-on-busy number, so they wouldn't have to deal with the warbling tone if they take the phone off hook to engage in some activity without being disturbed. I'm surprised it hasn't already been offered. Toby Nixon, Principal Engineer | Voice +1-404-840-9200 Telex 151243420 Hayes Microcomputer Products Inc. | Fax +1-404-447-0178 CIS 70271,404 P.O. Box 105203 | UUCP uunet!hayes!tnixon AT&T !tnixon Atlanta, Georgia 30348 USA | Internet hayes!tnixon@uunet.uu.net ------------------------------ From: Ken Thompson Subject: Re: Transporting a Bitstream on a Video Channel Date: 13 Jun 91 21:01:43 GMT Reply-To: Ken Thompson Organization: NCR Corporation Wichita, KS Closed captioning uses line 17 of the US TV standard to send text in serial packets. Ken Thompson N0ITL NCR Corp. 3718 N. Rock Road Wichita, Ks. 67226 (316)636-8783 Ken.Thompson@WichitaKs.ncr.com ------------------------------ From: Julian Macassey Subject: Re: Rotary Dial Phones Forgotten But Not Gone Date: 13 Jun 91 18:11:28 GMT Reply-To: Julian Macassey Organization: The Hole in the Wall Hollywood California U.S.A. In article John Higdon writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 450, Message 3 of 11 > Julian Macassey writes: >> The voltage applied to the Tip and Ring to activate the light is >> usually 90V at 100Hz. This frequency is ignored by the frequency >> sensitive ringer that responds to 40 - 150V at 20 Hz. The neon is not >> frequency sensitive, so it flashes for message waiting or ring >> current. > ITT uses a similar, but much simpler method of lighting the message > waiting lamp. The System 3100 just sends 60 ipm pulses of 100VDC over > the line. The direct current is completely ignored by the ringer, but > lights the neon lamp. Unlike the 100Hz, there is no flow through any > circuitry except for the neon lamp. In addition to being much more > difficult to generate (than DC), some of the 100Hz will inevitably > leak through the L/C bell network creating a bit of inefficiency. The > DC supply is very simple and cheap. And of course what John doesn't mention is the best reason for using DC today is the dreaded Type B ringers. The telephone bell of old was frequency selective. 100 Hz would be out of the bandwidth of all types of mechanical ringer. Type B ringers are not the gong bells of old but the "crickets in heat" chirpers. According to FCC specs, a Type B ringer should respond from 15.3 to 68 Hz. In reality, these Type B ringers respond nicely to 100 Hz. This means in an office environemnt you can go nuts listening to a colleague's phone in the next pen (cubicle) chirp away every couple of seconds. DC from a good PBX will then save you the grief of a whole office sounding like a crickets orgy while the staff are out at a meeting and the voice mail is backing up. Julian Macassey, julian@bongo.info.com N6ARE@K6VE.#SOCAL.CA.USA.NA 742 1/2 North Hayworth Avenue Hollywood CA 90046-7142 voice (213) 653-4495 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Jun 91 13:23:59 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: 213 / 310 Split Sigh -- Yes, I know that the city of Los Angeles and the Los Angeles postal district are different from the (central) Los Angeles telephone exchange. I believe the area served by West Los Angeles TELEPHONE EXCHANGE does fall into the city of Los Angeles and the Los Angeles postal district, but the West Los Angeles TELEPHONE EXCHANGE is distinct from the Los Angeles TELEPHONE EXCHANGE. (And you are saying that West L.A. is served by GTE as opposed to the central L.A. exchange falling under PacBell, right?) This is akin to what is encountered in New York City: "New York, NY" mailing address refers to Manhattan, but NYC also has four other boroughs. ------------------------------ Date: 12-JUN-1991 21:34:59.21 From: "Fred E.J. Linton" Subject: Re: Question About Crackling on Phone Circuits In , rocket!millar@uunet.uu.net (Jeff Millar) asks about "Crackling on Phone Circuits". The last time I had crackling on my phone circuits, the cause turned out to be squirrels chewing on the line at the junction box whence the feeder to my premises originates (on a pole in my backyard. Same thing the time before that. Fred or ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #452 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa07600; 14 Jun 91 3:29 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa31134; 14 Jun 91 1:19 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa02025; 14 Jun 91 0:04 CDT Date: Thu, 13 Jun 91 23:10:55 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #451 BCC: Message-ID: <9106132310.ab30470@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 13 Jun 91 23:10:44 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 451 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: What Was the Real Reason For Change in AT&T Cards? [Martin B Weiss] Re: What Was the Real Reason For Change in AT&T Cards? [Andy Sherman] Re: Mass DPU Agrees Second Unlisted Line is No Charge [Bob Clements] Re: Easy Fax to ASCII? [Adam M. Gaffin] Re: Ringing Tones Around the World [Rick Broadhead] Re: The President's Analyst [Roy M. Silvernail] Re: One-Stop Bell Shop [Syd Weinstein] Re: Street Address Wanted For 619/259 CO [Syd Weinstein] Re: St. Louis Phone Outage [J. Philip Miller] Re: Military Telecom Museum Well Worth a Visit [bill Re: German Telephone Unification [Spyros C. Bartsocas] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Martin B Weiss Subject: Re: What Was the Real Reason For Change in AT&T Cards? Date: 12 Jun 91 13:54:30 GMT Organization: University of Pittsburgh In article kabra437@athenanet.com (Ken Abrams) writes: > Additionally I am upset by the misrepresentation of the reason for the > changes in the AT&T card numbers. I am no lawyer and I may not know > the whole story but I think that the statement something to the affect > that the change is being made because of "government rules" is so > misleading that it borders on an outright lie. I think the "government > rule" that they are referring to is one that simply states "the RBOC > must make available to the OCCs the database used for credit card > verification and (here comes the important part) the OCC must ***PAY*** > the RBOC for using that database." While I am unfamiliar with the details of this, it is consistent with the spirit if not the letter of the recent AOS legislation. One of the problems of using the same number was that it may have been easier for AOS companies to take the calls, even though they weren't authorized to do it. Having a different number makes this more difficult. Also (although unrelated) AT&T was required to provide 950-xxxx access as well as 10xxx access, as has been done by other carriers. I have an MCI card for the reason that 950 access was possible -- which is a measure of solid protection against overcharges from COCOTs or hotels. The other thing is, a unique number makes it clearer to the consumer that they are dealing with separate companies. Do you expect your Visa and American Express cards to have the same numbers? Martin Weiss Telecommunications Program, University of Pittsburgh Internet: mbw@lis.pitt.edu OR mbw@unix.cis.pitt.edu BITNET: mbw@pittvms ------------------------------ From: andys@ulysses.att.com Subject: Re: What Was the Real Reason For Change in AT&T Cards? Date: Wed, 12 Jun 91 14:20:43 EDT In article you write: > I think that this latest move on the part of AT&T will lose them an > important competetive advangage, that is having the same card number > for both local and LD use. In my case, it is certainly making me think > long and hard about contacting one of the other companies, not only for > credit card service but for 1+ service at home too. Another marketing > coup in the mill. Wonder if some other carrier is paying AT&T employees > to do these dumb things ... nah, probably would be a waste of money. Obviously, you missed the followup traffic from AT&T people, including me, on this. AT&T now buys card verification services from the LECs for LEC issued card numbers (the ones with your home phone) and sells card verification services to the LECs for AT&T issued card numbers (the new Calling Cards and the Universal Cards). AT&T does *not* sell card verification services to OCCs. Thus you may charge both local and AT&T carried long distance calls on your new AT&T Calling Card, just as you already can on your Universal Card. Why switch? > Additionally I am upset by the misrepresentation of the reason for the > changes in the AT&T card numbers. I am no lawyer and I may not know > the whole story but I think that the statement something to the affect > that the change is being made because of "government rules" is so > misleading that it borders on an outright lie. I think the "government > rule" that they are referring to is one that simply states "the RBOC > must make available to the OCCs the database used for credit card > verification and (here comes the important part) the OCC must ***PAY*** > the RBOC for using that database." I don't know what the legal issues are. Rest assured that if they apply to us, they will apply to the OCCs as well, by and by. To my knowledge, we've been paying for card verification for a long time. > I believe that the main reason for the change is a cost cutting move > on the part of AT&T. Simple as that; they don't want to pay the RBOC > to share numbers anymore. Anybody at AT&T care to refute or clarify > this "government rule" for me. I hope they save big bucks because > they will probably lose me as a customer. Other than any legal requirements or encouragements, there is ample reason for AT&T to want to make this move. A transition from being a service customer to a service provider is certainly good business. Lowering our cost structure is not an evil thing. It enables that money to be better spent elsewhere. But beyond costs, consider this: your AT&T Calling Card number will be yours forever, *FOR CHARGING BOTH LOCAL AND AT&T LONG DISTANCE CALLS*, no matter how many times you move or change your home phone number. Furthermore, no AOS will be able to bill to that card number. There has been an enormous volume of customer complaints on the order of "I charged it to my AT&T Card but then Joe's Bar, Grill, and Telco charged me 10 times normal for the call". That can't happen with the new card. I hope we don't lose you as a customer. Certainly, the new card should be a plus, not a minus, once you understand what it can do. And it *CAN* do your local calls. Andy Sherman/AT&T Bell Laboratories/Murray Hill, NJ AUDIBLE: (908) 582-5928 READABLE: andys@ulysses.att.com or att!ulysses!andys What? Me speak for AT&T? You must be joking! ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Mass DPU Agrees Second Unlisted Line is No Charge Date: Tue, 11 Jun 91 08:57:56 -0400 From: clements@bbn.com In telecom11.431.6 John Levine writes: > [...about having trouble getting a second line unlisted for free > from New England Telephone...] > Knowing NET, they won't tell anyone else. If you are a Massachusetts > phone customer and have been charged for an unlisted second line or > Ringmate number, you are presumably entitled to get your money back. I just went through the process of moving (for the first time in 20 years!) and I had no trouble at all with this. The customer service rep knew all about it. As long as one line is listed, any more in the same name and at the same location may be unlisted for free. The magic phrase is "Special Non-Listed". It's amazing how many problems can be resolved by knowing the right magic words. Sort of like an adventure game. Fortunately, in this case NET knew about it without my having the magic phrase, but it might help anyone else in the same situation. Bob Clements, K1BC, clements@bbn.com ------------------------------ From: Adam M Gaffin Subject: Re: Easy Fax to ASCII? Organization: The World @ Software Tool & Die Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1991 01:34:15 GMT In article ac220@cleveland.freenet.edu writes: > As an aside, I bet a lot of the faxes we all send could be just as > well done thru E-Mail. Your problem would then already be solved. Thanks for the DesqView idea. E-mail? Sure, just use the address below :-). One correspondent suggested we get a 900 number for our fax machine -- it would either cut down on the number of junk faxes or earn us enough money to pay for all that paper! Adam Gaffin Middlesex News, Framingham, Mass. adamg@world.std.com Voice: (508) 626-3968. Fred the Middlesex News Computer: (508) 872-8461. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 Jun 91 21:44:26 EDT From: Rick Broadhead Subject: Re: Ringing Tones Around the World A slight twist to this subject: The following appeared in the {Toronto Star} on June 10, 1991. YOU MAY HEAR ADS ON THE TELEPHONE Some day, you literally may have commercials coming out of your ears. Bell At lantic, one of the largest regional telephone companies in the U.S., has bought the patent on a system for patching recorded ads into the four-second pauses between rings in a phone call. Its inventor says studies show callers wait an average of three rings each time they call someone. "That's two messages," he points out. - Knight-Ridder News Service - (How many times do TELECOM readers let the phone ring before they hang up? -- I usually wait for more than three rings) Rick Broadhead ysar1111@VM1.YorkU.Ca ------------------------------ Subject: Re: The President's Analyst From: "Roy M. Silvernail" Date: Tue, 11 Jun 91 06:19:09 CDT Organization: Villa CyberSpace, Minneapolis, MN droid@kerner.sf.ca.us (Marty the Droid) writes: > For those who have seen the film "The President's Analyst", did anyone > notice Cliff Robertson playing the part of the 'droid at TPC? I believe it was Pat Harrington who played that particular 'droid. Roy M. Silvernail |+| roy%cybrspc@cs.umn.edu ------------------------------ From: Syd Weinstein Subject: Re: One-Stop Bell Shop Reply-To: syd@dsi.com Organization: Datacomp Systems, Inc. Huntingdon Valley, PA Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1991 13:42:10 GMT Jim Gottlieb writes: > "On January 1, 1991, Bell Atlantic announced the integration of > the sales forces of the Bell Atlantic Telephone Company and > Bell Atlanticom Systems, Inc., our Customer Premises Equipment > Company. > Umm, can they do this? They can do this re the ruling and questionaire they set out. All customers were required to fill out a questionaire, re allowing: a. all Sales Droids access to your records b. Only Bell Sales Droids access to your records c. No Sales Droids access to your records. If you choose C, the default choice if you didn't respond, then your account is assigned to a 'special' business office that can handle only the old telco stuff and no sales stuff. (ie the number in the phone book no longer works for you, you get, "I am sorry, I cannot access your records, you will have to call 800 xxx-xxxx to get a rep that can access your records." Thus, what they really did, was assign all customers that choose a or b to Bell-Atlanticom Systems, Inc. as their sales droids, as they can have access to the records. Sydney S. Weinstein, CDP, CCP Elm Coordinator Datacomp Systems, Inc. Voice: (215) 947-9900 syd@DSI.COM or dsinc!syd FAX: (215) 938-0235 ------------------------------ From: Syd Weinstein Subject: Re: Street Address Wanted For 619/259 CO Reply-To: syd@dsi.com Organization: Datacomp Systems, Inc. Huntingdon Valley, PA Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1991 13:29:00 GMT Rick Farris writes: > I may be moving my office soon, and because I entertain fantasies of > my own leased line connection to the Internet, I'd like to move right > next door to my CO. Doing so may not save you very much. You'd have to not only move next to the CO, but next to the POP for your local Internet carrier. The leased lines used by the TCP/IP vendors are charged on a termination plus milage basis from the POP to your site. Generally there is only one POP for the TCP/IP network in your area. And the termination charges far outweigh the milage charge. You won't save much... Sydney S. Weinstein, CDP, CCP Elm Coordinator Datacomp Systems, Inc. Voice: (215) 947-9900 syd@DSI.COM or dsinc!syd FAX: (215) 938-0235 ------------------------------ From: "J. Philip Miller" Subject: Re: St. Louis Phone Outage Date: Wed, 12 Jun 91 9:59:04 CDT Kirk Moir writes: > a) Who manufactured the "high capacity digital cross-connection > system"? I am under the assumption that some kind of DCC switch died. > Please correct me if required. Very conveniently, none of the press accounts have given any real information. In the Sunday paper account (front page of business section) there was a picture of the "computer". It appered to be rack mounted, perhaps 6' tall and 6-8' long. All one could really see was that it appead to have many similar shaped "modules". Could it have been ISDN service? > b) What were the data rates of the affected 2800 services? 2.4Kbps, > DS3, etc.? No details given, but none of the services that have been mentioned in the press would demand very high data rates. > c) What kind of network management was in place to deal with this > kind of outage? Nothing has been mentioned. > d) Did spare capacity exist? Could the trouble theoretically have > been routed around or were most problems associated with non-redundant > subcriber lines? There has been a statement that there are only two of these "computers" in the St. Louis area, so it is not unlikely that it would be very expensive to have redundancy back to the subscriber level. Most of the applications also have been where there are only one a or at most a few lines coming from any particular physical location. The backup that the Federal Reserve used was that of dial up connections. Since all of the mentioned applications have significant security considerations, dial up may not be a viable option for all of them. I, as Kirk, have been very intersted in the technical details. The press has not had any details. I hope that some of the SWBT employees who read this might be able to provide some of them. J. Philip Miller, Professor, Division of Biostatistics, Box 8067 Washington University Medical School, St. Louis MO 63110 phil@wubios.WUstl.edu - Internet (314) 362-3617 uunet!wuarchive!wubios!phil - UUCP (314)362-2693(FAX) C90562JM@WUVMD - bitnet ------------------------------ From: bill@baldric.eedsp.gatech.edu Subject: Re: Military Telecom Museum Well Worth a Visit Date: Wed, 12 Jun 91 11:08:42 EDT Reply-To: bill@eedsp.gatech.edu The U.S. Army Signal Corps operates a very respectable museum at their Signal Center at Fort Gordon, Georgia. Fort Gordon is on the outskirts of Augusta, home of the Masters (golf) Tournament. I checked the museum out when I was at Fort Gordon, going to school for the Navy. That was back in 1982 and it was a big hit back then. I'll have to drop by there again, next time I make it to that part of the state. Civilians are allowed (even encouraged) onto the base and the Signal Corps Museum. Just ask at the gate. It should make for an hour or two of fun! Bill Berbenich, School of EE, DSP Lab | Telephone: +1-404-894-3134 Georgia Tech, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 | uucp: ...!{backbones}!gatech!eedsp!bill | Group 3 fax: +1-404-894-8363 Internet: bill@eedsp.gatech.edu | or: +1-404-853-9171 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Jun 91 11:35:05 -0400 From: "Spyros C. Bartsocas" Subject: Re: German Telephone Unification > But anyhoo, the other thing I noticed is that in the International > calling section, they still list "German Democratic Republic" and > "Germany, Federal Republic of" as separate countries. (I forgot to The reason is that the "Eastern portion of the Federal Republic of Germany" is still called the same way it was before it merged with the "Western portion". I suspect that the dialing rates are different too. AT&T's Reach out world plan only covers the Western Portion (country code 49). Spyros Bartsocas scb@cs.brown.edu ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #451 ******************************  ISSUES 451 AND 452 REVERSED IN TRAQNSMISSION. 452 IS BEOFRE 451. 453 IS NEXT IN THIS ARCHIVE.   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa20109; 15 Jun 91 1:25 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa12085; 14 Jun 91 23:49 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa17805; 14 Jun 91 22:43 CDT Date: Fri, 14 Jun 91 22:15:23 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #453 BCC: Message-ID: <9106142215.ab03261@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 14 Jun 91 22:15:10 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 453 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Well Len, Was it Worth a Prison Term? [TELECOM Moderator] Re: Len Rose Sent To Prison [Bart Simpson] Re: Len Rose Sent To Prison [Scott Dorsey] Fighting Phone Hackers in SoCal [LA Times, RISKS via M Seecof / J Kravitz] Re: Fighting Phone Hackers in SoCal [John Higdon] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 14 Jun 91 20:41:43 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Well Len, Was it Worth a Prison Term? The Len Rose saga came to an end this past week when a federal judge considered the circumstances involved and chose to impose punishment by placing Len in the custody of the Attorney General of the United States, or his authorized representative for a period of one year. As in all such cases where the court finds the defendant poses no immediate danger to the community, Len was given a one month period from the imposition of punishment to get his personal affairs in order before beginning his sentence. At some point in time between now and July 10 mutually convenient to Len, his attorney and the government, Len will surrender to the United States Marshall, and be escorted to the penitentiary. As the first order of business at the penitentiary receiving room, he'll be required to submit to a complete strip-search accompanied by a rather indelicate probing to insure that he does not have in his possession any drugs; weapons with which he might harm himself, the staff or other inmates; or other contraband. He'll surrender his identity completely: driver's license, credit cards, social security card -- anything which identifies Len Rose as Len Rose will be taken from him and returned when he is released. For the time he is incarcerated, he will be a number stamped on the uniform he is given to wear. Or, he may be in a minimum security institution and be permitted to wear his 'street clothes', but without a shred of ID in his wallet. His ID will be his prison serial number. But there will still be the initial and occassional thereafter strip search and urine test on demand. Len's wife, who barely speaks English will be left alone to fend for herself for several months. She'll raise the two children the best she can, on whatever money she has available to her. It won't be easy, but then, it wasn't easy when Len was locked up before for a week in the Dupage Jail in Wheaton, IL while the state charges were pending here. Speaking of the kids, I wonder if Len has explained all this to them yet. I wonder if they know, or are old enough to understand their dad is going to prison, and why ... When Len is released, he'll be 'allowed to' carry the tag "ex-con" with him when he applies for work and tries to make new friends. One part of his punishment is that in the future he must reveal his status to prospective employers. Needless to say, the Internal Revenue Service and the Justice Department trade files all the time ... so Len will want to be super-honest on his federal taxes in the future, since he can probably expect to be audited once or twice in the first five years or so following his release. I wonder if it was all worth it ... if Len had it to do over again if he would do the same things he did before, or if he might consider the consequences more carefully. Despite the intensive crackdown we have seen by the federal government in the past few years against 'white collar' and computer crime, there are still those folks around who either (a) don't think it applies to them, or (b) don't think they will get caught, or (c) don't understand what the big fuss is all about in the first place. If you don't think (c) is still possible, consider the recent thread in comp.org.eff.talk -- yes, I know, *where else* !! -- on the student who got suspended from school for two quarters after downloading and distributing the system password file on the machine he had been entrusted to use. The fact that the debate could go on endlessly for message after message actually questioning what, if anything the chap did wrong tells us plenty about the mentality and 'social respsonsi- bility' of EFF devotees, but that is a whole new topic in itself. The point is, some of us are simply getting very tired of the break-ins, the fraudulent messages, the fact that in order to telnet to a different site we can no longer do so direct from dialup servers without a lot of rig-a-ma-role because computer (ab)users have stolen all the trust which used to exist between sites, and the increasing scarcity of 'guest' accounts on various sites because the sysadmins are tired of being eaten alive with fraudulent and destructive usage. Users had better wise up to one fact: the federal government is going to continue to crack down on abusers of the net and this media. And please, none of your hysterical freedom of speech arguments in my mail, thank you. No one gives an iota what you write about, but when you get your hands in the password file, rip off root or wheel accounts, run programs deceptive to other users designed to rip off their accounts also and generally behave like a two-bit burglar or con-artist, expect to get treated like one when you get caught. And you *will* get caught. Then you can go sit and commiserate with Len Rose. If Len Rose has half the brain I think he has, he will come out of the penitentiary a better person than when he went in. The penitentiary can be, and frequently is a therapeutic experience, at least for the people who think about what it was that caused them to get there in the first place. I feel very sorry about what has happened to Len Rose. I feel worse about the circumstances his wife and children are in. But the socially irresponsible behavior (which some people who call themselves 'socially responsible' seem to condone or wink at) has to stop. Now. A US Attorney involved in prosecuting computer crime once said, "users need an example when they log in of what to expect when they screw up while on line ..." Indeed we do ... and Len Rose will serve as such. And a knowledgeable sysadmin who is quietly cooperating with the government tells me a federal grand jury is to returning another cycle of indictments. Need I say more? So Len, *was* it all worth it? Patrick Townson ------------------------------ From: bart simpson Subject: Re: Len Rose Sent To Prison Organization: Coventry Polytechnic, Coventry, UK Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1991 10:25:22 GMT Now that the Computer Misuse Act (1990) is in operation it might stop some of the abuses which have happened in the UK recently. Graham Wilson | lsg001 ------------------------------ From: Scott Dorsey Subject: Re: Len Rose Sent To Prison Reply-To: Scott Dorsey Organization: NASA Langley Research Center Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1991 13:42:44 GMT In article bill@eedsp.gatech.edu writes: > BALTIMORE (AP) -- A computer hacker has been sentenced to a year > and a day in prison for stealing information from American Telephone & > Telegraph and its subsidiary Bell Laboratories. > Leonard Rose Jr., 32, an unemployed computer consultant, pleaded > guilty in March to one count of sending AT&T source codes via computer > to a hacker in Illinois, and a similar wire fraud charge involving a > Chicago hacker. He did indeed send a copy of the System V login source code to someone who may have used it in the commission of a crime. > Rose was once a member of a nationwide hackers' group called the > Legion of Doom. No, he was not. Sorry. > He originally was indicted on charges of computer fraud and > interstate transportation of stolen property, but those charges were > dropped under a plea agreement. > U.S. District Judge J. Frederick Motz on Monday ordered Rose to > sell his computer equipment, which was seized last year in a raid on > his home in Middletown, and to tell potential employers of his > conviction. He is to begin serving his sentence July 10. > The judge did not order restitution to AT&T because Rose has what > one of his attornies called "a negative net worth." This is indeed true. He did not have such a condition until spending huge amounts of money for defense. scott [Moderator's Note: I did not bother to correct various inaccuracies in the wire story because the submitter pointed out the text was verbatim, and I assumed *we* all knew about the Legion of Doom thing. Regarding payment to his attornies, my understanding is much of the expense was met by friends, although without employment Len had the 'negative net worth' anyway. I hope his wife and kids have been able to get on public assistance (welfare) for the interim. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 Jun 91 10:29:55 -0700 From: Mark Seecof Subject: Fighting Phone Hackers in SoCal Moderator's Note: Excerpts from an article published in the {Los Angeles Times} May 17, 1991; page E1. This was sent by Mark Seecof to RISKS, and Jody Kravitz passed ot along to me, to share with TELECOM Digest readers. Thanks Jody! Thanks, Mark! PAT] Edited and submitted to RISKS Digest by Mark Seecof of the L.A. Times Publishing Systems Department. [elisions and bracketed comments mine -- Mark S.] ``Little Phone Company on a Hacker Attack'' By Susan Christian, Times Staff Writer. [Introductory blather...] [...] in the last seven months [small long-distance company] Thrifty Tel's [security chief] has put seven hackers in jail. And she has made 48 others atone for their sins with hard cash and hardware. The case that [security chief] Bigley calls her biggest coup -- involving a 16-year-old Buena Park boy whose alleged theft of computer data cost Thrifty Tel millions of dollars -- is pending in Orange County Superior Court. Thrifty Tel has become one of the most agressive hacker fighters in California, according to Jim Smith, president of the California Assn. of Long Distance Telephone Cos. (Caltel). ``[Bigley] is tough,'' he says. ``I would not want to be a hacker on her network.'' So far, the company has collected more than $200,000 in penalties and reimbursements from hackers. ``We do not have a hacking problem any more because we stood up and punched them in the face,'' Bigley proclaims. ``These kids think that what they're doing is no big deal -- they're not murdering anyone,'' Bigley says. ``They think we're terrible for calling them on it. Their attitude is extremely arrogant. But these are not just kids having some fun. They are using their intellect to devise ways to steal. And these are not kids who need to steal. They come from white-collar families.'' For Thrifty Tel Inc., the battle of wits started a year ago. [...Thrifty Tel is ten years old, went public in '86, and serves 7,000 customers in SoCal.] [...Last year the hackers discovered them. Hackers use computer programs to try many possible code numbers until they find the ones which unlock the system.] ``The first quarter of 1990 we came in with a half-million-dollar net profit, and everything was going great,'' Bigley says. ``Then the next quarter, all of a sudden we were lopsided. We were getting bigger bills from our carriers than we were billing out to our customers.'' With a little investigation, the company pinpointed the culprits: hackers who were eating up telephone time at as much as ten hours a ``conversation.'' Because hackers exchange information and solve secret codes via long-distance modem connections, circumventing expensive telephone charges has become their mainstay. ``It was so frustrating to sit here and watch these hackers burn through our lines,'' says Bigley, a 33-year-old San Fernando Valley resident. She has been vice-president of operations at Thrifty Tel for four years. ``I had technicians out changing customers' codes that they'd just changed a few weeks before.'' But Bigley is not the sort to throw in the towel. [...She is hard-working and persistent.] First, she devoted a couple of months to educating herself about hacking. She monitored Thrifty Tel's computers for unusual activity -- telephone calls coming into the switching facility from non-customers. ``They believe that because they're sitting in a room with a computer they're safe,'' Bigley says. ``The problem is, they're using their telephone; we can watch them in the act. It's a lot easier to catch a hacker than a bank robber.'' Bigley started making a few calls of her own. If the infiltrator seemed major league, like the Buena Park boy, she contacted the Garden Grove Police Department, whose fraud investigators went into homes with search warrants. If the hacker seemed relatively small, however, Bigley took matters into her own hands, telephoned the suspect and presented an ultimatum: Either pay up or face criminal charges. A non-negotiable condition of Bigley's out-of-court settlement provided that the guilty party relinquish his (or, infrequently, her) computer and modem. Thrifty Tel donates the confiscated weapons [computers] to law enforcement agencies. Teen-age hackers tend to be ``very intelligent and somewhat introverted,'' says Garden Grove Police Detective Richard Harrison, a fraud investigator who has arrested many of Thrifty Tel's suspects. Most of the parents he has dealt with were oblivious to their children's secret lives, Harrison says. He suggests that parents educate themselves about their children's computers. ``If a kid is spending a whole bunch of time on his computer and it's hooked up to a modem, he's not just running his software. What is he doing on that computer? Does he really need a modem?'' [ed. note -- this officer may be an expert on fraud but is clearly unqualified to make such sweeping assertions about what (young) people do with computers. Playing rogue can eat up as much time as hacking while the modem remains idle.] Not all hackers are young computer fanatics testing their limits. ``The hacking problem is two-fold,'' says Caltel president Smith, also president of the Sacramento-based long-distance telephone company Execuline. ``First, we have Information Age fraud, which is an outgrowth of the proliferation of computers in households. We have all these kids who want to talk to each other on bulletin boards, and if mom and dad had to pay for all those phone calls, the cost would be prohibitive. Then we have professional fraud -- adults as well as kids who attempt to gain access to our codes for the purpose of selling the codes. They have made a big business out of hacking.'' Smith's company has waged a more low-key defens[e] against hackers than Thrifty Tel. ``I wish I had the time to devote to hacker fraud that she [Bigley] has been able to devote,'' he says. Therein lies the reason that many telephone companies decline to file charges against hackers, says Roy Costello, a fraud investigator for GTE. ``Smaller carriers don't have the time to allow their people to do the investigation and then carry it through the court system,'' he says. [... Stuff about the sticktoitiveness of Thrifty Tel's Bigley and how she thinks that hackers are immoral and wants to defeat them.] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Jun 91 01:59 PDT From: John Higdon Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Thrifty Tel article from comp.risks On Jun 13 at 1:10, Jody Kravitz passed along the article from the {LA Times} which appeared in RISKS: > ``Little Phone Company on a Hacker Attack'' > By Susan Christian, Times Staff Writer. You may be interested to know that the {San Jose Mercur}y is about to do a story also. However, the writer has been in close touch with yours truly and I can guarantee the article will be somewhat more "informed" and will carry a somewhat different slant. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #453 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa22489; 15 Jun 91 2:28 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa11397; 15 Jun 91 0:54 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab12085; 14 Jun 91 23:49 CDT Date: Fri, 14 Jun 91 23:02:49 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #454 BCC: Message-ID: <9106142302.ab20836@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 14 Jun 91 23:02:47 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 454 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson A Retraction: I Was Wrong (was Hollings and Pac*Bell) [Andy Sherman] Re: Billing Question [Jim Redelfs] Re: Easy Fax to ASCII? [William Vajk] Re: Transporting a Bitstream on a Video Channel [Paolo Bellutta] Re: The President's Analyst [Mike Andrews] Re: Telephone Advertising Consumer Rights Act [Scott Horne] Re: Share FAX, Modem and Voice Line [Vinood Herur] Re: Looking for Inexpensive Outside Wire [Merv Graham] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Andy Sherman Subject: A Retraction: I Was Wrong (was Hollings and Pac*Bell) Date: 12 Jun 91 17:37:32 GMT Reply-To: Andy Sherman Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, NJ In article , I wrote: > In article Charlie Mingo writes: >> It must be remembered that antitrust law generally (and the Bell >> divestiture in particular) was designed to benefit *consumers* not >> competitors. > Interesting mythology. Where did you find it? I've seen no evidence > that government intentions regards antitrust law in general or in US > vs AT&T in particular have anything whatsoever to do with consumers. > The Sherman antitrust act was enacted to prevent anticompetitive > behavior by large monopolies for the express purpose of keeping > smaller less efficient competitors from being driven out of business. *** FLAME ON ***** SELF-IMMOLATION IN PROGRESS ***** I was totally out of line. My knowledge of anti-trust law is based on 15-20 year old memories and his is based on more recent reading. While I still disagree with some of his conclusions, I apologize for being snotty without cause. Below is the reply I sent to Charlie after receiving his reply. To: Charlie.Mingo@f421.n109.z1.fidonet.org Subject: Re: Hollings Bill and Pac*Bell (REPOST) In-reply-to: Your message of Mon, 10 Jun 91 01:51:11 -0700. <9106100151.1.15147@cup.portal.com> Date: Mon, 10 Jun 91 08:20:16 EDT Subject: Re: Hollings and Pac*Bell (LONG) To: Uucp From: Charlie Mingo Of: 109/421.4218 Date: 6/10/91 4:22:32 AM ------------------------------------------- To: uunet!ulysses.att.com!andys [This is a rather long posting, but you raised a great number of points. I regret I lacked the time to cover everything in depth, but I trust you will point out anything I might have skipped over.] Actually, you did a *marvelous* job, and I mean that with no irony. I will concede that your knowledge of anti-trust history exceeds mine. Since it has been some 15-20 years since I read that stuff (except for some history of the MFJ), I must accuse *myself* of fuzzy thinking. I still stand behind my contention that at least part of the intent of modern antitrust law is to preserve fairness in the marketplace, but like I said it's been some time, so I don't remember the sources. The only issue I think you addressed badly was the fairness of cross-subsidies between regulated and unregulated business. Of course, one of the things I feel strongly is that since *my* company has been forced to undergo tortuous reorganizations (remember Computer Inquiry II, which the FCC put into effect 1 year before divestiture?) that other companies ought to play by the same rules. Actually, I don't want to have argued myself into the corner of saying that customers should have less features, but they should pay a fair price for them. A fair price is not one which is subsidized by the ratepayers of local phone service. That is the point of my saying Pac*Bel's voice mail business should pay its phone business the going rate for network services such as free forwarding and stutter dial tone -- so that voice mail users pay the freight rather than captive rate payers. On to the Hollings bill ... this also raises some of the concerns in the manufacturing community about the Hollings bill. If the RBOCs make switches, they can mandate that their regulated monopolies buy them *AT ANY PRICE*. Not only does this freeze out other competitors, it can artificially raise the rates paid by local ratepayers, since the deal of the monopoly is based on some kind of ROI. Higher capital expenditures = more money from the N% ROI. (That was the nature of the NYNEX scam). There is also a matter of equity. Captive markets for switching equipment was certainly a major issue in US vs AT&T. I think that the Justice Department is currently attempting to legislate itself a new deal that gives AT&T less in exchange for divestiture than was originally negotiated. This is a good faith way to settle a lawsuit? This is fair treatment? I'd agree that telecommunications policy needs to be made by more than just one judge, but it can still be done without breaking past deals. Thanks for your reply. I apologize for accusing you of fuzzy thinking while engaging in it myself. If Pat posts my original response, I will flame myself. Andy Sherman/AT&T Bell Laboratories/Murray Hill, NJ AUDIBLE: (908) 582-5928 READABLE: andys@ulysses.att.com or att!ulysses!andys What? Me speak for AT&T? You must be joking! [Moderator's Note: Unfortunatly, Andy's original article had gone out just minutes earlier when I received his note asking me to cancel it. So I agreed to publish this 'self-flame' on his behalf. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Jun 91 23:49:40 cst From: Jim Redelfs Subject: Re: Billing Question Reply-To: ivgate!macnet!jim.redelfs@uunet.uu.net Organization: Macnet Omaha Leroy Donnelly wrote: > Could someone give me the insite on how the phone companies bill for > long distance. Is it based on a grid map or LAT/LONG points. Across the country, I'm sure there are numerous, different methods for BILLING for long distance useage, but can I assume you are interested in how the phone companies HANDLE long distance? LATAs (Local Access and Transport Areas) were created to define how long distance would be handled following Divestiture. Within the Nebraska Area Code 402, there are TWO LATAs -- one served by US WEST Communications (formerly Northwestern Bell Telephone Company) and the other by Lincoln Telephone and Telegraph. For example: A toll call from Omaha to Norfolk, NE (both US WEST Communications cities) is transported over the facilities of, and billed by, US WEST Communications. A toll call from Omaha to Nebraska City, NE (the latter served by LT&T) is billed by your default (1+ Choice) carrier. In my case, such a call appears on my AT&T bill. A toll call from Omaha to Grand Island, NE (both served by US WEST Communications -- *BUT* different Area Codes) is also billed by your 1+ carrier. I'm not sure about other areas, but within Nebraska, the MAJOR toll carriers have not (yet) ventured into the INTRA-Lata business. JR -- Tabby 2.2 MacNetOmaha(402)289-2899 Multitasking w/MacOrphans (1:285/14) ------------------------------ From: William Vajk Subject: Re: Easy Fax to ASCII? Reply-To: William Vajk Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1991 05:43:26 GMT In article Ralf Bayer writes: > In telecom 11/445 William Vajk writes: >> On the other hand, to convert from ascii to fax is relatively easy, >> but certainly not easy enough to make a fax machine into a computer >> peripheral. > Well, that's not quite true. There are several vendors of fax cards > with associated software. These things transfer ASCII directly into > fax format, [Balance deleted] What you wrote was true, but not related to the discussion at hand. A fax machine is simply not a reasonable a computer peripheral (as the parent article had requested.) The idea proposed was to make a fax machine into a printer 'without serious investment.' I simply don't see buying a fax board and software a rational response to making a fax machine double as a printer. Bill Vajk ------------------------------ From: Paolo Bellutta Organization: I.R.S.T. 38050 POVO (TRENTO) ITALY Subject: Re: Transporting a Bitstream on a Video Channel Date: Fri, 14 Jun 91 8:33:33 MET DST rmz@ifi.uio.no (Bj|rn Remseth) asks: > Does anyone know about existing hardware that puts a bitstream on a > video channel and let you extract the same bitstream out of the video > video signal, after it has been transmitted on standard video > transport media such as satellite links, video cassettes and cable TV > networks. > This kind of equipment could use spare capacity on local cable > networks and satellite sattelite links to spread e.g. usenet news > quite inexpensively. > But, the Big Question is: Does this hardware exist? Yes. There are several ways to do that. Let's list the various kinds of media you can use: 1) VCR 2) terrestrial link 3) satellite link 1) can make use of the SMPTE/EBU time code, this is a digital code inserted in the VBI (vertical blanking interval), and represents hours:minutes:seconds:frames plus some spare bits you can use for special purposes. Since this is written on video tape, low bit rates can be achieved. In the US (but not in Europe) they have CC (close captioning) encoding which can be recorded on tape (always in the VBI). 2) can make use of the same code that is used for teletext and VPS codes. Since the channel bandwidth is a bit larger than in a VCR, a higher bit rate can be achieved. An alternative way is to use the NICAM encoding (used for terrestrial TV digital audio). 3) satellite transponders have a very high bandwidth, therefore subcarriers are used to carry additional data (for example different languages audio). Subcarriers can usefully encoded to transmit data at high bit rates. Adam Smith has a large production of Time Code HW. Rohde & Schwarz have DGF and DEF (coder and decoder) for VBI, DCA and DDA for digital audio. This covers 1) and 2). Sit on a chair before asking prices ;) Paolo Bellutta I.R.S.T. vox: +39 461 814417 loc. Pante' di Povo fax: +39 461 810851 38050 POVO (TN) e-mail: bellutta@irst.it ITALY bellutta@irst.uucp ------------------------------ From: Mike Andrews Subject: Re: The President's Analyst Organization: Chinet - Chicago Public Access UNIX Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1991 02:40:04 GMT In article droid@kerner.sf.ca.us (Marty the Droid) writes: > For those who have seen the film "The President's Analyst", did anyone > notice Cliff Robertson playing the part of the 'droid at TPC? I almost > bust a gut the first time I saw him enter in that grey suit in an AT&T > commercial. It was nice to know that "TCP" still had the same > leadership. :-) > (I wondered if the folks at the ad agency or AT&T ever saw the movie.) Nice irony, but your memory is a little faulty. The "TPC 'droid" was played by Pat Harrington, mostly known for his role as Dwayne Schneider, the handyman on "One Day at a Time" and Trak Auto Parts commercials. Other actors in "The President's Analyst" besides James Coburn are Godfrey Cambridge as the CRA(sic) man, Severin Darden as the Russian, Artie Johnson (Laugh-In) as the FBR(sic) man, William Daniels (the voice of Kitt the Car on Knight Rider and a Doctor on St. Elsewhere) as the Liberal Gun Nut, and Will Geer as James Coburn's analyst and mentor. The film also features the acting and musical "talents" of Barry (Eve of Destruction) McQuire. I have a video copy of the movie which has been one of my favorites for years. Some lines to watch for: Doctor: "The one thing all psychotics have in common is hate for The Phone Company. They all hate the The Phone Company!" The Russian: "Every country in world hates The Phone Company. BEDOUINS hate The Phone Company!" ------- "With all the countries in the world The President has to worry about, which one do you think worries him the most?" "Which one?" "Libya. Do you believe it? LIBYA!" (this is a pre-Qadaffi bit of precognition.) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Jun 91 06:00:55 EDT From: Scott Horne Subject: Re: Telephone Advertising Consumer Rights Act Organization: Computer "Science" Dept, Yale University In article , linc@tongue1.berkeley.edu writes: > [No, I'm not a lawyer, but...] There's an interesting point of > Constitutional law involved. It turns out that if you have a "NO > SOLICITING" sign on the front of your house, it is entirely legal for > someone to come to your door anyway and solicit you for POLITICAL > purposes, because the First Amendment right of the solicitor to > engage solicitee Subject: Re: Share FAX, Modem and Voice Line Date: 14 Jun 91 19:14:01 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. I have been using an ASAP TF555 here in France for the last couple of months and I have been disappointed with its performance. It works well with fax calls but when people call, sometimes it just doesn't switch it to the telephone. As a result, the person on the other end hears one ring, nothing else, and then the line disconnects. Rather annoying -- I plan to send it back to the US from where I got it. Vinod Herur Internet: vherur@sun.com Sun Microsystems, Inc. Uucp: ...!sun!vherur ------------------------------ From: Merv Graham Subject: Re^2: Looking for Inexpensive Outside Wire Date: 14 Jun 91 19:29:02 GMT Organization: Graham-Patten Sys., Inc., Grass Valley, CA mitel!Software!meier@uunet.uu.net (Rolf Meier) writes: > In article mailrus!ulowell!wex@uunet. > uu.net writes: > [recommendation for using garden hose as conduit] > I tried this, in an attempt to save some money on the special (thicker > sheath) direct burial cable. > It turned out that I was unable to pull the wire more than about 25 > feet before it started to bind against the hose. Since I had already > bought the hose, I ended up splitting the hose the full length, > inserting the wire, and then taping the hose together again. > It was really false economy. Next time, I would get the true > direct-burial cable. I'm sorry I didn't see the start of this thread, but if we're talking about low voltage circuits: I used a 1 (or was it 1.25)inch , black, polyethylene, flexible water pipe. It was cheap enough and has a nice smooth inner bore for pulling cables. I used about 125 feet between the house and shop for LV control, phone and intercom cables. Originally blew a nylon cord through the pipe (old vacuum cleaner connected backwards trick) for a pull line and always pull a new cord with each new cable I pull. Works great. Merv Graham | gpstwr!merv@gvgpsa.gvg.tek.com Graham-Patten Systems, Inc. | or: tektronix!gvgpsa.gvg.tek.com!gpstwr!merv P.O. Box 1960 | Grass Valley, CA 95945 | Ph: 916-273-8412 FAX: 916-273-7458 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #454 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa25728; 15 Jun 91 3:52 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa21072; 15 Jun 91 2:01 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab11397; 15 Jun 91 0:55 CDT Date: Sat, 15 Jun 91 0:31:02 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #455 BCC: Message-ID: <9106150031.ab14790@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 15 Jun 91 00:30:47 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 455 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Looking for Inexpensive Outside Wire [Tony Harminc] Re: Transporting a Bitstream on a Video Channel [Jeremy Druker] Re: Billing Question [Leroy Donnelly] Re: N.Y. Metro North Commuter Railroad [Scott Horne] Re: Ringing Tones Around the World [Carl Moore] Re: Street Address Wanted For 619/259 CO [Jim Redelfs] Re: Busying Out a Phone With a Resistor [Laird P. Broadfield] Re: Rotary Dial Phones Forgotten But Not Gone [Steve Forrette] Re: St. Louis Phone Outage [Floyd Davidson] Re: Can You Identify These Mystery Boxes? [John Tombs] The Wonderful Thing About Standards (was Hollings/PacBell) [Steve Forrette] Maryland Helpline Worked in California [Carl Moore] Need Modem Usage Stats -- Detroit Area [Douglas Parker] Sources Wanted For Punchdown Tools? [Christopher Davis] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 15 Jun 91 00:48:40 EDT From: Tony Harminc Subject: Re: Looking for Inexpensive Outside Wire Rolf Meier wrote: [recommendation for using garden hose as conduit] > It turned out that I was unable to pull the wire more than about 25 > feet before it started to bind against the hose. Since I had already > bought the hose, I ended up splitting the hose the full length, > inserting the wire, and then taping the hose together again. > It was really false economy. Next time, I would get the true > direct-burial cable. What you need is wire pulling compound. It's usually gloopy yellow stuff that comes in a giant squeeze bottle or a can. You can, of course, use almost anything slippery, but grease etc. may damage the insulation over time. Tony H. ------------------------------ From: Jeremy Druker Date: Fri Jun 14 19:25:05 1991 Subject: Re: Transporting a Bitstream on a Video Channel In , rmz@ifi.uio.no (Bj|rn Remseth) wrote: > Does anyone know about existing hardware that puts a bitstream on a > video channel and let you extract the same bitstream out of the video > video signal, after it has been transmitted on standard video > transport media such as satellite links, video cassettes and cable TV > networks. > This kind of equipment could use spare capacity on local cable > networks and satellite sattelite links to spread e.g. usenet news > quite inexpensively. > But, the Big Question is: Does this hardware exist? Yep -- it sure does. The Magic Phrase is "Data Broadcast", and it works by sending data during the so-called Vertical Blanking Interval between picture frames. This is how teletext works, and data broadcast is, in fact, a specialized form of teletext. Ordinary teletext works by constantly retransmitting a set of pages of data, where each page comprises up to 25 rows of 40 characters each. Data broadcast, on the other hand, treats the transmitted data as a single continuous stream of bytes. There are one or two companies in the UK that I know of which suuply data broadcast receiving kit ("data decoders"). Only one as far as I know supplies the transmission ("head-end") kit, and that comprises a MicroVax with (hellish expensive) software that they wrote. The data decoder has an antenna socket and an RS-232 socket (or two for the fancy kind that can receive multiple channels simultaneously on different output ports). These cost in the region of 200 Pounds Sterling. In the UK, both BBC and ITV provide data broadcast capacity for sale (the horse racing betting shops use it to broadcast digitized audio commentaries of races, for instance) and in the US, PBS has been using data broadcast for some time too, though for what I don't know. I'm currently working on data broadcast head-end S/W myself (how else could I know all this trivia :-) but, alas, I do not own the rights to it :-( so I cannot publish any on the net. My system runs on a '386 under UNIX or Xenix, and with a DOS PC containing a PC Teletext broadcast card to convert the data to composite video format. The data rate is largely limited to what the data decoder can handle. For 625 line systems with 25 frames (50 fields) per second, the nett data rate is about 15Kbps per VBI line used; in our case we have chosen to use 8 VBI lines, which is as much as our data decoders can accomodate. I could go on and on and on (just say the word :-) but your eyes are surely glazing over by now. If you know of anybody who's interested in actually buying any of this stuff, mail me for names and numbers. Jeremy Druker jsd@proxima.UUCP !uunet!ddsw1!olsa99!proxima!jsd ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Jun 91 16:12:54 CST From: Leroy Donnelly Subject: Re: Billing Question Reply-To: ivgate!drbbs!leroy.donnelly@uunet.uu.net Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha Could someone give me insight on how the phone companies bill for long distance. Is it based on a grid map or LAT/LONG points. Ybbat (DRBBS) 8.9 v. 3.13 r.5 [200:5010/666@metronet] NOT EVERYONE USES AN IBM PC :-( (200:5010/666.0) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Jun 91 06:15:56 EDT From: Scott Horne Subject: Re: N.Y. Metro North Commuter Railroad Organization: Computer "Science" Dept, Yale University In article , is written: > The New York MetroNorth commuter railroad has a toll-free number which > accepts input consisting of the first four letters of your > destination! I don't like it. Some sort of menu might be better. (Then again, there are twenty-seven stops between New Haven, CT, and Grand Central Station, inclusive ...) I once had some trouble getting information on trains from New Haven to Grand Central: the input `NEWH' (6394) was invalid. It turned out that `UNIO' (8646), for Union Station in New Haven, was expected. Scott Horne ...!{harvard,cmcl2,decvax}!yale!horne horne@cs.Yale.edu SnailMail: Box 7196 Yale Station, New Haven, CT 06520 203 624-9263 Summer residence: 25 High St, Apt 32, New Haven, CT ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Jun 91 9:47:37 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: Ringing Tones Around the World Waiting N rings gets back into: 1. give the receiving party time to answer the phone; I was told ten rings many years ago. 2. in recent years, some systems charge you after a certain number of rings even if the call is not answered. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Jun 91 00:40:17 cst From: Jim Redelfs Subject: Re: Street Address Wanted For 619/259 CO Reply-To: ivgate!macnet!jim.redelfs@uunet.uu.net Organization: Macnet Omaha Rick Farris wrote: [Trying to locate his local Central Office building - to no avail] Stop a phone truck and ask the driver. They all know where they are. In Omaha, I wouldn't have any "problem" telling someone where the CO is. In fact, to impress a customer with how FAR their line runs to the CO, I frequently tell them WHERE the CO is! "My" CO is located on the main highway through Elkhorn (Omaha CDO) and is clearly marked with a large Bell logo. Occasionally, a local customer will knock on the door in the morning, while I'm in there wiring on the MDF, and report their trouble directly to me! Ahhhhh! SmallTown PhoneMan. I love it! JR Tabby 2.2 MacNetOmaha(402)289-2899 Multitasking w/MacOrphans (1:285/14) ------------------------------ From: lairdb@crash.cts.com (Laird P. Broadfield) Subject: Re: Busying Out a Phone With a Resistor Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1991 19:18:55 GMT In john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: > I could not RESIST adding my two cents -- plain to all of this > extensive discussion about what value resistor to busy out a phone > line with. For a quarter century, when it has been necessary to busy > out a phone line I have simply shorted it. In the case of ground > start, I have shorted it and grounded it as well. I had one trunk left > this way for about a year. Came back, pulled the short and the line > came right back to life. No CO switch, modern or ancient, gives a > hoot or a holler about what kind of load is on a line. It is all > current limited in the subscriber line equipment. Yes, John, but as we all know, you're served by a combination of an SXS and Ernestine on a cord-board. (Seriously though, folks, Pathetic*Bell really *is* nearly as pathetic as John makes them out to be.) 'Fraid though that quite a bit of CO equipment does indeed care about load on the line, as I recall a 5ESS (or was that a DMS? fuzzy memory) will drop dialtone *and* all but minimal battery on sensing a full short. Whether this will clear itself on removing the short or requires an official Service Action is a software toggle (read that as "another way for the BOC to justify a repair charge.") In fact, Keptel(Armiger)'s fancier MTUs and SNI-MTUs will perform this disconnect automatically right at your demarc; they can also be set for self-reset or requires-telco-visit-reset. Laird P. Broadfield UUCP: {ucsd, nosc}!crash!lairdb INET: lairdb@crash.cts.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Jun 91 17:08:09 -0700 From: Steve Forrette Subject: Re: Rotary Dial Phones Forgotten But Not Gone Organization: University of California, Berkeley In article Julian Macassey writes: > This circuit the "TAP telephone" was as I recall designed by > Joe Flamini, a real telecom character. He is an MIT Phd, ex cop, bon > vivant and comedian. Anyhow, the IC is a Dual Timer. One half sets up > the flash button for a 600Ms break and the other half, which is across > the hookswitch is set up for 1500 Ms. This is why when you try to ^^^^^^^ > flash the hookswitch on the TAP phone you hang the phone up. I think this is a really stupid feature. How do they expect you to dial the phone if the tone pad goes out? :-) Steve Forrette, forrette@cory.berkeley.edu [Moderator's Note: My office phone is like that. The switch always will disconnect; never flash. The TAP button flashes, but after a flash or two it seems to need to time out a few seconds before it is willing to flash again (it does nothing after the secod or third time it is flashed until a few seconds have elapsed.) Stupid. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Floyd Davidson Subject: Re: St. Louis Phone Outage Organization: University of Alaska Institute of Marine Science Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1991 04:59:05 GMT In article phil@wubios.wustl.edu (J. Philip Miller) writes: > Kirk Moir writes: >> a) Who manufactured the "high capacity digital cross-connection >> system"? I am under the assumption that some kind of DCC switch died. >> Please correct me if required. > Very conveniently, none of the press accounts have given any real > information. In the Sunday paper account (front page of business > section) there was a picture of the "computer". It appered to be rack > mounted, perhaps 6' tall and 6-8' long. All one could really see was > that it appead to have many similar shaped "modules". > Could it have been ISDN service? Maybe a little explaination of what a "digital cross-connection system" is would help. Several companies make them. AT&T calls theirs a DACS and the particular one where I work is called a DEX (made by DSC Communications Corp.). There are others. It is basically a digital switch. Except it does not decide which lines to connect by looking for touch tone and it does not provide dial tone or any of the other services that come with a digital "switch". The connections are set up at a console, or any number of them, and remain in place until they are changed or removed by software commands. The outside world is interfaced via T1 carrier. These systems are used to cut down the amount of time and manpower it takes to wire circuits up on distribution frames. Instead of running wires, the craftsman just enters commands in the computer. Obviously at some point each circuit is in fact likely to end up going analog on a copper wire circuit, so not all wiring is eliminated. But for circuits that pass through an office where the carrier it rides is digital on both sides, there is no wiring done at all. It also has the advantage of remote access via modem. And a circuit can be bridged to test equipment that is also remotely controlled via modem, thus permitting circuit testing at an unmanned location by someone at a central control/status center. I have no idea how many testboard craftspeople have been laid off since this device has come into use, but ... Floyd L. Davidson | Alascom, Inc. pays me, |UA Fairbanks Institute of Marine floyd@ims.alaska.edu| but not for opinions. |Science suffers me as a guest. ------------------------------ From: John Tombs Subject: Re: Can You Identify These Mystery Boxes? Organization: Teltronics/TCT, Sarasota, FL Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1991 17:54:51 GMT In article n3hnr@hpb.cis.pitt.edu (Jason Galanter) writes: > I have a couple of boxes that I have absolutely no clue on their use. > I am sure someone out there knows what they do and I would appreciate > any help that might be availiable, I assume they are long distance > carrier access boxes pre-dial-1 service. > They are TELTRONICS (division of brand-rex) AD350-DW issue 5 boxes > and >that is all the info I have ... anyone have any clues? Well, I work for an associated company, though not on these. My information is that they are first generation store-and-forward dialers: input 1+10 digits, output +10 digits. For more info you could try Don Mastropietro at 813-753-5000. John Tombs at Teltronics/TCT , ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Jun 91 20:35:44 -0700 From: Steve Forrette Subject: The Wonderful Thing About Standards (was Hollings and Pac*Bell) Organization: University of California, Berkeley > "That's the wonderful thing about Standards; there're so many > to choose from!" I believe this can be attributed to Nick Tredennick, who designed the MC68000 architecture, among other things. But I could be wrong. Steve Forrette, forrette@cory.berkeley.edu ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Jun 91 11:03:00 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Maryland Helpline Worked in California 800-477-4704, the Maryland 301/410 helpline, worked from California when I tried it recently. ------------------------------ From: Douglas Parker Subject: Need Modem Usage Stats -- Detroit Area Date: 14 Jun 91 15:54:14 GMT Organization: General Dynamics Land Systems, Sterling Heights, MI I need usage stats for modems in the Detroit area. I also need current sales information on modems in the Detroit area. I'm posting to the entire group because although the data is from the local area, sources might be available elsewhere. Tanks, a whole lot! #:) Douglas Parker General Dynamics Corporation Computer Systems Engineer 6000 E. 17 Mi. Rd. MZ: 435-02-33 Sterling Heights, MI 48313 (313) 825-8677 uunet!gdls!parker Do you think my company would be endorsing comments *I* make? ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Jun 91 15:58:14 -0400 From: Christopher Davis Subject: Sources Wanted For Punchdown Tools Where can things like this be ordered? Christopher Davis - System Manager & Postmaster, Electronic Frontier Foundation <{uunet,bu.edu,...}!world!eff!ckd> NeXT: 155 Second Street, Cambridge, MA 02141 - +1 617 864 0665 - FAX: +1 617 864 0866 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #455 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa21883; 15 Jun 91 14:39 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa23678; 15 Jun 91 13:10 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa09535; 15 Jun 91 12:03 CDT Date: Sat, 15 Jun 91 11:22:58 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #456 BCC: Message-ID: <9106151122.ab10168@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 15 Jun 91 11:22:37 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 456 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Northern Telecom History [Tony Harminc] Real CO ISDN Ugrade Costs Needed [Barton F. Bruce] AT&T 1341 Answering Machine and Distinctive Ringing [Jerry Grooms] Can Bell Canada Put a Collect-Call Block on a Number? [Davin Milun] Help "Save the Infosphere" [Sue Anderson] CATV Company Rate Comparisons [Nick Sayer] Does a National Phonebook Exist? [Wally Kramer] Re: What Was the Real Reason for Change in AT&T Cards? [Steve Forrette] NETWORK WORLD Article on IXCS and Toll Fraud Monitoring [Peter Marshall] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 12 Jun 91 11:15:58 EDT From: Tony Harminc Subject: Northern Telecom History gaarder@anarres.ithaca.ny.us wrote about United Telephone of Pannsylvania: > While I was in college in Carlisle, Pa., United Telephone replaced > their Kellogg K-60 switch with a North (not Northern) Electric NX-1E > mega-whizz-bang. A recent posting mentioned that North has cut its > business back to just power systems. The NX-1E may be part of the > reason why. This was -- brace yourself -- a computer-controlled > crossbar switch. That's right, one foot in the future and one in the > past. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that North took an existing > crossbar design and glommed on computers so they could have a > computerized switch quick. .... Interesting. Northern Telecom also made a computer controlled crossbar switch called the SP1. They installed a large number of them between about 1972 and 1979. There are still many thousands of lines of SP1 in Toronto and other Canadian cities. They also made a four wire toll version (SP1/4W) and a TOPS option for toll operator (TSPS) service. The first TOPS switch went into service in Alaska in about 1974. A little Northern Telecom history is necessary to understand why this strange beast was ever made. In the late 1960s, NT was still essentially doing no R&D of its own. License agreements with the Bell System in the USA provided the technology, which was then manufactured under licence (or occasionally just imported). NT manufactured 1ESS systems this way, 100% unchanged from the Western Electric version as far as I know. There are about half a dozen large 1ESS switches in Toronto for example - all installed between 1969 and 1972 or 1973. But the 1ESS was too large - or rather was not cost effective outside large cities - and there are only a few large cities in Bell Canada's (parent of NT) operating territory. Also - and more important - the legal goings on in the USA made the continuation of the cosy licensing arrangements with the Bell System impossible. So NT decided to develop a switch that would make economic sense in configurations from small-town to big city sizes. (Now here I speculate; I should make it clear that I am not an NT insider and all this information comes from published material): the digital writing was already on the wall. I am sure that the R&D that eventually became the SL/1 and then the DMS series was in progress by 1970 or so. But something was needed that could be delivered soon. So tried and true crossbar switches were married to a computer. In those days everyone designed their own CPU; there were no off-the-shelf CPU chips with ready-to-go C compilers. The SP1 CPU was typical for its time, wide words (36 bits? - I forget) all made of TTL and programmed in assembler. But it worked. Various stuff was added to the SP1 over the few years it lasted; centrex, hotel and hospital versions, etc. and of course the four wire version mentioned above. Although the DMS switches caught up on the SP1 quite quickly, the time it was being installed was a time of major replacement of SxS gear and expansion in general, so a large number of lines (and switches) went into service. One entire new building in downtown Toronto (Simcoe Street -- the first new CO building in many years) was filled with nothing but SP1. (I can't resist an aside on the Simcoe Street building. This was built in the early 1970s, and is a very tall, modern looking building *with no windows* right in the middle of downtown. If I am conducting out-of-country visitors around town, I often contrive to pass by the building and say in an off-hand manner: "that's the headquarters of the Secret Police". The building looks forbidding enough that it sometimes works with gullible visitors.) One amusing thing that gives an idea of the strengths and weaknesses of the SP1 is that in the late 1970s, when the DMS switches were just starting to take off, NT discovered that the entire SP1 CPU could be replaced with the DMS100 CPU running a software emulator which ran substantially faster than the original! I think most if not all were eventually replaced. This increased the call processing capacity significantly, and also did wonders for reliability. Former phone phreaks with good ears will easily recognize the crossbar sounds when calling into an SP1 - clicky sounds quite different from the silent DMS or the ESS wire-spring stuff. The call progress tones are nice, analogue, PTP too. Caveat: all this is from memory. The dates are roughly right, but in the very unlikely event that anyone needs correct dates, "recourse should be had to the literature" :-) Tony H. ------------------------------ From: "Barton F. Bruce" Subject: Real CO ISDN Ugrade Costs Needed Date: 12 Jun 91 00:55:47 EST Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc. Later this week there is a Mass. DPU hearing on NYNEX's latest ISDN proposals. I gather they want to start with only 12 switches in MA setup for ISDN, and will try pricing data service the way they price their (bloody expensive) Switchway 56 service, and x.25 service much the way they price their other x.25 service - Infopath. At that rate, only the truely desperate or very rich would use this for data, and I really hate to see them trying to differientiate between my possible uses of a rented 64kb channel. Should be ONE price for for point to point switched 64 - voice or data, sure x.25 is another game. When they get data neatly seperated from voice, just wait til they start trying to compress voice traffic which will really mess up fast modems. AT&T's new IACS system that will provide frame relay, will also handily compress large numbers of voice channels onto fewer T1s. You should see the glowing descriptions of what it can save the telcos! Fiber bandwith is dirt cheap, and in some quarters there is a glut of it, so moves to 'cheapen' the delivered voice channel quality, and to raise the prices on 'data' traffic need to be thwarted. Does anyone KNOW anything about the real expenses NET&T has to pay to implement ISDN in #5ess COs? What does AT&T charge for the new software? One can assume there is plenty of fiber trunking going in totally justified without ISDN. So what other ISDN specific expenses do they really have? Any ammunition for a user speaking at a DPU hearing would be most welcome. ------------------------------ Subject: AT&T 1341 Answering Mach and Distinctive Ringing Date: Tue, 11 Jun 91 15:54:11 EDT From: lunatix!grooms@ms.uky.edu My wife is setting up her new office at a university and it became necessary that she acquire an answering machine for office use. For lack of any better reasons, I suggested she try the AT&T 1341 (?) Digital model for it's vertical form-factor and quiet, tape-less operation. She is fairly demanding when it comes to friendly ergonomics, but was quite satisifed with this model. Alas, the university's telephone system is programmed to provide a distinctive ring on incoming outside calls which the 1341 does not detect. Switching to a Panasonic 1740 enables outside calls to be detected and answered. The problem is she hates the ergonomics of the Panasonic, including it's distinctive "clown-horn" tone. My questions are: 1) What technique enables the Panasonic to recognize a call where the AT&T cannot? 2) Is there any possible way (including extraordinary means) to get the 1341 to work, short of have the line re-programmed, which the univ. is apparently loathe to do? Thanks in advance. Email preferred and summary if warranted. jerry grooms grooms%lunatix.UUCP@s.ms.uky.edu ------------------------------ From: Davin Milun Subject: Can Bell Canada Put a Collect-Call Block on a Number? Date: 12 Jun 91 05:32:33 GMT At a camp that I'm associated with in Ontario, we have just installed a phone line for the counsellors. The dial has been disabled so that it is for incoming calls only. But we would like to arrange it so that they cannot accept collect calls, or bill third party calls to that number. A first call to Bell Canada resulted in us being told that this was impossible. Does anyone know if this is truly not possible, or if it is worth us persuing the matter? It is a 613-336-xxxx number. Thanks. Davin [Moderator's Note: Whether or not it is possible in the USA seems to depend on the type of equipment serving the number. The CO serving my home phones is the latest ESS and my lines are fixed in this way, but a friend in the area with an older version of ESS cannot have it. I assume your situtation is the same. Ask Bell Canada if any exchanges there are able to do it, provided you have no special interest in the number assigned to the phone now. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Jun 91 10:52:15 -0400 From: Sue Anderson Subject: Help "Save the Infosphere" Reply-To: aq941@cleveland.freenet.edu This summer and fall, the National Public Telecomputing Network (NPTN), a nonprofit public computer network headquartered in Cleveland, Ohio, will be working on its first annual "Infosphere Report" -- a research project which will attempt to assess the nation's health with regard to information age issues. We are defining the infosphere as: the technical and organizational environment in which the general public can access computer-mediated communication and information resources. The central idea is to conduct an on-going study similar to those conducted in areas such as economics, population growth and the environment, with reports appearing every year. The data will be cumulative, comparative, and prescriptive. That is, it is expected that over-time a portrait will emerge which will describe this nation's progress as it enters an information age. It will show where we are doing well, where we are doing poorly, and where more emphasis is needed. One of the trickiest parts of doing a study like this is trying to figure out what the critical variables are when measuring something like the "infosphere." If you are measuring the health of the environment, you can measure the presence of various chemicals in the air, water, or soil. But how do you measure the health of our informational environment? We have some ideas about what information should be included. We might, for example, be interested in finding out how many homes, schools, and libraries have computers and modems; how many libraries allow modem and/or internet access to their computerized card catalogues; and how many government agencies allow modem and/or internet access to their informational resources. We want more ideas. So we are actively soliciting the computer networks and telecomputing community to be a part of this effort. If you have any thoughts on how the infosphere might best be assessed -- what kind of variables we should be looking at -- we'd appreciate your input. All suggestion are valued. Suggestions which also tell us where we might go to actually FIND that information are cherished! Please send your suggestions to: Sue Anderson, M.Ed., NPTN - Infosphere Project aq941@cleveland.freenet.edu or Tom Grundner, Ed.D., NPTN - President aa001@cleveland.freenet.edu Please also feel free to re-post this message where ever you think appropriate. ------------------------------ From: Nick Sayer Subject: CATV Company Rate Comparisons Date: 12 Jun 91 20:08:26 GMT Organization: The Duck Pond, Stockton, CA We have a monopoly here in Stockton. Continental Cable charges $19.54 a month minimum, and has 34 clear channels, 4 pay channels and one pay-per-view channel, but it's on two pieces of coax, which makes cable-ready equipment capable of only 'seeing' half the channels at a time. A converter to solve this problem costs $2/mo, a remote control is another $1, the first pay channel is about $10, and additional pay channels have decreasing costs. Needless to say, I am not happy with this situation but, of course, I live in a condo where no antennas are allowed, so there is no alternative. When (and if :-) ) I graduate from college, I'm gonna get a dish. Now if there was only a way to get phone service without having to get service from an RBOC. Speaking of dishes, has anyone heard from the Congressional inquiry concerning predatory pricing practices of cable programming suppliers? I was watching C-SPAN some time ago, and ran across such a hearing. One of those testifying said the average cable company paid $2 per subscriber per month for a package which satellite and wireless-cable providers paid an average of $10 per subsciber per month. Nick Sayer mrapple@quack.sac.ca.us N6QQQ 209-952-5347 (Telebit) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Jun 91 13:28:53 PDT From: Wally Kramer Subject: Does a National Phonebook Exist? Reply-To: wallyk@orca.wv.tek.com Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Wilsonville, Oregon Is there a ``phonebook'' which covers everywhere in the U.S.? Electronic, CD-ROM, 900-FIND-THEM :-) or whatever (even paper). I'd like to track down some college buddies, but I don't have clue as to what city some of them are in. Wally Kramer contracted from Step Technology, Portland, Oregon 503 244 1239 wallyk@orca.wv.tek.com +1 503 685 2658 [Moderator's Note: No, there is no single phone directory covering the entire USA in any media. But any large metropolitan library will have a huge collection of out of town phone books you can review. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Jun 91 16:53:39 -0700 From: Steve Forrette Subject: Re: What Was the Real Reason For Change in AT&T Cards? It was written: [stuff about 14 digit random AT&T calling cards deleted] > I believe that the main reason for the change is a cost cutting move > on the part of AT&T. Simple as that; they don't want to pay the RBOC > to share numbers anymore. Anybody at AT&T care to refute or clarify > this "government rule" for me. I hope they save big bucks because > they will probably lose me as a customer. The databases are still being shared. The RBOCs accept the 14 digit random AT&T cards, and AT&T still accepts the RBOC cards, whether or not they're related to your phone number. The big difference is that the other long distance carriers will not have access to the random AT&T cards, although they still have access to the RBOC cards. Steve Forrette, forrette@cory.berkeley.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 Jun 91 14:06:31 -0700 From: Peter Marshall Subject: NETWORK WORLD Article on IXCS and Toll Fraud Monitoring This article by NW's Wash. Bureau Chief was entitled "Long-Haul Carriers May Offer Toll-Fraud Monitoring: Services Would Help Shield Customers from Hackers." According to the NW article, the IXC's are considering offering such services, that would function "by monitoring network activity for suspicious traffic patterns and tipping off users before huge costs would be run up ...." The focus is on PBX users, who, says this article, "have been loathe to report toll fraud because they are embarassed ... or because they have entered into private settlements with carriers that cannot be disclosed." However, the article notes that Pacific Mutual Life Insurance had "asked the FCC to open a proceeding ... to establish guidelines that fairly distribute liability for toll fraud among users, long distance carriers and customer premises equipment manufacturers ..." The article also indicates MCI and AT&T had opposed Pacific Mutual's position and that the Petition for Rulemaking was also filed on behalf of the Securities Industry Assoc., VISA USA and the NY Clearinghouse Assoc. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #456 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa09677; 15 Jun 91 21:49 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab25268; 15 Jun 91 20:16 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa20570; 15 Jun 91 19:11 CDT Date: Sat, 15 Jun 91 18:22:54 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #457 BCC: Message-ID: <9106151822.ab10525@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 15 Jun 91 18:22:45 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 457 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson First Cable TV Firm Enters PCN Phone Test [Teleputing Hotline, P. Marshall] People's Telephone Company Offers Free, Automated Rate Info [Skip Collins] Re: What Was the Real Reason for Change in AT&T Cards? [Ole J. Jacobsen] Telco-Provided Voicemail Systems [Sean Williams] New Cell One (New England) Rates [David E. Sheafer] Telco Depreciation Schedule is Unfair [Mark Terrible] COCOT Regulations With Reference to New NPA and Prefix? [Carl Moore] Wireless Phone Security [Paul Elliott] Seattle Yellow Pages Wanted [Pawel Mario Szymkiewicz] 1991 AT&T Outage (Was SPECIAL REPORT: St. Louis) [Bruce Klopfenstein] More Strange Recorded Messages [Roy Smith] Telephone Keypad For Alphanumerics [Bernie Roehl] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 12 Jun 91 09:15:09 -0700 From: Peter Marshall Subject: First Cable TV Firm Enters PCN Phone Test (from "Teleputing Hotline," 5/30/91) Through an alliance with McCaw Cellular, the U.S. largest cellular phone operator, the #1 cable TV operator, Tele-Communicaations, will test-market Personal Communications Network cellular phone service in Oregon. The two companies envision the service to be more like cellular ... than a cordless telephone. However, it could [be] less expensive than cellular, with fewer features and more limited mobility. Rather than being a competitor to existing cable firms -- McCaw is the largest -- the deal envisions PCN as a low-cost, crippled alternative. ------------------------------ From: Skip Collins Subject: People's Telephone Company Offers Free, Automated Rate Info Date: 13 Jun 91 22:29:56 GMT Organization: JHU/APL, Laurel, MD Upon examining a PTC COCOT at a shopping center in Maryland, I noticed that the instruction card included some small print which said that in order to obtain the rate from that phone to any other number, one could dial *6. Upon doing so, I found that an automated system came online identifying itself as "Rate Star". It gave me several menu choices such as Calling Card rates, dial-1 rates, and collect rates. Then I keyed in a long-distance number and, voila, the nice computer lady told me that my call, from Laurel, Md. to Baltimore would cost $1.21 for the first minute and $.12 for each minute thereafter. This was for a credit card call. The long-distance carrier for the phone was also PTC. Interestingly, while the instruction card said that I had the legal right to use any carrier I wanted to use, no carrier access codes that I tried worked. I did not have the time to fool around much. Automated rate information seems like a service whose time has come. This could alleviate such annoyances as a $20 charge for a two minute call across town. If only all the telcos provided it. Skip Collins, collins@aplcomm.jhuapl.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Jun 91 13:15:00 PDT From: "Ole J. Jacobsen" Subject: Re: What Was the Real Reason for Change in AT&T Cards? I got my new AT&T calling card the other day. I immediately had to call AT&T to find out what line the card pertains to, since the new magic number bears no relation to the old scheme, and AT&T did not have the sense to print "This card is for use with your line 415-550-xxxx" in the printed advisory that follows the card. (I have five lines, some of which are "for business" so I do need to know what calls I am charging to what account). I mentioned the fact that I did not believe this new scheme had anything to do with "government regulations" and the AT&T person responded: "What people on the outside did not know is that AT&T has not been fully divested until now. The new calling card system is the final stage of divestiture as required by law.." I'm not convinced. I think there are two basic reasons for why they did this: 1. Old AT&T cards are now being accepted by other carriers. I have been billed by all sort of outfits from MCI to Joe Random carrier by simply using the good 'ol 10-digit + PIN scheme. AT&T obviously hates this and wants the new "proprietary cards" to secure their revenue. 2. As metioned in the Digest already, with the new cards, billing will be (I presume) handled by AT&T directly and thus no (costly) arrangements with the RBOCs need to be in place. Anybody know how much of a "grace period" they are going to give us with the old cards? Ole J Jacobsen, Editor & Publisher ConneXions--The Interoperability Report Interop, Inc., 480 San Antonio Road, Suite 100, Mountain View, CA 94040, Phone: (415) 941-3399 FAX: (415) 949-1779 Email: ole@csli.stanford.edu Direct: (415) 962-2515 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Jun 91 03:34 GMT From: Sean Williams <0004715238@mcimail.com> Subject: Telco-Provided Voicemail Systems The Moderator writes: > One of the nicest features of telco-operated voice mail is the stutter > dialtone which advises the subscriber of new messages waiting. United Telephone provides a voicemail service called "MessageLine". When I ordered my service, I asked about the ability of the system to notify me of new messages. Stutter dialtone is not provided by United, so they programmed the MessageLine to call my house whenever I receive a message. The phone rings three times whenever I receive a message. (This could also be programmed to call your pager, or cellphone, etc., so long as the call is local.) And yes, the outdial/paging feature can be toggled on/off by calling your mailbox and entering a two-digit command. It was confusing to the rest of my family, however, to receive calls which had no real caller on the other side (ie: the voicemail doesn't talk when it calls the house.) so I set up a distinctive ringing number and had the voicemail reprogrammed to call it. Everyone is happy now, so long as I turn off the paging feature at night ... > Also, telco *could* now provide 'programmable forward on busy / no answer' > if they wanted to. Ameritech Mobile....allows me to toggle 'forward on > busy / no answer' as I wish; AND program it to any number, anywhere, but > Illinois Bell (my hardwired service) insists that this feature can > only be programmed in the CO on a work order... United Telephone's "Call-Forward/Busy" and "Call-Forward/No Answer" are two separate services, individually billed. I can turn on one, the other, or both. (It's sort of dumb to turn on both of them, though, because the way it's programmed "Call-Forward/Busy" overrides "Call-Forward/No answer" if they're both on at the same time. You can use only one at a time.) Incidentally, Rochester Telephone provides the service you describe above. Destination numbers for both Call-Forward/Busy and Call-Forward/No Answer can be changed at any time, and you can also change the number of rings Call-Forward/No Answer waits for before forwarding the caller. Sean E. Williams | seanwilliams@mcimail.com Spectrum Telecommunications | "I own Spectrum, so I'm 333 Prospect Avenue / PO Box 227 | really speaking for myself!" Duncannon, PA 17020-0227 USA | voicemail: +1 717 957 8127 ------------------------------ From: David E. Sheafer Reply-To: nin15b0b@merrimack.edu Subject: New Cell One (New England) Rates Date: 12 Jun 91 10:52:10 GMT Organization: Merrimack College, No. Andover, MA Cellular One - New England recently reduced new rates: plan monthly fee inclusive minutes peak off peak Leisure $29 none .50 free Premium 61 60 peak .43 free deluxe 76 100 peak .42 free after 300 min .35 economy 21 none .44 .29 professional 46 60 .43 .28 executive 61 100 .42 .27 after 300 min .35 In addition all plans include basic message plus and there is a Roamer administration of $2.00/month (if you roam Cell One will charge you $2.00 in addition to the other carriers charge doesn't sound like a good deal.) I called NYNEX to see if they are coming out with new rates, and they said they were waiting DPU approval and expected to know by 6/13/91. They wouldn't say what their rates might be. David E. Sheafer internet: nin15b0b@merrimack.edu or uucp: samsung!hubdub!nin15b0b GEnie: D.SHEAFER Cleveland Freenet: ap345 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Jun 91 04:35:15 -0400 From: westmark!mole-end!mat@uunet.uu.net Subject: Telco Depreciation Schedule is Unfair >> Also, telco *could* now >> provide 'programmable forward on busy / no answer' if they wanted to. > This isn't available on all Ameritech switches (especially those nice > 1A ESS(tm) switches). Ameritech Mobile's oldest switch is probably > two years old; they ditched all the original switches. > Try to talk the regulators into allowing the wholesale replacement of > all those old(er) switches!!! This is a MAJOR consideration. Telco equipment has to be depreciated over a 15 to 20 year period. It all used to be 20 years until AT&T took some senators and House representatives into its factories and said `Can you tell the difference between the telephone circuit boards and the computer circuit boards? Then why can't we depreciate them on the same schedules?' They didn't get 5-year depreciation, but they got 15 year depreciation on some things. What this means is that the last fellow into the market on a given technology cycle has the advantage of the better, cheaper, more capable equipment and nobody else can afford to upgrade. (This man's opinions are his own.) From mole-end Mark Terribile ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Jun 91 10:06:18 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: COCOT Regulations With Reference to New NPA and Prefix I just got a message about some COCOTs not recognizing area codes 903 and 908, both of which have been fully cut over. Do the proposed or current COCOT regulations require up-to-date information for new area codes and prefixes, or did I overlook something in skimming over the mail? Failure of a system to recognize a new area code or prefix can be quite annoying, and my office (in eastern Maryland) is getting a new area code before this year is out. Over the years, I have heard (in this Digest and elsewhere) about problems in recognizing the following: N0X/N1X prefixes in Los Angeles area before 1980 (that's when New York City started getting them); 301-850 at or near the Baltimore-Washington International Airport; 202-994 in Washington, DC; 508 area code in Massachusetts. ------------------------------ From: Paul Elliott x225 Subject: Wireless Phone Security Date: 14 Jun 91 18:07:35 GMT Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA We have been discussing the issue of "wireless eavesdropping" on cordless and cellular phone conversations -- here is a product announcement that looks like it might provide an easy solution for the cordless phone problem: From _Electronic Engineering Times_ June 10, 1991, page 20: (heavily paraphrased) "One-Chip Voice Security" A Low-cost, single-chip secure voice system, which can be fitted into telephones, cellular handsets and other communications equipment, has been developed by Micro Code (Cambridge) Ltd. ..uses Sierra Semiconductor's CMOS technology... ..duplex voice-band encoder/decoder... ..integration of analog and digital, including configuration EEPROM... ..chip will be made by Sierra in Singapore, target price of $25... ..variable-carrier frequency inversion, more than 10exp9 code settings... ..single 5V supply... [end of excerpt] Here's another development I spotted in _Microtimes_ June 10 1991, page 22, "Realizable Fantasies" by Jim Warren (a monthly column): [talking about crypto-faxes, and then:] "Fujitsu may be the first offering a cordless consumer telephone that scrambles communications between the handset and the base-station (Azet-R10)." [end of excerpt] I wonder if the Fujitsu phone will use the Micro Code chip? All this is kinda disappointing, since a good friend of mine has been trying to develop an encrypted handset/base-station. I *told* him that it would just be a matter of time before the big boys (like Fujitsu) introduced a similar product, but hope springs eternal, and all that. Definitely products whose time has come. Maybe now we can get the legislature to stop the ridiculous "anti-scanner" type of regulations [author's editorial comment there]. I wonder if Congress will demand a "back door" into these schemes? Paul Elliott - DSC Optilink - {uunet, pyramid, tekbspa}!optilink!elliott ------------------------------ From: Pawel Mario Szymkiewicz Subject: Seattle Yellow Pages Wanted Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1991 22:40:59 GMT I have an urgent need for the Seattle, Wash. telephone directory, i.e. the famous Yellow Pages (the one from April '91, preferably - I've seen it in my library, but of course can't take it home.) It's free for Washington residents so if you could email me we could arrange for a shipment. Please contact me as soon as possible. (e-mail to mrpaolo@wpi.wpi.edu) Paul (electronically known as mrpaolo@wpi.wpi.edu) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Jun 91 09:35:14 -0400 From: Bruce Klopfenstein Subject: 1991 AT&T Outage (Was Re: SPECIAL REPORT: St. Louis) > Jan. 4., 1991. An AT&T construction crew in New Jersey mistakenly > cracks a single fiber-optic cable. The cable is the width of a > person's thumb. The crack halts 60 percent of AT&T's long-distance > calls to New York City. Aviation control centers are paralyzed, > causing gridlock in the skies throughout the Northeast. I heard at a conference that this is not true. The actual reason was a bug in a software upgrade to a telco switch that shut down other switches. Was this ever covered on this list? Thanks. [Moderator's Note: We had mention of it here, but the cable failure was the reason given. Your allegation is the first time I recall hearing any other reason for the outage earlier this year. PAT] ------------------------------ From: roy@alanine.phri.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) Subject: More Strange Recorded Messages Organization: Public Health Research Institute, New York City Date: Thu, 13 Jun 91 14:55:17 GMT Here's another good one. I just called the 800 number for a well known manufacturer of Unix-based graphics systems, which I got from 800 directory assistance, and got: "For your convenience, the number you have reached, 800-338-wxyz, has been changed. The new number is 800-676-wxyz ...". They changed the number for my convenience??? Sounds to me more like they changed long distance carriers and their new carrier didn't serve the same 800 exchange as the old one (they kept the same last four digits). Roy Smith, Public Health Research Institute 455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016 roy@alanine.phri.nyu.edu - OR - {att,cmcl2,rutgers,hombre}!phri!roy [Moderator's Note: Someone I know here has all non-pub service except for one published number which is picked up by an answering machine at all times. His outgoing message says, "For your convenience, this line is answered 24 hours daily by this answering system ..." :) PAT] ------------------------------ From: Bernie Roehl Subject: Telephone Keypad For Alphanumerics Organization: University of Waterloo Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1991 16:57:25 GMT I'm working on a project in which touch-tone users will have to enter names, addresses and so on. Is there a standard way of encoding these? (One scheme that pops to mind would be "key,position" (for L you would type 53 since 'L' is on the 5 key in the third position). Please respond by email as I'm not a regular reader of comp.dcom.telecom; I'll post a summary to the net of whatever I receive. Thanks in advance... Bernie Roehl, University of Waterloo Electrical Engineering Dept Mail: broehl@sunee.waterloo.edu OR broehl@sunee.UWaterloo.ca BangPath: {allegra,decvax,utzoo,clyde}!watmath!sunee!broehl Voice: (519) 885-1211 x 2607 [work] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #457 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa12668; 15 Jun 91 23:04 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa32226; 15 Jun 91 21:23 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa25268; 15 Jun 91 20:11 CDT Date: Sat, 15 Jun 91 19:11:23 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #458 BCC: Message-ID: <9106151911.ab27175@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 15 Jun 91 19:11:06 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 458 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Automatic Redialing Regulations [Toby Nixon] An Incredible Cellular Phone Deal [Mike Andrews] Cellular Phone for Sale (Novatel 8305) [David E. Sheafer] Home Business Services [Jeff Sicherman] Tokyo Moving to Eight Digit Phone Numbers [Jiro Nakamura] Summary: India Data Link [Arun Baheti] AT&T Special Rates to U.K. (Apr 28) Incorrect Billing [Ravinder Bhumbla] DID Power Fail Arrangements [Vance Shipley] Re: Busying Out a Phone With a Resistor [John Higdon] Re: German Telephone Unification [Charles Buckley] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Toby Nixon Subject: Automatic Redialing Regulations Date: 12 Jun 91 19:42:29 GMT Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA There have been a few messages posted here about government restrictions on automatic redialing equipment. Since I've been active in standards work in this area recently, I thought I'd pass along what I know. For several years, US and Canadian regulations in this area have differed. Recently, the FCC and DOC decided to get together and harmonize FCC Part 68 and CS-03 (Canadian equivalent) so there would be one consistent standard for North America (making life much easier for manufacturers). Telecommunications Industry Association technical subcommittee TR-41.9 studied the issue of automatic redialing, and recently submitted a recommendation to the FCC on what the harmonized regulation should be, which is basically this (but I'm doing this off the top of my head ...): Automatic redialing equipment may dial a single number TWICE during any ONE HOUR period. However, if the equipment is capable of detecting a busy signal, it may dial up to an additional 13 times during the one hour period so long as it detects busy on each attempt. Manual intervention is permitted to restart the cycle -- meaning that if you hit the "redial" button again, you can basically automatically redial forever. What the agencies and committees don't want is a completely unattended system dialing again and again all night and keeping some poor old lady awake. An important note: the proposal specifically exempts emergency alarm systems (such as burglar alarms calling a central monitoring center), and equipment that is under external computer control (such as modems). Yes, I did have a hand in that last part! The reason is that we did NOT want to get the FCC into the business of regulating computer SOFTWARE, and these days it is primarily the SOFTWARE that does the redialing, not the FCC Part 68-registered equipment. Toby Nixon, Principal Engineer | Voice +1-404-840-9200 Telex 151243420 Hayes Microcomputer Products Inc. | Fax +1-404-447-0178 CIS 70271,404 P.O. Box 105203 | UUCP uunet!hayes!tnixon AT&T !tnixon Atlanta, Georgia 30348 USA | Internet hayes!tnixon@uunet.uu.net ------------------------------ From: Mike Andrews Subject: An Incredible Cellular Phone Deal Organization: Chinet - Chicago Public Access UNIX Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1991 02:37:50 GMT On Sunday of last week I spotted an ad in {The Chicago Tribune} for an unusual cellular phone deal: "Dads and Grads! Buy a Motorola phone and get a Motorola bag phone free!" Triangle Mobile Electronics and Phones Plus "Ameritech Mobile 5-Star dealers" offered to install a Motorola car phone for $99, a bag phone for $149, a portable handheld phone for $299, or a flip phone for $499 with each including a free Motorola bag phone. All that was required was a six month Ameritech Mobile service activation for each phone. I called and asked if everything was included, expecting that the required antenna would be priced at $200, but I was assured that $99 was the full installed price. On Monday, I had the Motorola 250 car phone installed at the Triangle store in Lincolnwood. I planned to put CP-250 the "carry phone" in my wife's car. The phones were identical internally and carried Ameritech labels. I watched carefully as I signed the forms, waiting for the catch on the deal but there was nothing unexpected. There is a $35 activation fee to Ameritech that is billed with the first service bill. I signed a contract agreeing to pay the dealer $300 each if I cancelled the Ameritech service before the six months were up. The total paid to the dealer was $105 with tax. The manager of the Triangle store had an interesting observation. They had been selling this phone at $499 just six months ago. It sold incredibly well for that price. Then lowered the price to $299 and sales actually slowed. At this $99 price with free bag phone the sales were almost dead. It seems that nobody wants to buy a "cheap" phone! Most customers were skeptical like me and were looking for hidden charges. At the same time I was buying mine other customers were buying a Gold Star phone for $99 without the free bag phone. I suppose it doesn't make sense to commit to the expense of two cellular phone numbers if you only need one phone. I think this is an incredible deal in any case. The offer ends on June 18th. Some dealers are advertising "free" phones on the radio, but I'm sure they will charge for installtion. I wonder if the dealer gets a continuing commission on your service usage. If his end is only $300, I don't see how it could be profitable enough. BTW, My phone seems to have a intermittent quirk where it thinks it is out of the service and indicates that it's in Roam mode when it is actually well within the service area. The first time that happened was right in my own driveway where the bag phone worked fine. I had to move the car to clear it up. When the same thing happened while on the road recently, I powered off/on the phone to clear it. I'm planning to have the phone serviced to check the receive sensitivity. Does anybody else have any experience with this phone? Is this problem typical? ------------------------------ From: David E. Sheafer Reply-To: nin15b0b@merrimack.edu Subject: Cellular Phone for Sale (Novatel 8305) Date: 14 Jun 91 09:29:58 GMT Organization: Merrimack College, No. Andover, MA I have recently purchased a new cell phone and have the following for sale. A Novatel 8305 Transportable Cellular Telephone Bag Phone. It has cigarette lighter cable and rubber ducky antenna. (The antenna should be replaced.) Programming information will be provided. The features are: 9 number memory quick store quick recall a-b system selection touch tone from keypad bell,earpiece, and speaker volume control mute handsfree dialing (doesn't have handsfree speakerphone) electronic lock redial call retry Please send any offers or questions to the following. Include shipping in your offer. David E. Sheafer internet: nin15b0b@merrimack.edu or uucp: samsung!hubdub!nin15b0b GEnie: D.SHEAFER Cleveland Freenet: ap345 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 Jun 91 00:15:37 -0700 From: Jeff Sicherman Subject: Home Business Services Organization: Cal State Long Beach Speaking of Pac Bell (well, we are now), a few months ago they announced a set of business-like services that would be made available to home addresses at something like residential rates. The purpose was to support home businesses and get some additional revenue without scaring off the customers with the business rates. Has any subscribed to one of these accounts yet? Do they try and switch you over to true business service after getting their mitts on you? Jeff Sicherman ------------------------------ From: Jiro Nakamura Subject: Tokyo Moving to Eight Digit Phone Numbers Organization: Shaman Consulting Date: Sat, 15 Jun 1991 16:42:50 GMT Hi - Has anyone noticed that Tokyo is now fully converted to eight digit numbers? I recently phoned a friend in Japan (I'm in Ithaca) at +81 3 701-xxxx and got a hurried message that the number was now +81 3 3 701-xxxx. It wasn't until I phoned him up that I realized that the area code for Tokyo had not switched to 33 (my immediate assumption) but that all the old seven digit numbers in Tokyo now had a 3 prepended to them: +81 3 3701-xxxx. As you all know, since about last year, all new numbers in Tokyo have been eight digits with a 5 in front of them: +81 3 5xxx-xxxx. But I didn't know that they had switched to all eight digits now. Jiro Nakamura jiro@shaman.com Shaman Consulting (607) 256-5125 VOICE (607) 277-1440 FAX/Data ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 Jun 1991 14:27 CDT From: Arun Baheti Subject: Summary: India Data Link I recently posted an article to TELECOM Digest requesting information on data links to India, preferably internet. I received approximately 20 responses with possible solutions, and about another 20 requesting copies of the information. I want to thank all of you who replied. I was surprised by the number of people who share my interest. A summary with the most practical solutions last, minus credits and duplications to save space (and Patrick's eyes), follows: o Working out an arrangement with ERNET, the commercial/ educational network run by the government. A contact for information and site lists there is anil@shakti.ernet.in This would be a high cost (but ideal) solution. If, however, you have a friend at one of these sites... o The National Center for Software Technology in Bombay maintains an Internet link which you may be able to access. o There is a magazine called "Telematics India" and another called "Asia Technology" that might help. o Two Telebit Trailblazer error correcting modems. o MCI Mail; contact Atoosa Rezai <0004538383@mcimail.com> for information regarding MCI Mail to India. o US Sprint Mail; contact 800-767-4529 for information. Our contact there is J. Keith Higgins, but you should be able to get information from anyone. My thanks again to all who replied. Please keep me posted of any new information you come accross. Arun Baheti sabahe@mac.cc.macalstr.edu arun_baheti.elsegundo@xerox.com ------------------------------ From: Ravinder Bhumbla Subject: AT&T Special Rates to U.K. (Apr 28) Incorrect Billing Date: 15 Jun 91 20:59:06 GMT Organization: University of California, San Diego On April 28, AT&T had a promotion for William Shakespeare's birthday and advertised that calls made to U.K. that day would be billed at the economy rate. When I got my bill this month, the calls had been billed at the standard rate. A call to AT&T International Assistance (800-874-4000) and AT&T Customer Service (800-222-0300) cleared that up. If you made a call to U.K. that day, you might want to check your bill to make sure you were billed correctly. {Standard disclaimers apply} Ravinder Bhumbla rbhumbla@ucsd.edu U. of California, San Diego ------------------------------ From: Vance Shipley Subject: DID Power Fail Arrangements Organization: SwitchView Date: Sat, 15 Jun 1991 16:42:34 GMT Installing DID circuits was one of my favourite parts of PBX installs. Negotiating with the Bell installer as to what would be provided and how was highly amusing (and not a job for a craftsman who was not knowledgable and confident). It was often a trying affair to actually get the DTMF dialing arrangement I had ordered, the Bell technician insisting that dial pulse was "how it works". Many of the installers had had no experience with DID and were not certain exactly how they worked and consequently could not test them. I remember trying to convince one guy that I was to provide the battery on the loop and not the CO. He was only convinced after talking at length with his counterpart in the central office. But the hardest task was always getting the power fail circuits provisioned. With conventional trunking the trunks are usually switched to single line sets for emergency answering positions. With DID the battery for the loop is provided by the PBX so the circuits themselves will not work if the PBX goes down. In order to continue service calls must be routed over other conventional trunks to the customer premises. If this cannot be done then the calls should be routed to intercept in the CO to alert callers that service is temporarily unavailable. The CO would be signaled to switch to alternate routing by a seperate lead which was either normally grounded and opened under power fail condition or vice versa. These alternate routing arrangements were part of the DID service and did not require any extra charges but actually getting them in was a job in itself. This leads me to one of my stories of devious ingenuity. My boss had sold a PBX to a company and in his usual style had not confirmed that the switch could actually do what he had promised it would. The customer wanted DID to allow callers to reach people in their offices after hours. During the day the same numbers would reach the attendant. I just could not get the switch set up in this way. I let my boss sweat over this for a week and then told him how we could do it. We would trigger the power fail switch for the DID circuits whenever the attendant was manning the console! This caused the calls to the DID lines to be routed over the conventional trunks and terminate on the console. I was not for this plan but it did work and got him out of trouble. It scored me some points also :'>. I was always amazed though that Bell never noticed the frequency that these "power fails" occured (every weekday from 9 to 5). Vance Shipley vances@xenitec vances@ltg ..uunet!watmath!xenitec!vances ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 Jun 91 02:37 PDT From: John Higdon Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Busying Out a Phone With a Resistor lairdb@crash.cts.com (Laird P. Broadfield) writes: > Yes, John, but as we all know, you're served by a combination of an > SXS and Ernestine on a cord-board. (Seriously though, folks, > Pathetic*Bell really *is* nearly as pathetic as John makes them out to > be.) > 'Fraid though that quite a bit of CO equipment does indeed care about > load on the line, as I recall a 5ESS (or was that a DMS? fuzzy > memory) will drop dialtone *and* all but minimal battery on sensing a > full short. But as I may have mentioned, Ernestine is getting the boot in September and will be replaced by a 5ESS. This is to prepare for the introduction of CLASS services in the SF Bay Area in October. Also, I have ordered five more lines so that I can experiment with some of the features. (For those of you counting, this brings my total to fifteen.) In any event, I will most certainly try shorting one or two of them out and see if they come right back. (Although, you may be right; I remember having to call PB once to get a 5ESS line restored after it had been inadvertantly shorted at a broadcast remote location.) If you are correct about having to have a line manually restored after shorting it, this seems to be a very grave weakness in an otherwise capable switch, no? John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 Jun 91 14:47:11 PDT From: Charles Buckley Subject: Re: German Telephone Unification scb@cs.brown.edu (Spyros C. Bartsocas) wrote: > The reason is that the "Eastern portion of the Federal Republic of > Germany" is still called the same way it was before it merged with the > "Western portion". I suspect that the dialing rates are different > too. AT&T's Reach out world plan only covers the Western Portion > (country code 49). I had thought so too, and I don't know about Reach Out World, but on my recent bill, normal calls of the same length to the two zones were billed at exactly the same rate. Before unifacation, I remember this not being true. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #458 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa15309; 16 Jun 91 0:17 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa24310; 15 Jun 91 22:30 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab32226; 15 Jun 91 21:23 CDT Date: Sat, 15 Jun 91 20:29:56 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #459 BCC: Message-ID: <9106152029.ab29439@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 15 Jun 91 20:29:33 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 459 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Well Len, Was it Worth a Prison Term? [Mike Godwin] Re: Well Len, Was it Worth a Prison Term? [Jim Thomas] Re: Well Len, Was it Worth a Prison Term? [Mark Brown] Re: Well Len, Was it Worth a Prison Term? [Jim Youll] Re: Well Len, Was it Worth a Prison Term? [Clint Fleckenstein] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 15 Jun 91 11:54:24 -0400 From: Mike Godwin Subject: Re: Well Len, Was it Worth a Prison Term? Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation I have to say that in all the postings I have ever seen Pat Townson write, his posting about Len Rose is the most shameful and morally indefensible. I find it incredibly ironic that Townson, after all this time, seems to have so little sense of what Len Rose actually *did* and of what he didn't do. Let's detail some of Pat's many, many factual and moral errors: In article telecom@eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Moderator) writes: > The Len Rose saga came to an end this past week when a federal judge > considered the circumstances involved and chose to impose punishment > by placing Len in the custody of the Attorney General of the United > States, or his authorized representative for a period of one year. The judge didn't decide to give Rose a year in prison. That was a product of the plea agreement between the government and Rose's attorney. > Speaking of the kids, I wonder if Len has explained all this to them > yet. I wonder if they know, or are old enough to understand their dad > is going to prison, and why ... "Dear children, "Your father is going to prison because he possessed and transmitted unlicensed source code. Hundreds of other Unix consultants have done the same thing, but I was targeted because I wrote an article for {Phrack Magazine} about how to modify login.c for hacking purposes, and that article, while never published, was found in a search of Craig Neidorf's room. The prosecutor and the phone company tried to put Neidorf into prison, but when their distortions came to light they dropped the case. They searched my system for the same E911 document, but when they didn't find it, they decided to find something else to prosecute me for -- namely, the unlicensed Unix source code. "Children, lots of people, including Patrick Townson, will call me a hacker and say I got convicted because of breakins into other people's computers. Patrick Townson lies if he says this. I never broke in to anyone's computer. I was always given access to systems by sysadmins who were authorized to give me that access. "My children, as I spend that time in prison, be aware that some people will, without shame, distort the facts of my case in order to use me as a cheap moral lesson. If you must hate them, don't hate them because of what they say, but because they have chosen to be hypocritical. Hate them because they have friends who possess unlicensed source code, but they've never reported those friends to the U.S. Attorney. Hate them because they make blanket condemnations without bothering to learn the facts." > I wonder if it was all worth it ... if Len had it to do over again if > he would do the same things he did before, or if he might consider the > consequences more carefully. Have you asked this question of all Unix consultants who possess unlicensed source code, Pat? No, I didn't think so. > If you don't think (c) is still possible, consider the recent thread > in comp.org.eff.talk -- yes, I know, *where else* !! -- on the student > who got suspended from school for two quarters after downloading and > distributing the system password file on the machine he had been > entrusted to use. The fact that the debate could go on endlessly for > message after message actually questioning what, if anything the chap > did wrong tells us plenty about the mentality and 'social respsonsi- > bility' of EFF devotees, but that is a whole new topic in itself. This is a particularly contemptible slam at EFF, which is as concerned with your rights as it is of those who are self-proclaimed hackers. EFF has never approved of unauthorized computer intrusion, and we have never doubted that the Georgia student who distributed the password file was wrong to do so. Pat, up until this point, I regarded you as something of a friend. I've spoken to you on the phone, asked for your help, and been willing to offer mine. But this whole paragraph about "EFF devotees" convinces me that you really have no moral center, and no ability to distinguish between what some people write and what other people believe. I would never dream of attributing every opinion posted in your newsgroup to "comp.dcom.telecom devotees." Of course, that's because I actually consider the moral consequences of labelling people. > The point is, some of us are simply getting very tired of the > break-ins, the fraudulent messages, the fact that in order to telnet > to a different site we can no longer do so direct from dialup servers > without a lot of rig-a-ma-role because computer (ab)users have stolen > all the trust which used to exist between sites, and the increasing > scarcity of 'guest' accounts on various sites because the sysadmins > are tired of being eaten alive with fraudulent and destructive usage. Len Rose never did a breakin, and never took any action that limited the use of telnet or guest accounts. Neither has EFF. > Users had better wise up to one fact: the federal government is going > to continue to crack down on abusers of the net and this media. And > please, none of your hysterical freedom of speech arguments in my > mail, thank you. No one gives an iota what you write about, but when > you get your hands in the password file, rip off root or wheel > accounts, run programs deceptive to other users designed to rip off > their accounts also and generally behave like a two-bit burglar or > con-artist, expect to get treated like one when you get caught. Who is the "you" in this paragraph, Pat? EFF? You were just talking about EFF. Has anyone at EFF *ever* said that "freedom of speech" encompasses breakins? No. It is your contemptible distortion to attribute that view to us. > And you *will* get caught. Then you can go sit and commiserate with > Len Rose. If Len Rose has half the brain I think he has, he will > come out of the penitentiary a better person than when he went in. > The penitentiary can be, and frequently is a therapeutic experience, > at least for the people who think about what it was that caused them > to get there in the first place. What do you think caused Len Rose to get there, Pat? > I feel very sorry about what has happened to Len Rose. This seems two-faced after you've spent a whole posting gloating about it. > I feel worse about the circumstances his wife and children are in. > But the socially irresponsible behavior (which some people who call > themselves 'socially responsible' seem to condone or wink at) has to > stop. Now. First of all, there is no statute outlawing "social irresponsibility." If there were, you would have committed a felony with your distortions in this posting. > A US Attorney involved in prosecuting computer crime once said, "users > need an example when they log in of what to expect when they screw up > while on line ..." Indeed we do ... and Len Rose will serve as such. Is the U.S. Attorney Bill Cook, Pat? The AUSA who cost Craig Neidorf $100,000 because he didn't know that the E911 document was not a program, and that the information in it was publicly available and not a trade secret? Bill Cook has never been held accountable for what he did to Craig Neidorf. > And a knowledgeable sysadmin who is quietly cooperating with the > government tells me a federal grand jury is to returning > another cycle of indictments. Need I say more? Yes, you need to say more. This time around there are forces in the community that, unlike you, will act to keep both the government and the phone companies honest. > So Len, *was* it all worth it? Len no doubt thanks you for the charity you have shown him in kicking him when he is down. Was it worth it, Pat, to take still another slam at Len, and to alienate people who are working to preserve *your* rights in the process? Mike Godwin, mnemonic@eff.org (617) 864-1550 EFF, Cambridge, MA ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 Jun 91 01:15 CDT From: TK0JUT1@mvs.cso.niu.edu Subject: Well Len, Was it Worth a Prison Term? The Moderator's comments in TELECOM Digest #453 giving his view of the Len Rose sentencing are disingenuous. After some moralizing about Len, the Moderator leaps to examples of hackers and other intruders, then adduces these examples as justification for Len's sentencing. Len *WAS NOT* busted for hacking, but for possession of AT&T source code and for sending it across state lines. Check the evidence and charges. He did not send this stuff to a "hacker" in Illinois. Rich Andrews, the Illinois recipient, was not accused of hacking. Two programs, including login.c were sent to {Phrack}, but the {Phrack} editor was never accused of being, nor is there any evidence that he ever was, a hacker. And, contrary to another post in the same issue of TCD, there is no evidence that the programs Len possessed or sent were ever used in criminal activity. Both public and non-public court records and documents indicate that the issue was explicitly one of unauthorized possession of proprietary software. Counter-assertions by Len's critics will not change this. There is little disagreement that Len may have acted unwisely. The question is whether his actions justify a prison sentence, and to my mind the answer is an emphatic *NO!*. It is absurd to imply that somehow Len failed to learn from a "crackdown." The case was the beginning of the so-called "crackdowns," and his actions are no more a message to "hackers" and "phreaks" than double-parking tickets are to auto thieves. There are six levels of prisons in the federal system, with level-1 being the most minimum of the bunch. Len will most likely be sentenced to one of these as a first-time, minor, non-violent offender. But, despite the term "country club prison," there is no such thing as an easy-time prison. Contrary to the Moderator's comment, prisons are rarely "therapeutic" places. I've been in and around them since 1980, and the number of offenders coming out the better because of their prison experience are few. Len's ten month stay and subsequent probation period will cost the tax-payers upwards of $30,000. There are alternatives to incarceration that are less costly while simultaneously serving the ends of the need for sanctions. Even if we assume that Len is guilty of all the charges invented by his critics, his incarceration is simply not worth it for society. To answer the Moderator's question about whether "it was worth it:" No, an unjust sentence never is. Nor is anything served by exaggeration and hyperbole that, in this case, attempts to claim otherwise. Jim Thomas Sociology / Criminal Justice Northern Illinois University [Moderator's Note: Jim Thomas is one of the Moderators of Computer Underground Digest, a mailing list on the internet with roots going back to 'hacker' discussions in TELECOM Digest in the past. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Mark Brown Subject: Well Len, Was it Worth a Prison Term? Date: Sat, 15 Jun 91 11:27:06 CST Patrick: Yes, Len Rose deserves jail, based upon what I know. > The fact that the debate could go on endlessly for > message after message actually questioning what, if anything the chap > did wrong tells us plenty about the mentality and 'social respsonsi- > bility' of EFF devotees, but that is a whole new topic in itself. There is no cause so right that one cannot find a fool who believes in it. I respectfully submit that you are way off base here. Cheers, DISCLAIMER: My views may be, and often are, independent of IBM official policy. Mark Brown IBM PSP Austin, TX. (512) 823-3741 VNET: MBROWN@AUSVMQ MAIL: mbrown@testsys.austin.ibm.com ------------------------------ From: Jim Youll Subject: Re: Well Len, Was it Worth a Prison Term? Date: 15 Jun 91 16:32:21 GMT Reply-To: Jim Youll Organization: Bowling Green State University B.G., Oh. In article telecom@eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Moderator) writes: > The Len Rose saga came to an end this past week when a federal judge [etc...]> [... discussion of impoverished wife, kids] > Users had better wise up to one fact: the federal government is going Oh, thank God. I feel much better knowing that the feds are going to continue their wholly uninformed pursuit of people committing crimes the feds don't even understand. Maybe you have forgotten Steve Jackson Games. I haven't. > to continue to crack down on abusers of the net and this media. And > please, none of your hysterical freedom of speech arguments in my > mail, thank you. None here. > And you *will* get caught. Then you can go sit and commiserate with > Len Rose. If Len Rose has half the brain I think he has, he will come > out of the penitentiary a better person than when he went in. The > penitentiary can be, and frequently is a therapeutic experience, at ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Bull!!!!!!!!!! Male-male gang rape can *LEAD* to therapy, is maybe what you mean here... > least for the people who think about what it was that caused them to > get there in the first place. > I feel very sorry about what has happened to Len Rose. I feel worse > about the circumstances his wife and children are in. But the > socially irresponsible behavior (which some people who call themselves > 'socially responsible' seem to condone or wink at) has to stop. Now. > And a knowledgeable sysadmin who is quietly cooperating with the > government tells me a federal grand jury is to returning > another cycle of indictments. Need I say more? Yeah, you might mention that the grand juries generally haven't the slightest idea what a computer is, let alone a computer-oriented crime. I'm not invoking any of the free-speech or other arguments and don't intend to, but when law enforcement makes a mockery of justice as it has in many, many computer-crime cases, and when we see corporations inflate their alleged losses by factors of a hundred or a thousand, then something is terribly wrong, and simply focusing on the vicious pursuit of real or alleged criminals just serves to draw attention away from the very real problems caused by runaway egos of prosecutors. If I had to analyze the nerds who come up with the loss figures, I'd say they're trying for a big number to please their superiors and to gain fame . A two million dollar crime that you stopped looks a hell of a lot better than a $200 crime. People who are not computer- literate will generally believe what they're told by "experts". (Well, true of any field). > So Len, *was* it all worth it? Your compassion for your fellow man overwhelms me. Sure, Higdon goes after an outfit that makes its *entire profit* entrapping and prosecuting people who may not have committed a crime at all (anyone who has access to a telephone and incorrect information can dial a 950- number, for cryin' out loud). Shows that they are rude, incompetent. I see a direct parallel in the prosecution and entrapment of people in the current "crackdown" on computer crime. It's a government fad and in its wake are going to be a lot of innocent victims, and I'm not just talking about wives and children. Disclaimer: Messages originating from this address are mechanically generated. Management assumes no responsibility for the contents thereof. Jim Youll, aka jyoull@andy.bgsu.edu, 419/354-2110 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 Jun 91 18:30:03 -0500 From: Clint Fleckenstein Subject: Re: Well Len, Was it Worth a Prison Term? Organization: North Dakota Higher Ed Computing Network Sorry to ask a stupid question, but what did he do? :) It's been a while. I got in a lot of trouble on the net myself back in 1987, and got bounced out of school. Clint Fleckenstein DoD #5150 fleckens@plains.nodak.edu [Moderator's Note: What Len Rose was *convicted* of doing was being in possession of AT&T computer source code illegally, and transporting the code across state lines. And Al Capone was sent to prison for failure to pay his income tax. Would you care to discuss your case with us here? Thanks to all who wrote me on this issue; I've got more articles in the queue to continue this thread tomorrow, and will summarize a rebuttal of my own, also probably tomorrow space permitting. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #459 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa17348; 16 Jun 91 1:17 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab09806; 15 Jun 91 23:38 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab24310; 15 Jun 91 22:30 CDT Date: Sat, 15 Jun 91 21:44:35 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #460 BCC: Message-ID: <9106152144.ac18147@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 15 Jun 91 21:44:11 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 460 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Len Rose Sent to Prison [Craig Neidorf] Re: Well Len, Was it Worth a Prison Term? [John Richard Bruni] Re: Well Len, Was it Worth a Prison Term? [Owen M. Hartnett] Re: Fighting Phone Hackers in SoCal [Jeff Sicherman] Re: Fighting Phone Hackers in SoCal [John Higdon] Re: Fighting Phone Hackers in SoCal [Nick Sayer] Re: Does a National Phonebook Exist? [Don Froula] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 15 Jun 91 10:54:22 CDT From: Craig Neidorf Subject: Re: Len Rose Sent to Prison In TELECOM Digest, Volume 11 : Issue 453, Scott Dorsey writes: > In article bill@eedsp.gatech.edu > writes: >> BALTIMORE (AP) -- A computer hacker has been sentenced to a year >> and a day in prison for stealing information from American Telephone & >> Telegraph and its subsidiary Bell Laboratories. >> Leonard Rose Jr., 32, an unemployed computer consultant, pleaded >> guilty in March to one count of sending AT&T source codes via computer >> to a hacker in Illinois, and a similar wire fraud charge involving a >> Chicago hacker. > He did indeed send a copy of the System V login source code to > someone who may have used it in the commission of a crime. Who is this person that you believe he sent the System V login source code to that may have used it in the commission of a crime? >> The judge did not order restitution to AT&T because Rose has what >> one of his attornies called "a negative net worth." > This is indeed true. He did not have such a condition until > spending huge amounts of money for defense. Speaking as someone who knows what really happened to Len and how the system really treats a criminal defendant, I will inform you of a couple of things. Len Rose did not spend huge amounts on his defense. When Rose was first raided by the Secret Service in March 1990, the agents seized all of his computers and everything related (and a lot of things unrelated). They effectively deprived him of his livelihood as a private Unix consultant. They had their reasons and I'm not going to argue about those. However, Len had little money to begin with and was already deep into debt before these incidents happened. He lost his house and his truck. Len Rose had a court appointed attorney for a while and there are some things you should know about how that works. You can only get court appointed counsel if you cannot afford an attorney and you must prove this to the court by bringing in all of your financial files. Later attornies like Sheldon Zenner and Jane Macht were paid for by friends of Len Rose and there was a donation fund for his family's living expenses to which many people contributed. Craig Neidorf (C483307 @ UMCVMB.MISSOURI.EDU) [Moderator's Note: Mr. Neidorf was a defendant in one of the criminal prosecutions associated with the Legion of Doom. He is (was?) the publisher and editor of {Phrack}, an electronic journal whose name is a contraction of the two words 'phreak' and 'hack'. He was found not guilty of the charges lodged against him, and the government dropped its prosecution of him when it was discovered that the information he published (relating to the complaint) was available to the public from other sources. PAT] ------------------------------ From: John_Richard_Bruni@cup.portal.com Subject: Re: Well Len, Was it Worth A Prison Term? Date: Fri, 14 Jun 91 22:40:24 PDT Pat, I grant you all of what you said in your preface to the Len Rose topics, yet I still wonder. As a journalist I keep coming across references to computer fraud totalling somewhere between $2 BILLION to $20 billion a year. There must be some fire to all this smoke. Yes, the hackers make life more problematical for those who like (as I do) open exchange of information on the computer nets. The security requirements are a hassle. But in the course of researching a novel that has hackers in it, it slowly came to me that the real troublemakers are much more deeply buried in the system. I know of 'Phone Phreaks' who have written themselves into the system since ESS-4 came out. These guys are not just hacking the phone company, they are so far into to it that for all intents and purposes they *ARE* the phone company. Darksiders like these make hackers look like small fry ... which for the most part they are. I still think Cal Tech and MIT oughta get the good hackers and make them into useful members of society. Universities do a much better job of that on smart people than jails do. Put the moles in jail, if you can find 'em. Most of them probably have Swiss bank accounts by now and have retired to the Riviera. That's my two cents worth, and I know it's controversial. But I was forced to decide what I thought of all this when, in the course of researching my book, I made friends with both hackers and 'trackers.' That's all, folks! ------------------------------ From: "Owen M. Hartnett" Subject: Re: Well Len, Was it Worth a Prison Term? Date: 16 Jun 91 00:26:13 GMT Reply-To: "Owen M. Hartnett" Organization: Brown University Department of Computer Science In article telecom@eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Moderator) writes: (in a very fine article) > When Len is released, he'll be 'allowed to' carry the tag "ex-con" > with him when he applies for work and tries to make new friends. One > part of his punishment is that in the future he must reveal his status > to prospective employers. Something about the above bothers me, from a legal standpoint. Wasn't there a movement quite a few years ago that said, in effect, that since ex-cons have little chance of employment once they've told their prospective bosses that they're ex-cons, that requirements to do so were being mitigated, so that they would stand a better chance of rehabilitating once they got out? This seems probably the most harsh of the requirements. Does a bank robber have to inform a prospective employer of his past history, even if said employer doesn't ask? This sounds almost unconstitutional, if not cruel and unusual punishment. Owen Hartnett omh@cs.brown.edu [Moderator's Note: In your example, it probably would be unreasonable to force a garage mechanic to tell a prospective employer he had robbed a bank. It would not be as unreasonable to force the same person to reveal this if he applied for employment as a bank teller. In the case at hand, I quoted the court's decision without really agreeing with it. If Len goes into non-computer employment, it should not have to be discussed. If he goes into computer-related employment, well ... I'd be reluctant to make him wear that ball and chain his whole life. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Jun 91 23:59:48 -0700 From: Jeff Sicherman Subject: Re: Fighting Phone Hackers in SoCal Organization: Cal State Long Beach In article John Higdon writes: > On Jun 13 at 1:10, Jody Kravitz passed along the article from the {LA > Times} which appeared in RISKS: >> ``Little Phone Company on a Hacker Attack'' >> By Susan Christian, Times Staff Writer. > You may be interested to know that the {San Jose Mercur}y is about to > do a story also. However, the writer has been in close touch with > yours truly and I can guarantee the article will be somewhat more > "informed" and will carry a somewhat different slant. If I remember the original article (or a similar one in another local paper) there was some information about the VP - crusader and how much of her waking time she spends on this activity. There is more to her motivation than the company's interest and a sense of justice. I'm not sure the edited version of the article showed the whole picture very well, even as it was known then. I'm looking forward to this 'new slant'. Jeff Sicherman [Moderator's Note: Your wish is my command! I contacted John yesterday and asked him to compare the article which appeared here and in RISKS with the version which appeared in his local paper. He did so, and his comments follow in the next message of this issue. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 Jun 91 02:24 PDT From: John Higdon Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Fighting Phone Hackers in SoCal Mark Seecof quotes the {LA Times}: > ``Little Phone Company on a Hacker Attack'' > By Susan Christian, Times Staff Writer. On June 13, the {San Jose Mercury} ran a story about Ms. Bigley's courageous efforts. The writer, Alex Barnum, did a little more investigating and presented a little more balanced picture than Ms. Christian. Excerpts below: Firm's Big Phone Fees Hang up Hackers by Alex Barnum, Mercury Staff Writer "A year ago, Thrifty Tel Inc. won approval from the state Public Utilites Comission ot charge unauthorized users of its long-distance lines a 'special' rate: a $3,000 'set-up' charge, a $3,000 daily line fee, $200 an hour for labor and the costs of investigating and prosecuting the offender. "Since then, the Garden Grove company has netted $500,000 and caught 72 hackers, ranging from an 11-year-old girl to a grandma-gradpa team of professional phone hackers." [Doesn't sound as if Thrifty Tel came off too badly on that one, does it? That's $500,000 NET profit on hackers. JH] "But while many have applauded Thrifty Tel's ingenuity, others have criticized the company for taking the law into its own hands. Some Los Angeles law enforcement officials, in fact, say the approach borders on extortion ... "Others charge that Thrifty Tel is deliverately baiting its long-distance system with lax security to catch hackers and bring in new revenue. Thrifty Tel is 'a vigilante,' says John Higdon, a San Jose phone network expert." [blush].... "Even a single call can cost a hacker more than $6,000. And Thrifty Tel charges an extra $3,000 for every access code the hacker uses. Since about half of Thrifty Tel's hacker 'customers' are minors, their parents usually wind up footing the bill. "Moreover, as a condition of the settlement, Thrifty Tel requires hackers to hand over their computers which mirrors a provision in the criminal code. Bigley usually turns the computer over to authorities, although she says she kept one once. [She kept more than that according to her own conversation with me. JH] "While praising Bigley's basic strategy, law enforcement officials say she has taken it a step too far. 'She can threaten a civil suit, but not criminal charges,' says one official. 'You don't use a criminal code to enforce a civil settlement.'"... "Other critics charge that Thrifty Tel is deliberately haiting hackers with antiquated switching technology and short access codes that are easier to hack than the more modern, secure technology and 14-digit access codes of the major long-distance carriers." Mr. Barnum has all the quotes from Ms. Bigley that the {LA Times} article had, which essentially contain the circular argument that it costs money to upgrade to FGD and why should Thrifty have to spend that money on account of "thugs and criminals" while whining about all the losses suffered at the hands of the hackers. Thrifty's technique looks more like a profit center than hacker "prevention". John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: Nick Sayer Subject: Re: Fighting Phone Hackers in SoCal Date: 15 Jun 91 15:39:22 GMT Organization: The Duck Pond, Stockton, CA marks@capnet.latimes.com (Mark Seecof) writes: > He suggests that parents > educate themselves about their children's computers. ``If a kid is > spending a whole bunch of time on his computer and it's hooked up to a > modem, he's not just running his software. What is he doing on that > computer? Does he really need a modem?'' > [ed. note -- this officer may be an expert on fraud but is clearly > unqualified to make such sweeping assertions about what (young) people > do with computers. Playing rogue can eat up as much time as hacking > while the modem remains idle.] I heartily agree. For two years while I was in high school, I ran a perfectly legitimate BBS in San Diego. Telecom historians in that town will remember that in '85 (I think), PacBell security sent out a letter to all BBS sysops in effect saying "Big Brother is watching you." Saying that BBSs are centers of hacker activity is like saying ethnic neighborhoods are centers of drug activity: specific examples do occur, but the generalization is unjustified. If it was my town, I'd press that cop for a full, public appology. When modems are outlawed, only outlaws will have modems. Modems don't phreak, people do. etc. > Not all hackers are young computer fanatics testing their limits. Nor are all "young computer fanatics testing their limits" hackers in the sense that the article means. First, let's remember that the term 'hacker' in it's propper definition implies no illegality. Those who attempt to defraud telephone companies are more properly called "phreakers." > ``The hacking problem is two-fold,'' says Caltel president Smith, also > president of the Sacramento-based long-distance telephone company > Execuline. ``First, we have Information Age fraud, which is an > outgrowth of the proliferation of computers in households. We have > all these kids who want to talk to each other on bulletin boards, and > if mom and dad had to pay for all those phone calls, the cost would be > prohibitive. ... A big reason why there are so many boards. If there's one in your local area, then there's no need to phreak it. > [... Stuff about the sticktoitiveness of Thrifty Tel's Bigley and how > she thinks that hackers are immoral and wants to defeat them.] Thank you for sparing us her little attitude. I am offended by both her generalizations and the phreakers who "try" to make those generalizations justified. There. I feel much better. Nick Sayer mrapple@quack.sac.ca.us N6QQQ 209-952-5347 (Telebit) ------------------------------ From: Don Froula Subject: Re: Does a National Phonebook Exist? Date: 15 Jun 91 21:02:11 GMT Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL wallyk@bicycle.wv.tek.com (Wally Kramer) writes: > Is there a ``phonebook'' which covers everywhere in the U.S.? > Electronic, CD-ROM, 900-FIND-THEM :-) or whatever (even paper). > I'd like to track down some college buddies, but I don't have clue as > to what city some of them are in. > [Moderator's Note: No, there is no single phone directory covering the > entire USA in any media. But any large metropolitan library will have > a huge collection of out of town phone books you can review. PAT] The Phone File database on Compuserve is a national database that is supposed to include information from all US phone directories. It is also supplemented from other public domain sources. It can be searched for a name on a state by state (but not national) basis. I've used it to successfully track down people and for geneology research on several occasions. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #460 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa20675; 16 Jun 91 17:22 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa29756; 16 Jun 91 15:49 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa03115; 16 Jun 91 14:43 CDT Date: Sun, 16 Jun 91 14:39:03 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #461 BCC: Message-ID: <9106161439.ab03315@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 16 Jun 91 14:38:54 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 461 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Fighting Phone Hackers in SoCal [Jeff Sicherman] Re: What Was the Real Reason for Change in AT&T Cards? [Bill Huttig] Re: Sources Wanted for Punchdown Tools [Patton M. Turner] Re: Telephone Keypad for Alphanumerics [Patton M. Turner] Re: Street Address Wanted For 619/259 CO [Macy Hallock] Re: New AT&T Calling Card PIN [Steven A. Minneman] Re: Looking for Inexpensive Outside Wire [Mike Morris] Wireless Phone Security [Thomas Farmer] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 16 Jun 91 00:10:06 -0700 From: Jeff Sicherman Subject: Re: Fighting Phone Hackers in SoCal Organization: Cal State Long Beach In article John Higdon writes: > On June 13, the {San Jose Mercury} ran a story about Ms. Bigley's > courageous efforts. The writer, Alex Barnum, did a little more > investigating and presented a little more balanced picture than Ms. > Christian. Excerpts below: > "A year ago, Thrifty Tel Inc. won approval from the state Public > Utilites Comission ot charge unauthorized users of its long-distance > lines a 'special' rate: a $3,000 'set-up' charge, a $3,000 daily line > fee, $200 an hour for labor and the costs of investigating and > prosecuting the offender. > "Even a single call can cost a hacker more than $6,000. And Thrifty > Tel charges an extra $3,000 for every access code the hacker uses. > Since about half of Thrifty Tel's hacker 'customers' are minors, their > parents usually wind up footing the bill. Ethics aside, I wonder if the PUC is doing *its* job in this scenario. If Thrifty Tel is a regulated entity, doesn't its charges have to have some relationship to costs plus a reasonable profit? It's hard to see how these numbers satisfy that, not to mention the apparent fact that a setup is not really performed. If it is, are these rates even vaguely consistent with its normal ones or are they practicing discriminatory pricing with its 'users' ? I also wonder about the element of civil damages with respect to minors using this enforcement concept. If TT is, in effect, establishing a relationship post-facto, they are making (involuntary) contracts with people (the minors) who may not have the ability to enter into such contracts and make them unenforceable. Any lawyers out there (real or self-imagined) ? Jeff Sicherman [Moderator's Note: The minor entered into the contract when he manipulated the telephone connection. TT's 'post-facto' response is merely handling the paperwork involved at that point. Now the contract may indeed be unenforceable since the minor entered into it without his parent's knowledge or consent -- AND -- the transaction has nothing to do with the minor's basic 'life-needs'. Parents can be held responsible for contracts entered into by their minor children for such things as simple clothing, food and shelter, school supplies, etc, since it is the parent's responsibility to meet these requirements anyway. But I'm not sure they can be held legally responsible for long distance phone charges which arose as part of the child's entertainment. TT could claim their published rates in these cases correctly reflect the additional cost involved in locating the 'customer', setting up the account after the fact and effecting collection. They might be right. Still, it seems to me like a kind of sleazy approach if they are deliberatly making it easy to steal from them. There is a requirement in the law that victims make every effort to mitigate their losses; courts are not in the business of being collection agencies; and TT does not seem to be acting in the best of faith. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Bill Huttig Subject: Re: What Was the Real Reason for Change in AT&T Cards? Date: 16 Jun 91 03:24:08 GMT Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL In article ole@csli.stanford.edu (Ole J. Jacobsen) writes: > not been fully divested until now. The new calling card system is the > final stage of divestiture as required by law.." As far as I know it is true that this was one of the requirements. > 1. Old AT&T cards are now being accepted by other carriers. I have The old AT&T cards are not accepted by other carriers. The LEC cards are accepted by the other carriers. They contain the same PIN as the AT&T card did. > 2. As metioned in the Digest already, with the new cards, billing will > be (I presume) handled by AT&T directly and thus no (costly) > arrangements with the RBOCs need to be in place. The new cards will be billed along with your AT&T 1+ charges to the LEC if that is where you requested billing. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 Jun 91 22:46:34 CDT From: "Patton M. Turner" Subject: Re: Sources Wanted for Punchdown Tools Christopher Davis writes: > Where can things like this [punchdown tools] be ordered? There are two kinds of punchdown tools: impact and non-impact. If you have any serious use for it I would recommend an impact tool. They make more reliable, consistant connections than a non impact tool. There are two impact punchdown tools that I know of: The Harris/Dracon 714 and 814. The 714 is the standard yellow and black punchdown tool for 66 blocks. The 814 is a newer model and features interchangable blades, as well as easier adjustment of impact. A spare blade will store in the handle, a feature I really appriciate. Blades can be had for 66 and 88/110 blocks as well as for 630A and GTE jacks. A center punch blade is also available (70$ center punch interest anyone? :-) ). The cost is about the same for the two tools (66 blade included) although the replacment blades are cheaper for the 714 tool. If you plan to do much work on punchdown blocks obtain a few of the "taps" avaiable from most of these companies (cost: $10-$20). They're nice on 66's and esential on 110's. Sources: Graybar [local office] 345 Harrison Ave Boston, MA 02118 (617) 482-9392 714, 814, non-impact Time Motion Tools 410 South Douglas St El Segundo, CA 90245-4662 (619) 689-7272 714-$49.95, 814-$52.95 Jensen 7815 South 46th St Phoenix. AZ 85044-5399 (602) 968-6231 FAX 800-366-9662 714-$50.00, 814-$53.00, non-impact $21.93 Techni-tool 5 Apollo Rd, Box 368 Plymouth Meeting, PA 19462 (215) 941-2400 FAX (215) 828-5623 814-$52.10 w/66 blade, $61.90 wo/66, non-impact $14.95, impact (714 ?) $64.95 Black Box Co PO Box 12800 Pittsburgh, PA 15241-0800 (412) 746-5530 FAX 800-321-0746 714 $75.00 non-impact $25.00 Specialized Products Co. 3131 Premier Dr Irving, TX 73062 800-527-5018 714, 814, non-impact I don't have current catalog with me but SPC is competitive. I`ve dealt with Jensen, Black Box, SPC, and Graybar and had excellent luck. The others I can't comment on. I included them because they may be of future use to you. I have no connection to any of these companies or to Auburn University Educational Television/Telecommuncations. Patton Turner KB4GRZ pturner@eng.auburn.edu ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 Jun 91 23:34:32 CDT From: "Patton M. Turner" Subject: Re: Telephone Keypad for Alphanumerics Bernie Roehl writes: > I'm working on a project in which touch-tone users will have to enter > names, addresses and so on. > Is there a standard way of encoding these? (One scheme that pops to > mind would be "key,position" (for L you would type 53 since 'L' is on > the 5 key in the third position). A standard code (cipher?) is for a 0 to represent the first letter on the key and a 1 to represent the last letter on the key. The absence of a 0 or 1 represents the middle letter on the key. The next number is the number of the key. This works for all letter except Q and Z. Prehaps thay can be represented by 00 and 11. Patton Turner KB4GRZ pturner@eng.auburn.edu ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 Jun 91 09:39 EDT From: Macy Hallock Subject: Re: Street Address Wanted For 619/259 CO Organization: Hallock Engineering and Sales Medina, Ohio USA +1 216 722 3053 In article : > I may be moving my office soon, and because I entertain fantasies of > my own leased line connection to the Internet, I'd like to move right > next door to my CO. Comment: In most areas, the rate you pay for a circuit will not be reduced by living next to the CO. In some areas, circuits are costed by the length, but usually that's only between CO's, and the local end of the circuit is at a flat rate. I'll say that I'm not familiar with CA tarriffs, but I've done my share of work with AT&T facilities. Now, living next to the CO may have other advantages: - The phone company is far less likely to delay the circuit due to unavailable local facilities. - Transmission problems due to poor local loop design may be less likely. - Finding a CO repairman may be easier (just provide the coffee...) - Reliablility may be better, since there is no local loop to go bad... I don't think you are going to save much money, though. In fact, you might even have to reduce the levels on your modem due to abnormally high loop current and 0db loss to the CO! I've had to modify several telephone systems and a couple of modems to increase loss when they were within a couple of blocks of the CO. > I live in a small (5k) suburb of San Diego, and I *know* that I have a > CO inside the town limits. I even know it's a 1AESS. (619/259) For > some reason or other, TPC considers the physical location of its > plants to be some kind of top secret information -- probably so that > saboteurs won't come ashore and blow them up. Could be. In Ohio, the PUCO requires exchange area maps to be published as part of the telco's tariff. Inspection of these is as simple as going to a telco business office and asking ... it is required by the PUCO to be publicly available. Many libraries have tariff info also. But ... there's a hitch! I have found several exchange areas in which the telco has consolidated two central offices into one ... and the maps still show the old CO's! I asked the PUCO what the story was ... and was told that these consolidations were done at telco discretion, so the CO's still existed at their old location for rate/area purposes. The telco would eventually have to file for permission to redefine the CO locations for ratemaking purposes, but that was generally done only when the tariff was to be given a major overhaul ... about every ten years or more. > I used to think I knew approximately where the CO was, but there's > been a fair amount of building in the last five years, and the other > day when I went to hunt it down (after the business office wouldn't > tell me where it is) I couldn't find it. Look for brick buildings, kinda square, usually one story, with no windows ... the older buldings for SxS were usually two or three story in larger areas and did have windows ... these were usually in downtown areas .... or ask a craftsman. > Rick Farris RF Engineering POB M Del Mar, CA 92014 voice (619) 259-6793 > rfarris@rfengr.com ...!ucsd!serene!rfarris serenity bbs 259-7757 Well, there's the problem ... Rick's a radio person and just cannot understand the world of 600 pair cables and ten mile long copper loops! He must think all those wires on the poles are just HF antennas! [grin] Macy M Hallock Jr N8OBG 216.725.4764 macy@fmsystm.uucp macy@fmsystm.ncoast.org [No disclaimer, but I have no real idea what I'm saying or why I'm telling you] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Jun 91 17:41:50-1795 From: "Steven A. Minneman" Subject: Re: New AT&T Calling Card PIN Reply-To: stevem@fai.fai.com (Steven A. Minneman ) Organization: Fujitsu Network Switching of America, Inc. In article DREUBEN@eagle.wesleyan.edu (Douglas Scott Reuben) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 411, Message 7 of 12 > She said that they were issuing new cards without your phone number, > ie, a la Sprint/MCI/ et. al. Very much like the AT&T Universal > *Calling Card* number, like in the format of: 507 001 5555 1234. > The AT&T rep said that AT&T was doing this for a few reasons, mainly > fraud, AOSs, ... ^^^^ > When I asked why I should even bother trying to remember the new AT&T > card when my old BOC card works fine, she said "Hmmm ... I don't really > know ...", so that's as good a reason as any I've heard for ignoring > this most recent and annoying divestiture-related change. Why should you use it? I think this is the card I heard about a couple of years ago. If only AT&T has the number, then an AOS can't accept the card number for a call; hence, you or your family won't place calls over AOSs or similar high-priced agencies by mistake. Great idea in my opinion! ------------------------------ From: Mike Morris Subject: Re: Looking for Inexpensive Outside Wire Organization: College Park Software, Altadena, CA Date: Sun, 16 Jun 1991 06:54:47 GMT TONY@mcgill1.bitnet (Tony Harminc) writes: > Rolf Meier wrote: > [recommendation for using garden hose as conduit] >> [story about the problems with garden hose and decision to use >> real direct burial cable next time] > What you need is wire pulling compound. It's usually gloopy yellow > stuff that comes in a giant squeeze bottle or a can. You can, of > course, use almost anything slippery, but grease etc. may damage the > insulation over time. You're speaking of Scotch "Yellow-77", sometimes referred to with other names (one of the more polite ones is "Gorilla Snot"). But please note that "almost anything slippery" may cause some serious problems. I had a very difficult time at one site where someone had used liquid dish soap as a pulling compound. We ended up having to pull the old 75-pair out with a winch on a four-wheel drive vehicle. If you need to use a pulling compound, use a real pulling compound. And by all means use a conduit large enough for the job and pull a piece of 1/8" nylon with the cable. At one job the previous contractor had pulled cotton kite string with the cable. When we went to pull a pull rope in place with the kite string we discovered it had rotted. Fortunately there was enough room in the conduit that we were able to suck a cotton ball through with a new kite string and pull the nylon rope with it (and then the new cable with a new rope). Mike Morris WA6ILQ PO Box 1130 Arcadia, CA. 91077 | All opinions must be my own since nobody pays 818-447-7052 evenings | me enough to be their mouthpiece... ------------------------------ Subject: Wireless Phone Security From: Sleeping Beagle Date: Sun, 16 Jun 91 15:52:59 NZD Organization: Orb Systems Unlimited, NZ Paul Elliott x225 writes: > All this is kinda disappointing, since a good friend of mine has been > trying to develop an encrypted handset/base-station. I *told* him > that it would just be a matter of time before the big boys (like > Fujitsu) introduced a similar product, but hope springs eternal, and > all that. > Definitely products whose time has come. Maybe now we can get the > legislature to stop the ridiculous "anti-scanner" type of regulations > [author's editorial comment there]. I wonder if Congress will demand > a "back door" into these schemes? Land of the free. Hahahahahahaha! (Gratuitous flame off) Well, currently I'm trialling a CT2 type phone. These are meant to be the next generation for home/office cordless phones and they can be used like payphones near special aerials in the street. (If anyone's interested, I'll mail them the not-to-technical article I wrote about CT2 to them.) This doesn't have encryption either, but the people at Telecom NZ tell me that as it uses digital communications, there aren't any gadgets around that can pick it up anyway. Does anyone know if this is true? How easy is to decode digital comms (it's not packet) with currently available (in the shops) hardware? Sleeping Beagle (aka Thomas Farmer) sbeagle@kennels.actrix.gen.nz Ph. +64-4-796306 (voice) ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #461 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa23948; 16 Jun 91 18:33 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa17269; 16 Jun 91 16:56 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab29756; 16 Jun 91 15:49 CDT Date: Sun, 16 Jun 91 15:30:52 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #461 BCC: Message-ID: <9106161530.ab01678@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 16 Jun 91 15:30:40 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 462 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Well Len, Was it Worth a Prison Term? [Karl Denninger] Re: Well Len, Was it Worth a Prison Term? [Mike Godwin] Re: Well Len, Was it Worth a Prison Term? [Bob Peterson] Re: Len Rose Sent to Prison [John R. Schutz] Re: Len Rose Sent to Prison [David Lesher] Re: Easy Fax to ASCII? (And Back Again, And...) [Miguel Cruz] Re: Does a National Phonebook Exist? [Sean Williams] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Karl Denninger Subject: Re: Well Len, Was it Worth a Prison Term? Organization: Macro Computer Solutions, Inc., Wheeling, IL Date: Sun, 16 Jun 91 05:55:25 GMT In article telecom@eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Moderator) writes: > The Len Rose saga came to an end this past week when a federal judge > considered the circumstances involved and chose to impose punishment > by placing Len in the custody of the Attorney General of the United > States, or his authorized representative for a period of one year. Of course, the court did NOT find Len guilty. He pled guilty after being browbeat and otherwise harassed to the point where he likely decided that there was no way to win -- even if he was to defend himself successfully against the current charge(s), the government would have found more. That is, he had object examples that they weren't going to leave him alone until and unless they managed to make an example out of him. Note too that his violation (copyright violations primarially as I understand it) is normally a CIVIL matter, not a criminal one. Corporations who do this kind of thing (software piracy) are sued and forced to pay damages -- NOT jailed! > Speaking of the kids, I wonder if Len has explained all this to them > yet. I wonder if they know, or are old enough to understand their dad > is going to prison, and why ... Yeah, I'd explain it to my kids all right. The fact that "my" government decided for reasons unknown to turn a civil matter into a criminal one, that they hounded me from state to state until they finally wore me out, and the insanity of the "Crime" which I was accused of in the first place. The fact that they couldn't manage to find a shread of evidence of the violation they wanted to pin on me, so they kept looking -- and confiscating equipment in an unconsti- tutionally-broad search procedure until they managed to find something they could "use". I'd explain to them the reasonableness of being held essentially at gunpoint in our own home during these search proceedings when I was (and am) no danger to the officers doing the search. And I'd explain to them the insanity of a corporate presence which has gotten so large that it commands the powers of the government of the USA itself. Yes, I would have a lot to explain. I wonder if my kids would decide to be revolutionaries when I was done. Anyone want to take bets? Shall we talk of Steve Jackson Games? A company that was (and is) persecuted for no valid reason at all? A search warrant that was unconstitutionally vague? A company (a RBOC again) that perjured itself in front of more than one court, yet has not been charged with that perjury or punished? Perjury is a CRIME! Not a petty little crime, but a real one with real penalties! I would like to see justice for all -- and those penalties imposed. It'll never happen -- as long as the guilty party works for a quasi-governmental organization like the almighty "phone company". Thank the Gods that Steve Jackson Games has finally decided to file a nice fat lawsuit against the government and all individuals involved. This time, the government and all who were participants in that fiasco deserve to get nailed to the wall. > The point is, some of us are simply getting very tired of the > break-ins, the fraudulent messages, the fact that in order to telnet > to a different site we can no longer do so direct from dialup servers > without a lot of rig-a-ma-role because computer (ab)users have stolen > all the trust which used to exist between sites, and the increasing > scarcity of 'guest' accounts on various sites because the sysadmins > are tired of being eaten alive with fraudulent and destructive usage. Well, I'm glad of that. Now let's apply the law with some consistency. Let's take the case of Bill Vajk, who allegedly CAUGHT a person snooping around on his system not long ago. He's reported it on the net and to the people he believed responsible for that person's behavior. They weren't interested in persuing the matter, although he believed that it was one of their EMPLOYEES who was doing the snooping. Yes, there was a REAL LIVE hacker -- which is, as we all know, ok as long as the hacker is a government ... oops, I meant corporate stooge! Or shall we discuss the case on ddsw1 about three years ago -- I caught an AT&T employee (so he said) on another user's account -- a person who had obviously STOLEN a valid user password. I caught him red-handed I might add. I called the user in question and kicked the phony person off the system -- and changed the real user's password. That person said they were "investigating improper use of a dialout". Oh really? Investigating it by tapping the line, recording the password, and THEN USING IT TO BREAK INTO MY MACHINE? Too bad that wasn't a felony then, as it can be now. I was unable to get the call traced -- and I did try. What I would have given for a valid trace back to someone's desk! Today I would certainly insist on prosecuting the person(s) responsible, and possibly file a civil suit as well. Yes, I think hackers should be punished -- IF they are actually guilty of some crime. My difference of opinion lies in the fact that I think ALL hackers should be punished, including the corporate ones. > Users had better wise up to one fact: the federal government is going > to continue to crack down on abusers of the net and this media. And > please, none of your hysterical freedom of speech arguments in my > mail, thank you. No one gives an iota what you write about, but when > you get your hands in the password file, rip off root or wheel > accounts, run programs deceptive to other users designed to rip off > their accounts also and generally behave like a two-bit burglar or > con-artist, expect to get treated like one when you get caught. See above. I want to see some equity in the law. I've had my equipment abused by those same people, and so have others. I want to see ALL of them prosecuted -- including those hooligans who wear the government's insignia. A thief or assailent does not become less of one due to having on a uniform of some "power and authority". > out of the penitentiary a better person than when he went in. The > penitentiary can be, and frequently is a therapeutic experience, at > least for the people who think about what it was that caused them to > get there in the first place. The penitentiary can be, and frequently is, a place when men get gang-raped (without recourse) and exposed to all kinds of "wonderful" influences. It's rarely a theraputic experience. Look at the recidivism ratios and reconsider your statement. Your "head-in-the-sand" knowledge level is showing, Mr. Townson. > socially irresponsible behavior (which some people who call themselves > 'socially responsible' seem to condone or wink at) has to stop. Now. Yes it does. Including what appears to be libel of a person who is in no position to defend himself right now. > And a knowledgeable sysadmin who is quietly cooperating with the > government tells me a federal grand jury is to returning > another cycle of indictments. Need I say more? Yes, you MUST say more. Since you want to fly this flag, here is what you must do: 1) Name your source. We all ought to know just who this "cooperating" sysadmin is. After all, we all saw just what happened to the last "cooperating" sysadmin, didn't we (Jolnet)? Or what kind of false accusations and pretenses the last "cooperating" company had to do with this (SWBT in this case). There are groups, the EFF being one, which are trying to stop this kind of fraudulent use of the criminal system. How about it, Pat? Name your source! (I could take a likely guess, but that might constitute libel or slander -- so I won't. I could easily be wrong on this one). 2) If you know who is under investigation, name them too. Same reasons here. If the people in question have really done something wrong, the government ought to be able to prove it easily -- it's a historical fact, right? If not, let's get the machinery rolling to protect them against more unwarranted intrusions. Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, !ddsw1!karl) Public Access Data Line: [+1 708 808-7300], Voice: [+1 708 808-7200] Anon. arch. (nuucp) 00:00-06:00 C[SD]T, req: /u/public/sources/DIRECTORY/README ------------------------------ From: Mike Godwin Subject: Re: Well Len, Was it Worth a Prison Term? Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation Date: Sun, 16 Jun 1991 05:35:45 GMT Our Moderator demonstrates his moral sensibility with the following comment: > [Moderator's Note: What Len Rose was *convicted* of doing was being in > possession of AT&T computer source code illegally, and transporting > the code across state lines. And Al Capone was sent to prison for > failure to pay his income tax. This is a contemptible comparison. Len Rose is Al Capone? Capone committed thousands of crimes. All Rose did was write an article showing how to hack login.c to enable the capturing of passwords. Did Rose ever use this program to gain unauthorized entry? No. Did anyone else ever use it? No. Is it ever allowable to show how code can be modified to break system security? Yes. Does Pat Townson have any moral perspective at all? Read his comparison of Len Rose to Al Capone and draw your own conclusions. I think you should be ashamed, Pat. But the kind of people who make such comments typically know no shame. > Thanks to all who wrote me on this issue; I've got more articles in > the queue to continue this thread tomorrow, and will summarize a > rebuttal of my own, also probably tomorrow space permitting. PAT] The "rebuttal" should include apologies: to Len Rose, whose worst sin was bragging in an article about his ability to modify login.c, and to "EFF supporters," who do not approve of system breakins and who have a little more regard for the First Amendment than Townson does. Mike Godwin, mnemonic@eff.org (617) 864-1550 EFF, Cambridge, MA ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Well Len, Was it Worth a Prison Term? From: Bob Peterson Date: Sat, 15 Jun 91 22:56:34 CST Organization: The Zeitgeist BBS, Plano, TX 214 596 3720 telecom@eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Moderator) writes: > The fact that the debate could go on endlessly for > message after message actually questioning what, if anything the chap > did wrong tells us plenty about the mentality and 'social respsonsi- > bility' of EFF devotees, but that is a whole new topic in itself. I find your sweeping generalization and condemnation of those who support the EFF's goals unfortunate and inappropriate. Participantion in comp.org.eff.talk newsgroup discussion does not in any way imply those individuals are "EFF devotees." Using such postings to infer "... the mentality and 'social responsibility'" of EFF supports seems irresponsible and, basically, a cheap shot. Bob Peterson Waffle BBS: peterson@zgbbs.csc.ti.com P.O. Box 861686 Internet: peterson@csc.ti.com TelCo: 214/995-6080 days Plano, Tx USA 75086 24 hour BBS: 214/596-3720 @ 1200, 2400, 9600 (HST & V.32) ------------------------------ From: "John R. Schutz" Subject: Re: Len Rose Sent to Prison Date: 16 Jun 91 04:31:01 GMT Organization: Those wacky, wacky fellas at UT's CSR TELECOM Moderator Noted, in a post by Craig Neidorf: > [Moderator's Note: Mr. Neidorf was a defendant in one of the criminal > prosecutions associated with the Legion of Doom. He is (was?) the > publisher and editor of {Phrack}, an electronic journal whose name is > a contraction of the two words 'phreak' and 'hack'. Was. He has stated that he will not go back to editing {Phrack}. John R. Schutz Email&NeXTmail: A learning NeXTie john@csrnxt1.ae.utexas.edu (512)328-0587 3009 Hatley Dr., Austin, TX 78746 ------------------------------ From: David Lesher Subject: Re: Len Rose Sent to Prison Date: Sun, 16 Jun 91 1:01:05 EDT Reply-To: David Lesher Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers I guess the saddest thing about the whole recent atmosphere, capped by PAT's speech, is that no one seems to remember any history. Was it that SO long ago that nobody remembers the junior Senator from Wisconsin saying: I have proof, documented proof....... and yet we never saw it. I'm still looking for that proof in Craig's case, in the Steve Jackson case, and for *all* the things Len has been accused of by PAT and others. Suppose the federal government had spent {inflation-adjusted} equal resources on jailing CB bootleggers in the 70's, or members of King Richard's 1960's political machine, or many other such heinous crimes, not to mention the S&L scandal. (I just heard a commentary that points out that we can likely rescue the USSR economy for LESS than the S&L mess!) I'll sleep better tonight knowing that I've been saved from a vicious attack by mutant ninja login.c code. wb8foz@mthvax.cs.miami.edu (305) 255-RTFM ------------------------------ From: mnc@css.itd.umich.edu (Miguel Cruz) Subject: Re: Easy Fax to ASCII? (And Back Again, And...) Organization: Univ. of Michigan ITD Consulting & Support Services Date: Sun, 16 Jun 91 19:10:12 GMT In article , learn@piroska.uchicago.edu (William Vajk) writes: > There was another fax related message here the other day, and I was in > process of responding when the computer went bye-bye. It was a request > for an easy conversion to ascii from fax. Because of the graphic > nature of fax, and the fact that there is no assurance of the style > and pitch of type received, one would actually have to be at the edge > of some serious AI to achieve the goal requested. Anyone who has used > an optical scanner and worked to convert a long document to ascii from > typed sheets can attest to the difficulties of accurate conversion > given only one character set to decipher. I think "edge of some serious AI" is a bit of an overstatement. With OmniPage running on a lowly Mac I can supply a TIFF of printed text in any combination of sizes and typefaces and in a minute or two I get a text file, generally with no mistakes at all. Granted, it's not so hot with handwritten text (pretty lousy, actually, but they never claimed otherwise). But with some chips optimized for the calculations used in character recognition, and software intelligent enough to give you text when it can, and graphic data otherwise, a fax-ASCII receiver isn't so far-fetched. With a few macros and a fax modem I could basically have that now. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 Jun 91 18:07 GMT From: Sean Williams <0004715238@mcimail.com> Subject: Re: Does a National Phonebook Exist? On 12 Jun 91 13:28:53 PDT, Wally Kramer writes: > Is there a ``phonebook'' which covers everywhere in the U.S.? > Electronic, CD-ROM, 900-FIND-THEM :-) or whatever (even paper). CompuServe has a service called "Phone*File" which might be able to do the job. It can search by geographic area, name, or phone number (I'm pretty sure.) The service carries a surcharge, but it's easier than lugging a stack of phone books! Sean E. Williams seanwilliams@mcimail.com Spectrum Telecommunications "I own Spectrum, so I'm really 333 Prospect Avenue / PO Box 227 just speaking for myself" Duncannon, PA 17020-0227 USA voicemail: +1 717 957 8127 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #462 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa05255; 16 Jun 91 22:46 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa20087; 16 Jun 91 21:03 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa17628; 16 Jun 91 19:58 CDT Date: Sun, 16 Jun 91 19:17:18 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #462 BCC: Message-ID: <9106161917.ab17992@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 16 Jun 91 15:30:40 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 462 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Well Len, Was it Worth a Prison Term? [Karl Denninger] Re: Well Len, Was it Worth a Prison Term? [Mike Godwin] Re: Well Len, Was it Worth a Prison Term? [Bob Peterson] Re: Len Rose Sent to Prison [John R. Schutz] Re: Len Rose Sent to Prison [David Lesher] Re: Easy Fax to ASCII? (And Back Again, And...) [Miguel Cruz] Re: Does a National Phonebook Exist? [Sean Williams] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Karl Denninger Subject: Re: Well Len, Was it Worth a Prison Term? Organization: Macro Computer Solutions, Inc., Wheeling, IL Date: Sun, 16 Jun 91 05:55:25 GMT In article telecom@eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Moderator) writes: > The Len Rose saga came to an end this past week when a federal judge > considered the circumstances involved and chose to impose punishment > by placing Len in the custody of the Attorney General of the United > States, or his authorized representative for a period of one year. Of course, the court did NOT find Len guilty. He pled guilty after being browbeat and otherwise harassed to the point where he likely decided that there was no way to win -- even if he was to defend himself successfully against the current charge(s), the government would have found more. That is, he had object examples that they weren't going to leave him alone until and unless they managed to make an example out of him. Note too that his violation (copyright violations primarially as I understand it) is normally a CIVIL matter, not a criminal one. Corporations who do this kind of thing (software piracy) are sued and forced to pay damages -- NOT jailed! > Speaking of the kids, I wonder if Len has explained all this to them > yet. I wonder if they know, or are old enough to understand their dad > is going to prison, and why ... Yeah, I'd explain it to my kids all right. The fact that "my" government decided for reasons unknown to turn a civil matter into a criminal one, that they hounded me from state to state until they finally wore me out, and the insanity of the "Crime" which I was accused of in the first place. The fact that they couldn't manage to find a shread of evidence of the violation they wanted to pin on me, so they kept looking -- and confiscating equipment in an unconsti- tutionally-broad search procedure until they managed to find something they could "use". I'd explain to them the reasonableness of being held essentially at gunpoint in our own home during these search proceedings when I was (and am) no danger to the officers doing the search. And I'd explain to them the insanity of a corporate presence which has gotten so large that it commands the powers of the government of the USA itself. Yes, I would have a lot to explain. I wonder if my kids would decide to be revolutionaries when I was done. Anyone want to take bets? Shall we talk of Steve Jackson Games? A company that was (and is) persecuted for no valid reason at all? A search warrant that was unconstitutionally vague? A company (a RBOC again) that perjured itself in front of more than one court, yet has not been charged with that perjury or punished? Perjury is a CRIME! Not a petty little crime, but a real one with real penalties! I would like to see justice for all -- and those penalties imposed. It'll never happen -- as long as the guilty party works for a quasi-governmental organization like the almighty "phone company". Thank the Gods that Steve Jackson Games has finally decided to file a nice fat lawsuit against the government and all individuals involved. This time, the government and all who were participants in that fiasco deserve to get nailed to the wall. > The point is, some of us are simply getting very tired of the > break-ins, the fraudulent messages, the fact that in order to telnet > to a different site we can no longer do so direct from dialup servers > without a lot of rig-a-ma-role because computer (ab)users have stolen > all the trust which used to exist between sites, and the increasing > scarcity of 'guest' accounts on various sites because the sysadmins > are tired of being eaten alive with fraudulent and destructive usage. Well, I'm glad of that. Now let's apply the law with some consistency. Let's take the case of Bill Vajk, who allegedly CAUGHT a person snooping around on his system not long ago. He's reported it on the net and to the people he believed responsible for that person's behavior. They weren't interested in persuing the matter, although he believed that it was one of their EMPLOYEES who was doing the snooping. Yes, there was a REAL LIVE hacker -- which is, as we all know, ok as long as the hacker is a government ... oops, I meant corporate stooge! Or shall we discuss the case on ddsw1 about three years ago -- I caught an AT&T employee (so he said) on another user's account -- a person who had obviously STOLEN a valid user password. I caught him red-handed I might add. I called the user in question and kicked the phony person off the system -- and changed the real user's password. That person said they were "investigating improper use of a dialout". Oh really? Investigating it by tapping the line, recording the password, and THEN USING IT TO BREAK INTO MY MACHINE? Too bad that wasn't a felony then, as it can be now. I was unable to get the call traced -- and I did try. What I would have given for a valid trace back to someone's desk! Today I would certainly insist on prosecuting the person(s) responsible, and possibly file a civil suit as well. Yes, I think hackers should be punished -- IF they are actually guilty of some crime. My difference of opinion lies in the fact that I think ALL hackers should be punished, including the corporate ones. > Users had better wise up to one fact: the federal government is going > to continue to crack down on abusers of the net and this media. And > please, none of your hysterical freedom of speech arguments in my > mail, thank you. No one gives an iota what you write about, but when > you get your hands in the password file, rip off root or wheel > accounts, run programs deceptive to other users designed to rip off > their accounts also and generally behave like a two-bit burglar or > con-artist, expect to get treated like one when you get caught. See above. I want to see some equity in the law. I've had my equipment abused by those same people, and so have others. I want to see ALL of them prosecuted -- including those hooligans who wear the government's insignia. A thief or assailent does not become less of one due to having on a uniform of some "power and authority". > out of the penitentiary a better person than when he went in. The > penitentiary can be, and frequently is a therapeutic experience, at > least for the people who think about what it was that caused them to > get there in the first place. The penitentiary can be, and frequently is, a place when men get gang-raped (without recourse) and exposed to all kinds of "wonderful" influences. It's rarely a theraputic experience. Look at the recidivism ratios and reconsider your statement. Your "head-in-the-sand" knowledge level is showing, Mr. Townson. > socially irresponsible behavior (which some people who call themselves > 'socially responsible' seem to condone or wink at) has to stop. Now. Yes it does. Including what appears to be libel of a person who is in no position to defend himself right now. > And a knowledgeable sysadmin who is quietly cooperating with the > government tells me a federal grand jury is to returning > another cycle of indictments. Need I say more? Yes, you MUST say more. Since you want to fly this flag, here is what you must do: 1) Name your source. We all ought to know just who this "cooperating" sysadmin is. After all, we all saw just what happened to the last "cooperating" sysadmin, didn't we (Jolnet)? Or what kind of false accusations and pretenses the last "cooperating" company had to do with this (SWBT in this case). There are groups, the EFF being one, which are trying to stop this kind of fraudulent use of the criminal system. How about it, Pat? Name your source! (I could take a likely guess, but that might constitute libel or slander -- so I won't. I could easily be wrong on this one). 2) If you know who is under investigation, name them too. Same reasons here. If the people in question have really done something wrong, the government ought to be able to prove it easily -- it's a historical fact, right? If not, let's get the machinery rolling to protect them against more unwarranted intrusions. Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, !ddsw1!karl) Public Access Data Line: [+1 708 808-7300], Voice: [+1 708 808-7200] Anon. arch. (nuucp) 00:00-06:00 C[SD]T, req: /u/public/sources/DIRECTORY/README ------------------------------ From: Mike Godwin Subject: Re: Well Len, Was it Worth a Prison Term? Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation Date: Sun, 16 Jun 1991 05:35:45 GMT Our Moderator demonstrates his moral sensibility with the following comment: > [Moderator's Note: What Len Rose was *convicted* of doing was being in > possession of AT&T computer source code illegally, and transporting > the code across state lines. And Al Capone was sent to prison for > failure to pay his income tax. This is a contemptible comparison. Len Rose is Al Capone? Capone committed thousands of crimes. All Rose did was write an article showing how to hack login.c to enable the capturing of passwords. Did Rose ever use this program to gain unauthorized entry? No. Did anyone else ever use it? No. Is it ever allowable to show how code can be modified to break system security? Yes. Does Pat Townson have any moral perspective at all? Read his comparison of Len Rose to Al Capone and draw your own conclusions. I think you should be ashamed, Pat. But the kind of people who make such comments typically know no shame. > Thanks to all who wrote me on this issue; I've got more articles in > the queue to continue this thread tomorrow, and will summarize a > rebuttal of my own, also probably tomorrow space permitting. PAT] The "rebuttal" should include apologies: to Len Rose, whose worst sin was bragging in an article about his ability to modify login.c, and to "EFF supporters," who do not approve of system breakins and who have a little more regard for the First Amendment than Townson does. Mike Godwin, mnemonic@eff.org (617) 864-1550 EFF, Cambridge, MA ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Well Len, Was it Worth a Prison Term? From: Bob Peterson Date: Sat, 15 Jun 91 22:56:34 CST Organization: The Zeitgeist BBS, Plano, TX 214 596 3720 telecom@eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Moderator) writes: > The fact that the debate could go on endlessly for > message after message actually questioning what, if anything the chap > did wrong tells us plenty about the mentality and 'social respsonsi- > bility' of EFF devotees, but that is a whole new topic in itself. I find your sweeping generalization and condemnation of those who support the EFF's goals unfortunate and inappropriate. Participantion in comp.org.eff.talk newsgroup discussion does not in any way imply those individuals are "EFF devotees." Using such postings to infer "... the mentality and 'social responsibility'" of EFF supports seems irresponsible and, basically, a cheap shot. Bob Peterson Waffle BBS: peterson@zgbbs.csc.ti.com P.O. Box 861686 Internet: peterson@csc.ti.com TelCo: 214/995-6080 days Plano, Tx USA 75086 24 hour BBS: 214/596-3720 @ 1200, 2400, 9600 (HST & V.32) ------------------------------ From: "John R. Schutz" Subject: Re: Len Rose Sent to Prison Date: 16 Jun 91 04:31:01 GMT Organization: Those wacky, wacky fellas at UT's CSR TELECOM Moderator Noted, in a post by Craig Neidorf: > [Moderator's Note: Mr. Neidorf was a defendant in one of the criminal > prosecutions associated with the Legion of Doom. He is (was?) the > publisher and editor of {Phrack}, an electronic journal whose name is > a contraction of the two words 'phreak' and 'hack'. Was. He has stated that he will not go back to editing {Phrack}. John R. Schutz Email&NeXTmail: A learning NeXTie john@csrnxt1.ae.utexas.edu (512)328-0587 3009 Hatley Dr., Austin, TX 78746 ------------------------------ From: David Lesher Subject: Re: Len Rose Sent to Prison Date: Sun, 16 Jun 91 1:01:05 EDT Reply-To: David Lesher Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers I guess the saddest thing about the whole recent atmosphere, capped by PAT's speech, is that no one seems to remember any history. Was it that SO long ago that nobody remembers the junior Senator from Wisconsin saying: I have proof, documented proof....... and yet we never saw it. I'm still looking for that proof in Craig's case, in the Steve Jackson case, and for *all* the things Len has been accused of by PAT and others. Suppose the federal government had spent {inflation-adjusted} equal resources on jailing CB bootleggers in the 70's, or members of King Richard's 1960's political machine, or many other such heinous crimes, not to mention the S&L scandal. (I just heard a commentary that points out that we can likely rescue the USSR economy for LESS than the S&L mess!) I'll sleep better tonight knowing that I've been saved from a vicious attack by mutant ninja login.c code. wb8foz@mthvax.cs.miami.edu (305) 255-RTFM ------------------------------ From: mnc@css.itd.umich.edu (Miguel Cruz) Subject: Re: Easy Fax to ASCII? (And Back Again, And...) Organization: Univ. of Michigan ITD Consulting & Support Services Date: Sun, 16 Jun 91 19:10:12 GMT In article , learn@piroska.uchicago.edu (William Vajk) writes: > There was another fax related message here the other day, and I was in > process of responding when the computer went bye-bye. It was a request > for an easy conversion to ascii from fax. Because of the graphic > nature of fax, and the fact that there is no assurance of the style > and pitch of type received, one would actually have to be at the edge > of some serious AI to achieve the goal requested. Anyone who has used > an optical scanner and worked to convert a long document to ascii from > typed sheets can attest to the difficulties of accurate conversion > given only one character set to decipher. I think "edge of some serious AI" is a bit of an overstatement. With OmniPage running on a lowly Mac I can supply a TIFF of printed text in any combination of sizes and typefaces and in a minute or two I get a text file, generally with no mistakes at all. Granted, it's not so hot with handwritten text (pretty lousy, actually, but they never claimed otherwise). But with some chips optimized for the calculations used in character recognition, and software intelligent enough to give you text when it can, and graphic data otherwise, a fax-ASCII receiver isn't so far-fetched. With a few macros and a fax modem I could basically have that now. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 Jun 91 18:07 GMT From: Sean Williams <0004715238@mcimail.com> Subject: Re: Does a National Phonebook Exist? On 12 Jun 91 13:28:53 PDT, Wally Kramer writes: > Is there a ``phonebook'' which covers everywhere in the U.S.? > Electronic, CD-ROM, 900-FIND-THEM :-) or whatever (even paper). CompuServe has a service called "Phone*File" which might be able to do the job. It can search by geographic area, name, or phone number (I'm pretty sure.) The service carries a surcharge, but it's easier than lugging a stack of phone books! Sean E. Williams seanwilliams@mcimail.com Spectrum Telecommunications "I own Spectrum, so I'm really 333 Prospect Avenue / PO Box 227 just speaking for myself" Duncannon, PA 17020-0227 USA voicemail: +1 717 957 8127 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #462 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa07876; 16 Jun 91 23:50 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa17904; 16 Jun 91 22:08 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab20087; 16 Jun 91 21:03 CDT Date: Sun, 16 Jun 91 20:22:18 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #463 BCC: Message-ID: <9106162022.ab12799@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 16 Jun 91 20:22:02 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 463 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson What Len Rose and Al Capone Have in Common [TELECOM Moderator] What the Heck is "Fiber Optic Quality" Anyway? [Mark Miller] Voice-Mail Addition to PBX [Dave Levenson] Re: Does a National Phonebook Exist? [Bob Sherman] Administrivia: A Couple Messages Lost? [TELECOM Moderator] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 16 Jun 91 18:40:46 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: What Len Rose and Al Capone Have in Common My Sunday Sermon for this week will discuss recent allegations here that Len Rose has been unjustly picked on by the federal government. Two texts come to mind as a preface to my comments: "You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free." (From St. John, 8:32) "Injustice? Oh, I've never been too upset by injustice ... I've seen a lot of it in my lifetime, much of it directed to me. Injustice doesn't really hurt ... it is *justice* that stings." (Oscar Wilde, writing from Reading Jail to a friend.) And who exactly knows the complete truth in the Len Rose matter? Len, and Len alone. His attorney might know most of it. I would never claim to know it all, but I know I've heard a lot of conflicting stories, ranging from Len the meanest hombre in the history of the net to Len the innocent victim of a plot by the (official) government and the (quasi-official) government AT&T, and everything in-between. Al Capone was accused of plotting and engineering, or direct participation in many crimes. So was Leonard Rose. The government decided to charge Al Capone with a small selection of the crimes in which they believed he was a direct or indirect participant. The same stance was taken toward Leonard Rose. As the prosecution of Capone moved through various stages to his trial, the government decided all they could prove with absolute certainty -- and that burden on the government, the constitutional requirement for absolute proof being paramount in the United States -- was that Capone had lied when filing his income taxes. They had his signature on tax documents after all, and could easily demonstrate that two plus two did not equal three. So a man of Capone's 'reputation' went to the federal penitentiary about 1931 based on a single count of tax evasion. And a man of Rose's reputation is going to prison on a single count of possessing unlicensed source code. Unlike Capone, who did not plead guilty, but rather was proven guilty to the court's satisfaction, Leonard Rose chose to plead guilty to a single count of several original counts in his indictment. Like Capone, the government (official or quasi) investigators had plenty of complaints about Rose. There were allegations of hacking and phreaking a-plenty. There were allegations that the login.c code was in fact foisted off on at least a couple of unsuspecting (new on the job? less experienced?) sysadmins. Like Capone, seeing it, believing that it happened and wanting to do something about it are a lot different than absolutely proving that it did happen and that Len Rose made it happen. And Len Rose, like Al Capone, are entitled to the protection afforded by the Constitution of the United States. Unlike Capone, where his attornies granted the government nothing, and forced the trial to continue even with a single count of tax evasion, Rose agreed to a single concession, and everyone involved benefitted from it. To Rose, this expidited the process and got it over with that much sooner. To the government, perhaps the thinking was a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush ... or a single guilty plea is worth a dozen that may or may not be proveable to the court. Unlike Rose, who got a year in prison, Capone got several years in prison; but I realize in part this is due to differences in sentencing guidelines in the federal courts in recent years. And yes, there were people in 1931 who swore that Capone was not guilty of the many things he had been accused of. Many folks thought it was purely his ancestral background which got him convicted out of prejudice by prosecutors. Some of you responded to me saying "Rose was not FOUND GUILTY, he chose to PLEAD GUILTY." Actually what happened was that based on his plea of guilty, the court found him guilty ... but ... even that was not all that cut and dried. First off, I think the government was also interested in expediting the case. Had it been easier for them to prove the additional counts, they would have pushed for it. The only reason the government usually cuts deals is when the burden of proof is too hard for them. That's not to say the various crimes were not committed, or that Len had nothing to do with the crimes ... just that the government cannot easily prove it, if they could at all. Then again, maybe Len didn't have anything to do with the mess other than what he confessed to. Second, did Len Rose concede on one count because as some of you claimed, he was worn out from fighting, so depressed and demoralized he could not continue? I don't think so. I think he chose to concede on the one count because he acknowledged that much guilt and knew he would get a better deal than by holding out. Neither the government or your attorney can ram a guilty plea down your throat if you do not want to go along. Check out the Federal Court Rules of Procedure: 1) The court is not required to accept your plea of guilty. 2) The defendant will be questioned at length about the reasons he wishes to plead guilty -- a) did his attorney or the government promise 'to cut a deal'? b) did police or other investigators make some sort of promise to put in a good word for him if he 'made their job easier'? c) was he mistreated by the police or government while in custody? d) has he been treated with courtesy and fairness by court personnel? e) were his rights explained fully to him from the beginning? f) has he been under mental stress so that his thinking might be affected? does he realize the consequences of his guilty plea? g) did anyone tell him the court would 'go along' with what the government and his attorney decided to do? h) does he understand that by pleading guilty the court will listen to recommendations from the government and his attorney but is not bound by them in any way? i) does he understand that if the court chooses to accept his plea of guilty, the court may be prejudiced from that point onward, yet a later appeal from the court's decision will be difficult or impossible? j) finally, is he aware that the court can reject his plea of guilty and enter a plea of 'not guilty' automatically if the court feels the best interests of justice would be served by having a trial? 3) If the defendant persists in pleading guilty, the court can if it wishes accept his plea, and base its findings accordingly. So Len had his reasons for pleading guilty, and it was mutually convenient for the government. But the court did choose to find him guilty, and did decide there was no 'forced confession' from Len. In a phone conversation with Len some time back, he asked me what I thought he should do. I suggested that if he was completely innocent he should fight the charges. If he felt the government could prove one or more of the charges it might be to his advantage to plead guilty. I told him he and his attorney would have to decide what to do. Some of you said Len was a first time offender and should have received federal probation. Others of you said it should have been handled as a civil, rather than criminal matter. While it is true this was, to my knowledge, Len's first federal offense, the court is permitted to take an overview of Len's social history in detirmining an appropriate punishment. Len's history included: 1) An arrest and pending matter (or had he been convicted?) in state court pertaining to the burglary of the computer warehouse. I assume you all knew about that case ... 2) An arrest and pending matter here in Illinois based on the transfer of code from his new (one week!) employer's computer to his own. I presume the State of Illinois dropped those charges when Len was convicted in federal court. Or did they? 3) Fleeing the jurisdiction of the federal court in Maryland. (see point two above.) Len did NOT have permission from the federal court to leave Maryland and come to Illinois ... yet he showed up here with his family at a new place of employment while his case was pending in Baltimore. Supposedly, this was all a paperwork 'mixup', but I am told it was quite after the fact that Len got 'post facto' permission to stay here. How long afterward? Well, when he got arrested here a week after he arrived with his family, DuPage County Jail ran him through NCIC and found there was a Federal Pretrial Services hold on him in Maryland ... in other words, the federal court found out he had left Maryland once he got arrested over here on computer misuse (but unrelated) charges! 9o the court can consider all this; his prior state conviction, his current case in Illinois, and the fact that he flew the coop while on trial in Baltimore in deciding what to do. Then some of you commented on my use of the term 'therapeutic' as a possible outcome of Len's stay in prison. At least a couple of you brought up the 'gang rape' scenario, but let's view this realistically: Federal prisons are NOT like state insitutions, and state institutions are NOT all medium/maximum security places run by gangs of inmates instead of the staff. In minimum security institutions, state or federal (but the federal places are MUCH more professionally operated), the inmates tend to behave themselves quite well. They are white collar, and for the most part professional people on the outside. They may have been foolish enough to wind up in prison, but they are not foolish enough to screw up inside prison and wind up with a fresh sentence in a tougher environment. As Jim Thomas pointed out, there are no 'country club' federal prisons, but the worst of the Level 1 and Level 2 federal prisons are far superior (to an inmate's point of view) than their state counterparts. I don't think the possibility of Len Rose getting 'gang-raped' warrants serious consideration. Level 1 and 2 federal prisoners are all in the same boat as Len: they'll be getting out in a few months or a year ... they don't screw up; they don't assault each other. At the MCC here in Chicago, many inmates have passes to leave the building during the day for work, etc ... times are tough for them, but not *that* tough ... Maybe you would not have complained had I used the word 'catharsis' instead. A message said the law should be applied equally to all, and I quite agree. The proprietors of 'igloo' and 'ddsw1' both got shafted. Just think if you had been allowed to have Caller ID on those dialups and been able to trace the call back to the desk of a telco employee, or to the modem of a specific user ... Yes, I agree completely. Let's have prison terms for one and all when convicted. No more game playing where computer access fraud is concerned. A few of you 'complimented' me for my feelings of sympathy toward Len. Whether you believe it or not, I *do* feel sorry for the mess he has gotten himself into. But he got himself into it, and he has to pay for it. Likewise, I feel sympathy for most of the folks who get caught hacking and phreaking. Why? Not because hacking and phreaking is right, but because for the most part the people doing it don't even have the belief that they did anything wrong! Like Len, they just can't see what it was that was so wrong about what they did. I can appreciate and sympathize with the way they feel, but they had better wise up: computer fraud and abuse is just as wrong as the more 'traditional' crimes which they DO recognize as bad. The EFF: I think they *mean well*, a lot like the ACLU. But they fail to realize the huge number of freeloaders going along for the ride, for whom social responsibility in computing is a big laugh. Like the ACLU, they have a lot of hangers on for whom the First Amendment is merely coincidental to their world, but a nice coincidence at that. I think comp.org.eff.talk should either be moderated OR the 'eff' should be taken out of the name of the group. It does NOT do them justice. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ From: Mark Miller Subject: What The Heck is "Fiber Optic Quality" Anyway? Date: Sun, 16 Jun 91 15:23:13 EDT OK, this one has been bugging me for some time, but what is the highly touted "Fiber Optic Quality"?? Now as I understand it, virtually all long distance calls are sent in a digital format. Last time I checked, digital data didn't really care whether it was sent by copper, microwave or fiber. So if the proceeding assumption is correct, then I should be able to "hear a pin drop" regardless of the transmission media. Now of course I understand the benefits of fiber to the LD carrier, in that they can send many more calls, cheaper. So, is this "fiber optic quality" spiel just some marketing drival intended to mislead the consumer, or did I miss the point somewhere?? Mark T. Miller miller@dg-rtp.dg.com ...uunet!xyzzy!miller ------------------------------ From: Dave Levenson Subject: Voice-Mail Addition to PBX Date: 16 Jun 91 20:06:28 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In article , Bob_Frankston%Slate_ Corporation@mcimail.com (Bob Frankston) writes: > The issue of protocols raises its ugly head. > Pac*Bell is able to provide some compelling features because it owns > the network... > [Moderator's Note: One of the nicest features of telco-operated voice > mail is the stutter dialtone which advises the subscriber of new > messages waiting. It should not be that hard for telco to provide this > to the competitors:... A few years ago, I developed a voice-mail add-on for a PBX. Our machine interfaced with the host PBX over nothing more than a Tip/Ring station line. A feature-addition to the PBX created a station class-of-service for this purpose. The protocol? Very simple: The PBX would forward calls to one of our station lines if the called station was busy or did not answer. When we went off-hook, the PBX would send us DTMF, telling us who was calling, who was being called, and why we got the call. After taking a message, we could go off-hook on one of our special lines, and enter a sequence of DTMF digits which caused the PBX to light the 'message waiting' indicator on a station, or to enable 'stutter tone' if the station was not equipped with a visual indicator. Our voice mail package would work fine with any CO or PBX capable of providing a similar feature set! Dave Levenson Internet: dave@westmark.com Westmark, Inc. UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave Warren, NJ, USA AT&T Mail: !westmark!dave Voice: 908 647 0900 Fax: 908 647 6857 ------------------------------ From: Bob Sherman Subject: Re: Does a National Phonebook Exist? Organization: Not much! Date: Sun, 16 Jun 91 20:41:51 GMT In Wally Kramer writes: > Is there a ``phonebook'' which covers everywhere in the U.S.? > Electronic, CD-ROM, 900-FIND-THEM :-) or whatever (even paper). > I'd like to track down some college buddies, but I don't have clue as > to what city some of them are in. There is a national phonebook of sorts available on Compuserve. You can get it by "go phonefile". It is a subset of the metromail service, and is quite watered down from the original product, but should serve the purpose you mention providing your buddies have listed numbers. bsherman@mthvax.cs.miami.edu | MCI MAIL:BSHERMAN ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 Jun 91 19:27:02 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Administrivia: A Couple Messages Lost? Due to a slight problem Sunday afternoon connected with issue 462, it was sent out with 462 in the body of the Digest and 461 in the header. It was then transmitted correctly as 462 (in both references) about 7:15 PM. But in the process, it *may be* that a couple (two or three) messages got trashed accidentally. I'm not sure. I am sort of sensitive to this right now because of all the messages coming in regards Len Rose. So if your ACK was prior to 7:00 PM Sunday night and you have *not* been printed in this issue or 461/462, then please send it again because it got trashed. Thanks. PAT ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #463 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa21477; 18 Jun 91 2:11 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab31822; 18 Jun 91 0:25 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa24367; 17 Jun 91 23:17 CDT Date: Mon, 17 Jun 91 22:29:09 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #464 BCC: Message-ID: <9106172229.ab00367@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Mon, 17 Jun 91 22:29:04 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 464 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: What The Heck is "Fiber Optic Quality" Anyway? [Barry Margolin] Re: Tokyo Moving to Eight Digit Phone Numbers [Robert J. Woodhead] Re: Military Telecom Museum Well Worth a Visit [Dave Leibold] Re: German Telephone Unification [Ralf Wichary] Re: Fax/Phone Switch Information Wanted [Lou Kates] Re: Sources Wanted for Punchdown Tools [Carl Moore] Re: What Was the Real Reason for Change in AT&T Cards? [Andy Sherman] Re: Looking for Inexpensive Outside Wire [Barton F. Bruce] Re: CATV Company Rate Comparisons [Ralph W. Hyre] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Barry Margolin Subject: Re: What The Heck is "Fiber Optic Quality" Anyway? Reply-To: think!barmar@bloom-beacon.mit.edu Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA Date: Mon, 17 Jun 91 05:24:04 GMT In article miller@dg-rtp.dg.com (Mark Miller) writes: > OK, this one has been bugging me for some time, but what is the highly > touted "Fiber Optic Quality"?? > Now as I understand it, virtually all long distance calls are sent in > a digital format. Last time I checked, digital data didn't really > care whether it was sent by copper, microwave or fiber. Of course it does. Digital data can be corrupted by static or crosstalk on the line, just as analog data can. Computer communication generally uses error detection and retransmission on top of the digital medium in order to produce error-free transmission. Audio telephone communication is generally more concerned with transmission speed than fidelity, because listeners are able to deal with minor errors. Higher fidelity lines mean fewer such errors. Barry Margolin, Thinking Machines Corp. barmar@think.com {uunet,harvard}!think!barmar ------------------------------ From: Robert J Woodhead Subject: Re: Tokyo Moving to Eight Digit Phone Numbers Date: 17 Jun 91 06:20:44 GMT Organization: Foretune Co., Ltd. Tokyo Japan jiro@shaman.com (Jiro Nakamura) writes: > Has anyone noticed that Tokyo is now fully converted to eight digit > numbers? I recently phoned a friend in Japan (I'm in Ithaca) at +81 3 > 701-xxxx and got a hurried message that the number was now +81 3 3 > 701-xxxx. The big "Year of the Sheep, Night of the Telecom Wolves" changeover occurred at 2am, Jan 1, 1991. All the old seven digit numbers got a 3 prepended to them. The "area code" is still 03. Estimates vary widely, but some pundits claim that the cost to the Japanese economy caused by the switchover (reprogramming autodialers, fax machines and the like, plus a 14% increase in the number of phone buttons pushed in the Tokyo area [which means 14% more buttons breaking, etc ..]) is in the trillions of yen, and may yet cause major damage to the Japanese economy. Planners at the phone company here are already preparing for the upcoming switchover to nine-digit local numbers, expected to occur Tuesday next... ;^) Robert J. Woodhead, Biar Games / AnimEigo, Incs. trebor@foretune.co.jp ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Jun 91 19:10:00 PST From: Dave Leibold Subject: Re: Military Telecom Museum Well Worth a Visit Reply-to: dleibold@attmail.com bill@eedsp.gatech.edu sez.... > The U.S. Army Signal Corps operates a very respectable museum at their > Signal Center at Fort Gordon, Georgia. Fort Gordon is on the > outskirts of Augusta, home of the Masters (golf) Tournament. Plus Nigel Allen's previous mention of a Canadian military museum with communications goodies... There has also been a telephone museum in downtown Edmonton run by Alberta Government Telephones (AGT, changing its corporate name to Telus) called "Vista 33", named after the floor in the AGT Tower where the museum/exhibits are located. Last I checked there was an admission charge to go up there. I don't have the specific address of the AGT Tower offhand; Vista 33 is usually mentioned in Alberta phone books, or it can be determined from Alberta Government Telephones' listings in Edmonton. While at the AGT Tower, AGT's library is on the 23rd floor, and contains some interesting telecom books and that. You could call it "Vista 23", assuming they haven't changed floors in recent months. dleibold@attmail.com Dave Leibold - via IMEx node 89:681/1 Dave.Leibold@f135.n82.z89.onebdos.UUCP ------------------------------ Date: Monday, 17 Jun 1991 11:41:04 CET From: RWICHARY%ESOC.BITNET@vm1.gatech.edu Subject: Re: German Telephone Unification Situation of Unified German Telephone System: Basically, the two parts of (unified) Germany are still two different states, telephonewise. Calling from West to East is still an international call at international rates (and vice versa). What has improved: The PTT is constantly expanding the numbers of lines between the two parts. They are planning (and probably working) on giving the eastern part of Germany [I have to get used to not calling it East Germany myself after 45 years :-)] "the most advanced telecommunications system in the world by 1997". How they are going about it, I don't have competent infos. What has gotten worse: Basically, the load on the system. With the opening of the wall, even before the official unification, businessmen streamed into the east and with them the need for communication (of course, the interest of East Germans to communicate with the West also increased). There are several crucial shortcomings on the eastern phone system: - Low number of private phones. Normally you had to prove the need of having a telephone and then wait several years to get one, unless the party or government officials approved and helped you get one. - Disastrous quality of phone equipment. With data communication just starting in the eastern part, we are beginning to see the LOOOOW quality of the system: high noise and frequent interruptions of lines are symptoms of overaged equipment. More than 300 Baud are rarely possible (even if you have the equipment), and you better have error correction on that, as well. Line interruptions after a minute or two are quite frequent. All this is worked on, but my guess is, it will at best take several years to build up a reliable infrastructure. The connections between the two parts of Germany are heavily overloaded. Calling a number in the East is practically impossible during working hours, since all the lines are busy. Chances are you can reach people at 6 a.m., but then they are not in their office, and who has a private phone? Furthermore, direct dialling is not 100% possible in the East; the major cities can now be dialled direct, but for smaller places you have to go through the operator. [To be fair, the number of places you can dial direct has almost doubled in the last year, the PTT is surely working hard on that as well.] There have been strange side effects of this situation: West German car phones are used widely and barely legal along the border regions. The cellular phone system is expanding along the former transit routes between West Germany and West Berlin. A cellular phone transponder that was put up provisionally during the Leipzig Fair (East), and that provided a direct link to the Western net has been kept running since. A national TV satellite, that was launched far too late and probably wouldn't fit into the European TV satellite scene anyway [but that's a different story], has been rescheduled to provide additional phone lines between East and West. The PTT has introduced "loan numbers", i.e. certain telephone numbers in Frankfurt (West) are actually hooked up to telephones in Leipzig (East). There are, I think, six such "couples" between East and West cities with a maximum capacity of 300 lines each. On the other hand,the PTT is opposing private companies that offer satellite links; let's wait and see how this works out ... There is a personal courier service: A lady living near the former border is taking messages in her West German home, gets in a car, goes five kilometers to a East German town, where she has rented a back room with an Eastern telephone and delivers the message ... and vice versa. What additionally complicates the situation: With the Unified European Market around the corner (1993) the PTT is transforming from a federal institution to a private company with new competitors. The transition is at times confusing: which parts of the system still need PTT approval, which don't ... ??? So we are in a state of transition and the situation will be split for a while. The observations above are that of a private user, not an official statement; I may be wrong in some accounts, but then, the situation is changing day to day. Ralf Wichary (RWICHARY@ESOC.BITNET) ------------------------------ From: Lou Kates Subject: Re: Fax/Phone Switch Information Wanted Date: 17 Jun 91 11:03:23 GMT Reply-To: Lou Kates Organization: Teleride Sage, Ltd., Waterloo In article caserta@athena.mit.edu (Francesco Caserta) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 437, Message 1 of 8 > In article , hv@uwasa.fi (Harri Valkama) > writes: >> Who can recommend for me an automatic fax/phone switch that has a > Before I start the list, I should premise a few considerations. I've > been told that even among G3 fax machines there is no guaranty that > they will issue a CNG tone when calling. This has been mentioned in this newgroup before but in case you missed it, you can get around this by getting a feature variously known as Ident-A-Call, Distinctive Ringing, RingMaster, etc. It may be called something else by your telco but it basically allows you to get multiple phone numbers associated with the same line with each number having a distinctive ringing pattern. Hello Direct and Lynx Automation (2100 196th St SW #144, Lynnwood, WA 98036, 206-744-1582) will sell you a device which listens to the ringing pattern and sends the call to different devices according to the ringing pattern. Since everything takes place BEFORE the call is connected you avoid having to depend on being able to recognize the CNG tone. Lou Kates, Teleride Sage Ltd., louk%tslwat@watmath.waterloo.edu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Jun 91 9:49:23 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: Sources Wanted for Punchdown Tools > Specialized Products Co. > 3131 Premier Dr Irving, TX 73062 > 800-527-5018 Doesn't Irving zipcode start with 750 instead of 730? [Moderator's Note: Thanks for catching this typo error. PAT] ------------------------------ From: andys@ulysses.att.com Subject: Re: What Was the Real Reason for Change in AT&T Cards? Date: Mon, 17 Jun 91 12:05:37 EDT In article is written: > I'm not convinced. I think there are two basic reasons for why they > did this: > 1. Old AT&T cards are now being accepted by other carriers. I have > been billed by all sort of outfits from MCI to Joe Random carrier by > simply using the good 'ol 10-digit + PIN scheme. AT&T obviously hates > this and wants the new "proprietary cards" to secure their revenue. Please note that it is not just a matter of securing our revenues. Consider this: every time a customer thinks they are using an "AT&T Card" and gets billed by an AOS it creates a customer relations problem for AT&T with "brand loyal" customers. Many of these customers have a hard time understanding that use of the LEC issued billing number is not under AT&T's control, even though the number appears on a credit card with the AT&T logo on it. The best way to deal with that is to issue card numbers that AT&T *does* control. There has been overwhelming customer unhappiness with the old calling card scheme that left them with big charges from companies with whom they had no intention of doing business. Yes the new system is good for AT&T. It is also good for most customers. > 2. As metioned in the Digest already, with the new cards, billing will > be (I presume) handled by AT&T directly and thus no (costly) > arrangements with the RBOCs need to be in place. The new calling cards (other than Universal Cards) do *not* change the method of billing. Billing methods are determined by the ultimate billing telphone number for your AT&T account. In most LATAs residence billing is still handled by sending call detail back to the LEC to bill. Changes to the billing system are a separate issue. What *does* change is the customer-supplier relationship for card verification services. Instead of buying verification from the LEC for use of their card numbers on long distance calls, for the new cards AT&T will sell verification for it's card numbers when used for local calls. Yes, this is a cost saving. This is bad? |> Anybody know how much of a "grace period" they are going to give us |> with the old cards? I assume that a valid LEC card number will always be accepted, but I have no good information on this. Andy Sherman/AT&T Bell Laboratories/Murray Hill, NJ AUDIBLE: (908) 582-5928 READABLE: andys@ulysses.att.com or att!ulysses!andys What? Me speak for AT&T? You must be joking! ------------------------------ From: "Barton F. Bruce" Subject: Re: Looking for Inexpensive Outside Wire Date: 17 Jun 91 18:52:37 EST Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc. In article , mitel!Software!meier@ uunet.uu.net (Rolf Meier) writes: > In article mailrus!ulowell!wex@uunet. > uu.net writes: > [recommendation for using garden hose as conduit] >> Anyhow, the hose provides very good protection from shovels provides a >> conduit for pulling/replacing wire ( if you put in an extra pull wire, > It turned out that I was unable to pull the wire more than about 25 > feet before it started to bind against the hose. Since I had already Real rubbery hose would probably be the worst. The cheap vinyl hoses would be better, if large enough. The quite inexpensive polyethylene pipe often used for buried lawn sprinklers works well and comes in very long coils -- 400' or even 1000' are easy to find. The real key to easy pulling is LOTS of good commercial wire pulling compound liberally slathered on the cable. ------------------------------ From: "Ralph W. Hyre" Subject: Re: CATV Company Rate Comparisons Date: 17 Jun 91 16:08:56 GMT Reply-To: "Ralph W. Hyre" Organization: AT&T OSS Development, Cincinnati In article mrapple@quack.sac.ca.us (Nick Sayer) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 456, Message 6 of 9 > pay-per-view channel, but it's on two pieces of coax, which makes > cable-ready equipment capable of only 'seeing' half the channels at a > time. A converter to solve this problem costs $2/mo, a remote control. > is another $1, the first pay channel is about $10, and additional pay > channels have decreasing costs. If your basic channels are unscrambled, then you can try what I did: (worked on a TCI system in Pittsburgh, and Warner in Cincinnati.) RUN, don't walk to a store where you can buy what's reffered to as a block converter. It shifts the cable channels up around 400Mhz, to the UHF band, where you can combine with the VHF and cable band channels into a single piece of coax. Your cable-ready set (and VCR) should be happy to accomodate it. Total cost around $30 (I got mine a Radio Shack). A cable ---------------------------+ +Coupler/combiner+----- single cable B cable -block converter+----------+ You will need to find the B cable channels on your TV/VCR. There is also potential conflict, since the box SUBTRACTS 400Mhz from the B cable channels, causing potential conflicts with the 'A' cable channels. In general if you put the least-loaded cable through the converter box, you will be OK. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #464 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa24054; 18 Jun 91 3:15 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa29125; 18 Jun 91 1:32 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac31822; 18 Jun 91 0:25 CDT Date: Mon, 17 Jun 91 23:57:47 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #465 BCC: Message-ID: <9106172357.ab01014@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Mon, 17 Jun 91 23:40:35 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 465 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson CI$ Phone*File and Metromail [Bill Berbenich] Re: Local Calling Areas (was Surprise!!) [Stephanie da Silva] Re: German Telephone Unification [Richard Budd] John Cooperated With the Mercury? [Todd Inch] MCI Telecom Consultant BBS: What's Up? [Dave Leibold] Land Line Obselete? [Bill Gundry] Now Repair is Computerized [J. Philip Miller] Smart Phones, Smart Network, Dumb Company? [Bob Frankston] External ISDN TAs for 64kbps Operation [Dick Jackson] Call Completion by Directory Assistance [Carl Moore] Radio Shack Call Forwarding System [Dan Veeneman] Disarmingly Curteous and Friendly US West [Paul Schleck] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: bill@fisher.eedsp.gatech.edu Subject: CI$ Phone*File and Metromail Date: Mon, 17 Jun 91 10:41:25 EDT Reply-To: bill@eedsp.gatech.edu I've seen a service called Metromail mentioned in the Digest occasionally. I, too, realize that the Compuserve service called Phone*File is a subset of Metromail. My question: What is the name and address of the company that provides Metromail? Either posted or e-mailed replies are fine. Thanks in advance. Bill Berbenich, School of EE, DSP Lab | Telephone: +1-404-894-3134 Georgia Tech, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 | uucp: ...!{backbones}!gatech!eedsp!bill | Group 3 fax: +1-404-894-8363 Internet: bill@eedsp.gatech.edu | or: +1-404-853-9171 ------------------------------ From: Stephanie da Silva Subject: Re: Local Calling Areas (was Surprise!!) Organization: A corner of our bedroom Date: Mon, 17 Jun 1991 05:57:16 GMT In article , gs26@prism.gatech.edu (Glenn R. Stone) writes: > The Metro Atlanta calling area extends for 80 some miles in a couple > directions ... it'll be in its own area code in March, 1992. > Can anybody top that? I'm surprised no one has mentioned Houston. I thought we had the largest local calling area in the US. The reason why so many local BBSs have sprung up around here. Stephanie da Silva Taronga Park -- (713) 568-0480 arielle@taronga.hackercorp.com Houston, Texas arielle@hackercorp.com (Not the zoo... my Unix system...) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Jun 91 12:12:18 EDT From: Richard Budd Subject: Re: German Telephone Unification Linc Madison wrote in Telecom Digest V11 #448: > But anyhow, the other thing I noticed is that in the International > calling section, they still list "German Democratic Republic" and > "Germany, Federal Republic of" as separate countries. > Beyond that, though, what are the plans for bringing Germany under a > single country code? Have the plans been finalized and a date set, or > is it all still up in the air? It seems clearly unacceptable to have > Berlin a united city in a unified German nation, but with two country > codes. At last check, Germany was still divided into two country telephone codes and two series of postal zip codes (49 and "W" respectively for western Germany, 37 and "O" for eastern Germany). There are two difficulties holding up the unification of post office and telephone coding. First is the state of the eastern German telephone system. It is going to take several years and hundreds of millions of deutsch marks to bring a telephone system with no major improvements since the 1950's up to western German telecom standards. There is also the fact that the East German telephone system was designed to allow the Stasi (the secret police) easy access to conversations from any East German lucky enough to have recived permission from the government to have a phone. Secondly, there is the problem of redundant zip and area codes between the eastern and western portions of the country (i.e. 8000 is both Munich and Dresden). We have heard so much about the time required to split northern New Jersey into 201 and 908 area codes, and 908 had not been used anywhere else. Because the Deutsche Bundespost (the post office) also operates the telephone system, it would be in the best interest to solve the zip and area code problem together and allow a decent period of time to have 78 million Germans and God knows how many others accommodate themselves to it. Former Chancellor Helmut Schmidt has said it would take Germany at least twelve years to incorporate the five new federal states from what was once East Germany into the Federal Republic, twice the time it took West Germany to integrate the Saar in 1951-57. Bear in mind, this week the Parliament is finally going to decide whether to put the national government and ministries in Bonn or Berlin! I will check my German contacts from time to time on the status of the unified German telephone system and will report back to TELECOM Digest. Richard Budd | Internet: rcbudd@rhqvm19.vnet.ibm.com VM Systems Programmer | Bitnet : klub@maristb.bitnet IBM - Sterling Forest, NY | Phone : (914) 578-3746 ------------------------------ From: Todd Inch Subject: John Cooperated With the Mercury? Organization: Maverick International Inc. Date: Mon, 17 Jun 91 20:06:08 GMT In article John Higdon writes: > You may be interested to know that the {San Jose Mercur}y is about to > do a story also. However, the writer has been in close touch with > yours truly and I can guarantee the article will be somewhat more > "informed" and will carry a somewhat different slant. Perhaps this kind of slant: "Telemarketers Harrass Millions of Innocent Residents -- Law Suit Threatened" ? Seriously, I'm surprised you cooperated with the "perpetrators". ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 Jun 91 19:29:00 PST From: Dave Leibold Subject: MCI Telecom Consultant BBS: What's Up? Reply-to: dleibold@attmail.com I had a number for MCI's Consultant BBS from long ago: 1 800 873.5548. Is the BBS still going? Is that the right number (the number now gets a voice recording from triple-A Student Painting). Also, membership on the BBS was somewhat restricted to "consultants"; how would one qualify to be on that BBS (again, assuming that it's still going)? Replies to: dleibold@attmail.com Dave Leibold - via IMEx node 89:681/1 Dave.Leibold@f135.n82.z89.onebdos.UUCP ------------------------------ From: Bill Gundry Subject: Land Line Obselete? Date: 17 Jun 91 16:12:48 GMT Organization: Hitachi America - Semiconductor & IC Greetings Pat, I was wondering if you, or any of your readers, had any comments regarding the explosion of cellular telephone services, such as follow-me roaming, etc. that could *possibly* make a land line obselete in some situations? If I was on the road a lot, I think I would prefer just to use a cell phone so that I could be reached at one number no matter where I am, home, next area code, or across the country. And, as the cost of the equipment and services decline -- hopefully -- over the years, this technology may extend into non-business situations, much like FAX service has extended from the business world into the home. Maybe the cell phone expansion will be the back way into the universal telephone number?? Well, just some thoughts. Regards, Bill Gundry Hitachi America, Ltd. - Semiconductor & IC Div. ------------------------------ From: "J. Philip Miller" Subject: Now Repair is Computerized Date: Mon, 17 Jun 91 19:22:32 CDT Due to storm damage my data line was pulled off at the pole so I got to call repair services for the first time in a while. First off it is no longer 611, but rather 1-571-1400 which then led me thru a very extensive menu where I could enter the number I was calling about, the number where I could be reached, informed me that I do not have a maintaince agreement with them, and even told me when I could expect it to be repaired. It is very clear how SWBT can be providing services less expensively than before -- it makes me do all the data entry rather than hiring an operator to do it! J. Philip Miller, Professor, Division of Biostatistics, Box 8067 Washington University Medical School, St. Louis MO 63110 phil@wubios.WUstl.edu - Internet (314) 362-3617 uunet!wuarchive!wubios!phil - UUCP (314)362-2693(FAX) C90562JM@WUVMD - bitnet ------------------------------ From: Bob_Frankston@world.std.com Subject: Smart Phones, Smart Network, Dumb Company? Date: June 17, 1991 8:56 pm EDT In response to an ATT ad for Smart Phones, I called for their brochure. What I got was a pretty and colorful brochure on expensive paper. It touts how Smart Phones ca help you find out the Mets score, balance your check book, improve your sex life and save the spotted owl. Of course, the brochure never once mentioned any technical details such as how to get more information. As a matter of fact it doesn't even mention any company names or anything concrete. Image marketing?? Ah, no wonder they needed to buy NCR. ------------------------------ From: Dick Jackson Subject: External ISDN TAs for 64kbps Operation Date: 17 Jun 91 21:03:23 GMT Organization: Citicorp/TTI, Santa Monica We are running compressed video at 128 kbps over ISDN. Currently we are using Gandalf TA-1 TAs which support two V.35 ports and two RS-366 control ports. This TA has obviously been designed to be compatible with compression codecs such CLI's Rembrandt. We have the Gandalfs to be good performers, the problem is that lacking direct RS-366 control, we use the codec to do call setup and the bloody thing does the two calls in series, taking over 20 seconds (presumably it thinks it is working into the switched 56 kbps service, although I don't know why it would need to take so long). We would like to find a TA with two V.35 ports which is capable of being controlled via an RS-232 interface for call setup, etc. Fujitsu have been promising such a thing for a while but have not come through. Hayes and Northern Telecom have TAs with the Hayes command set, but only one V.35 port and I don't know how you could do Hayes commands through a synchronous interface anyway. We know of an inverse mux from Ascend Corp. which would do this job, but it is kind of pricy at over $4K. Maybe the answer is to somehow install RS-366 ports into our PC, but we don't know how to do this (i.e. don't know if there any products which support it). I would appreciate hearing from anyone who knows of any suitable products for our application. Thanks in advance. Dick Jackson ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Jun 91 16:08:35 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Call Completion By Directory Assistance This past Saturday, I was in Delaware and made a call to 215 directory assistance for a number in Reading, Pa., and I used the option of being connected to the number I had just requested. The recorded voice told me it would be a 30 cent charge, which I assume to be in addition to normal long distance charge. Notice that this is within the Philadelphia LATA. What if I had asked for a number on the following exchanges (in 215 but not in Philadelphia LATA)? 267 Denver 445 Terre Hill 484 Adamstown Would the direct-connect option be absent, with me being required to dial the number if I wanted to call it right away? ------------------------------ From: Dan Veeneman Subject: Radio Shack Call Forwarding System Date: Mon 17 Jun 1991 00:00:00 Hello Pat, I understand from reading TELECOM Digest that you are the (proud) owner of a Radio Shack CFS200 Call Forwarding System. I recently purchased two of the units, but after reading through the documentation have discovered that apparently the forwarded calls are limited to either three or ten minutes, depending on a switch setting. I was planning on using these units for data transfer calls that would last for as long as an hour (thus denying the ability to press the '*' key to extend the call time). Have you run across anyone or any documentation that suggests how one could extend the call forward connection time beyond ten minutes? Dan Veeneman dveenema@nis.natic.com [Moderator's Note: It might be possible to change something in the hardware to do this, but I do not know what. You should probably just use regular telco-provided call forwarding. I use my unit to turn call forwarding on and off remotely, by having the unit 'call forward' calls on one line to the number 1172-new number on the main line. If I forget to turn on call forwarding before I leave, I call the other line from elsewhere and it forwards the first line for me. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: 17 Jun 91 15:20:00 CDT From: Paul Schlveck Subject: Disarmingly Curteous and Friendly US West Having just made a major career move and change of living accommodations in the Omaha, Nebraska area, it became necessary for me to disconnect and reconnect my phone service. I called US West and was on-line with a customer representative in about 20 seconds. Disconnecting was no problem, according to the rep, and could occurr on the day of my choice. In addition, I could have my choice of intercept message, either no info, or a new number of my choice. Outstanding! I gave them my mother's number back on the East Coast (being in DC, she is used to wierd phone calls :-). A call from a payphone confirmed that my service was shut off and the appropriate intercept message was inserted. Pardon me if I am surprised, but back at old Cut-Throat and Pirate Telephone (i.e. C&P) not only would I have been left hanging on the phone for an eternity, but my phone service may have been disconnected on the day of my choice, on another day, or not at all. And getting a proper intercept is like pulling teeth... Having settled my personal affairs and settled on a place for my computer to live (with me staying on as guest...<:-), I called US West again. A rep promptly answered the phone and took my information. Not only could I have my old phone number back (I was in the same exchange), there would be no charge. In all the commotion and chaos of my move, I had neglected to pay my last bill (about 20 bucks) and it was now over a week overdue (uh oh! Looks like payment in person and a large security deposit to restore service!) I sheepishly admitted this to the rep who asked me when I could make payment in full. I told her within the week. No problem, she could just mark my file that the bill would be paid shortly. (almost tempted to ask if I had a wrong number and if indeed this was the "phone company" so often parodied by Lilly Tomlin). Everything went smoothly from there on. Opted for basic unlimited. I wanted the newfangled "Voice Messaging System" that would take my calls when I was on the modem, but this won't reach my exchange till next year. Decided against the novelty of Caller ID. My phone service will be turned on this Wednesday, the 19th. Cost? About $21 a month. One thing I opted for was a listing in directory assistance, but no listing in the phone book. Can privacy-gurus on the newsgroup advise me as to whether this shields me from inclusion in so-called "reverse" directories? I haven't received any telemarketing calls in my year of having my phone number, and the last US West reverse directory I checked (1990) didn't list me. Would like to know for sure, though. Would like to avoid annoying calls from the {San Jose Mercury News} (if and when they publish a Midwestern edition) but don't wish to shut out friends and relatives who want to get my number. Another disturbing question was whether or not I required "an additional line for a computer modem ..." I asked for clarification of the question, but the rep couldn't give me any more info (reading a script, etc.). At first I thought they were trying to sell me another line, but I wonder if it is a sneaky way to monitor modem/BBS traffic for a possible Michigan Bell-style extortion racket. I of course, said "no." Any speculation? All in all, a very easy and successful dealing with the "phone company." My apologies to those that must endure in their daily lives the trials and tribulations inflicted on them by PacBell, C&P, New Jersey Bell, etc. Want to try out my number? Call (402) 555-1212. Paul Schleck ACMNEWS@zeus.unomaha.edu ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #465 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa26692; 18 Jun 91 4:29 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa12892; 18 Jun 91 2:38 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab29125; 18 Jun 91 1:32 CDT Date: Tue, 18 Jun 91 1:03:56 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #466 BCC: Message-ID: <9106180103.ab26313@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 18 Jun 91 01:03:36 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 466 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Cable Cut in Northern Virginia Causes Major Outage [Joseph Liu] Len Rose Indictment File in Archives [TELECOM Moderator] Re: What Len Rose and Al Capone Have in Common [Lloyd W. Taylor] Re: What Len Rose and Al Capone Have in Common [Rop Gonggrijp] Re: What Len Rose and Al Capone Have in Common [Miguel Cruz] Re: Well Len, Was it Worth a Prison Term? [William Vajk] Re: Well Len, Was it Worth a Prison Term? [Jeff Sicherman] Re: Well Len, Was it Worth a Prison Term? [Owen M. Hartnett] Re: Well Len, Was it Worth a Prison Term? [W.A.Simon] Re: Well Len, Was it Worth a Prison Term? [Henry Mensch] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Cable Cut in Northern Virginia Causes Major Outage Date: 17 Jun 91 00:48:49 EDT (Mon) From: Joseph Liu CONSTRUCTION CREW ACCIDENTALLY CAUSES PHONE SERVICE OUTAGE IN NORTHERN VA. WASHINGTON (JUNE 14) UPI - A construction crew accidentally cut two phone cables in northern Virginia Friday, disrupting local and long-distance service for hundreds of thousands of customers during much of the day, officials said. The phone service disruption also made it impossible for several news operations that use a satellite link-up system in the area to transmit their data to domestic and Canadian clients. A construction crew working under contract for Bell Atlantic's C&P Telephone Co. cut two fiber-optic cables leading to 100,000 trunks, said phone company spokeswoman Ellen Fitzgerald. She said she could not estimate how many customers had their local phone service disrupted, but said perhaps hundreds of thousands of customers could not make long- distance calls at some point. Washington Gas & Light Co. independently estimated that nearly 200, 000 customers had their local telephone service disrupted. But all customers were able to call within their own community, and no one lost local emergency 911 service, said Fitzgerald. She said only one community - the northern Virginia community of Annandale, where the cables were cut - was not able to make any phone connections outside of the community. Fitzgerald said 90 percent of service was restored by 3 p.m., and the rest would be restored by the end of the day. The spokeswoman said it was highly unusual that two cables were cut. ''That's what made it catastrophic,'' she said. The phone company would not immediately identify the contractor whose construction crews cut the two cables. They were cut in a road-widening project. Among the major customers affected were several news organizations that use Washington International Teleport in Alexandria, Va., to send data by satellite to their clients. Jonathan Lytle, a technician at WIT, said that among the news organizations most affected because they do not have complete backup systems were United Press International, The Associated Press and Canadian Broadcasting Corp. Most UPI customers in the United States and Canada were not able to receive news copy from about 9:30 a.m. to 3 p.m., said UPI spokesman Milton Capps. But international news clients of the agency were not affected. About 12 percent to 15 percent of AP's domestic radio network clients were without service until 2:10 p.m., according to AP's assistant chief of audio-engineering, Greg Crowley. Both Bell and MCI long-distance users initially were affected by the phone service disruption, but most long-distance calls normally going through the area of the cut cables were later rerouted, Fitzgerald said. Some mobile phone users also were affected, she said. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Jun 91 0:07:06 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Len Rose Indictment File in Archives Jim Thomas of Computer Underground Digest has forwarded a detailed file to the Telecom Archives which is a complete copy of the indictment of Len Rose. Thiis file explains precisely what Len was *originally* charged with by the federal government. It will be filed in the telecom.security. issues sub-directory in the archives, and will be available for downloading later this week after I put it there. Jim has also agreed to take messages on Len Rose and the editorial comments here over the weekend for anyone interested in continuing the debate. This issue of the Digest contains a few more random selections from the heavy mail I received on the topic; others have been or will be forwarded to tj0jut1@niu.bitnet for consideration in CuD. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Jun 91 09:18:22 -0400 From: "Lloyd W. Taylor" Subject: Re: What Len Rose and Al Capone Have in Common Pat, Is there somewhere we can send a donation to Len's family, to help them get through this difficult time? Lloyd Taylor [Moderator's Note: Your concern is deeply appreciated, I'm sure. For yourself, and anyone else who wishes to contribute to the continuing expenses of Len Rose's defense or his family's welfare, I'm sure the best way to do it would be through his attorney, whose address escapes me immediatly ... perhaps one of the EFF people will provide it. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Rop Gonggrijp Subject: Re: What Len Rose and Al Capone Have in Common Date: 17 Jun 91 18:43:35 GMT Organization: Hack-Tic telecom@eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Moderator) writes: > I think comp.org.eff.talk should either be moderated OR the 'eff' should > be taken out of the name of the group. It does NOT do them justice. Well, suppling (or supporting) a forum for free discussion does not mean that you have to agree with what goes on. Even in safe, clean, moderated discussions like here at comp.dcom.telecom im am quite sure that you do not agree with all the stuff posted. Newsgroups where you can speak freely are by defenition not moderated and groups that are moderated are not by defenition forums of free speech. Rop Gonggrijp (ropg@ooc.uva.nl) ------------------------------ From: mnc@css.itd.umich.edu (Miguel Cruz) Subject: Re: What Len Rose and Al Capone Have in Common Organization: Univ. of Michigan ITD Consulting & Support Services Date: Mon, 17 Jun 91 06:17:28 GMT In Telecom Moderator (Patrick Townson) writes: > Neither the government or your attorney can ram a guilty > plea down your throat >if you do not want to go along. Check out the > Federal Court Rules of Procedure: Have you ever been in a courtroom, Patrick? The only time the judge goes through that rigamarole is when there's a court full of reporters. I've sat through plenty of arraignments in my past life as a reporter; never unless it was a media circus with full theatrics did anyone make an issue of why the defendant was pleading guilty (aside from the judge mumbling a single sentence reminding him or her that the choice to plead guilty is a voluntary one). Likewise the idea that the government only cuts deals when there's insufficient evidence to definitely win a trial is purely idealistic fantasy. The prosecuting attorney makes deals under the following conditions: * case backlog * no political value in winning a trial * questionable political value in pursuing the matter in the first place * has no case but a scared defendant * law is unclear on the topic Our legal system bears only the palest, thinnest resemblance to what's on the books; it doesn't take long to realize that, and the longer you look, the more you see it. I'd be surprised to see Len getting a fair shake one step of the way given the appearance of his activities to a technophobic law enforcemtn community; especially when someone as well-versed in technical matters as yourself offhandedly dismisses defense of his rights with "I don't care one iota about this free speech nonsense" (very paraphrased). Peace, Miguel [Moderator's Note: Why, uh, yes ... I've been in federal courtrooms here in Chicago a few times, and one of the finest federal judges in the nation, George Leighton (he has since left the federal bench) almost invariably insisted upon examining defendants at length prior to accepting guilty pleas, plea-bargains or deals, etc. He was very conscious of how the Federal Defender's Office and the US Attorney would put their heads together for their mutual benefit ...and sometimes to hell with the defendant in the process! PAT] ------------------------------ From: William Vajk Subject: Re: Well Len, Was it Worth a Prison Term? Date: Mon, 17 Jun 91 14:13:36 GMT In article Owen M. Hartnett writes: > In article TELECOM Moderator writes: >> When Len is released, he'll be 'allowed to' carry the tag "ex-con" >> with him when he applies for work and tries to make new friends. One >> part of his punishment is that in the future he must reveal his status >> to prospective employers. > Something about the above bothers me, from a legal standpoint. Wasn't > there a movement quite a few years ago that said, in effect, that > since ex-cons have little chance of employment once they've told their > prospective bosses that they're ex-cons, that requirements to do so > were being mitigated, so that they would stand a better chance of > rehabilitating once they got out? > [Moderator's Note: (portion deleted for brevity) > In the case at hand, I quoted the court's decision without really > agreeing with it. If Len goes into non-computer employment, it should > not have to be discussed. If he goes into computer-related employment, > well ... I'd be reluctant to make him wear that ball and chain his > whole life. PAT] One of the discoveries I've made in following the "hacker" discussions on the net in the past couple of years is just how badly misinformed so many people are regarding matters on which they feel it appropriate to comment. It becomes relatively obvious in short order that the press on which we have historically depended for information has, at least in this realm, fallen sadly short of being informative to the level of detail one should be able to expect reliable. It is my understanding that the "reporting bad-boy details" extends past the end of his incarceration only for the duration of probation, a three year period. And if I am not mistaken, the mandate requires Len to divulge this information only to potential employers who have source code on their computers. On the issue of rehabilitation for Len, I don't understand what is being discussed here. Len's case is a direct consequence of his then good friend Rich Andrews being a model citizen and reporting the fact that some troublesome text was on his public access Unix system. I believe something important needs mention here, and that is a review of the cases which stemmed from that incident, and just how it was they were closed out. The only trial in the string of prosecutions was that of Craig Neidorf. That trial ended abruptly when the prosecution folded its tent and went home in the first week. Please take note that in spite of the many issues raised by the cases, none of the important ones has received a proper judicial review. Hardly coincidental, I dare say. Bill Vajk ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 Jun 91 14:46:06 -0700 From: Jeff Sicherman Subject: Re: Well Len, Was it Worth a Prison Term? Organization: Cal State Long Beach In article telecom@eecs.nwu.edu >(TELECOM Moderator) writes: [ most of the story deleted ] I did find the tone of this 'report' rather preachy and superior but everyone's entitled to his opinion. I would feel more comfortable if PAT would label such things as 'Editorials' rather than imply they are factual reports, but I guess we all can tell. I am not at all familiar with the detailed history of this case or Len Rose, but one thing about it, as reported here, bothered me: If Mr. Rose is being selectively prosecuted for an action which others have committed without this response, either by the RBOC's or the US Government, it would appear that his connection, tenuous as it may have been, to Phone Phreakers was likely a principle motivation to 'go after him', perhaps as an example to those evil people. This smacks of 'guilt by association' or at least prosecution by association. I'm old enough to know that this borders on McCarthyism. There's enough escaping responsibility for who you know in this country without it being the basis for criminal prosecution too. I guess the Justice Department has caught all the Savings and Loan looters and needs something to keep busy. finally, another comment by PAT caught my eye: > And a knowledgeable sysadmin who is quietly cooperating with the > government tells me a federal grand jury is to returning > another cycle of indictments. Need I say more? I'm not sure about your state, but I believe in ours (California) it is a crime (felony?) to reveal or discuss information about the deliberations of a grand jury. I would expect there are similar laws for federal ones also. You 'knowledgeable sysadmin' could be violating some federal statutes himself by talking about them. You might even be in a grey area yourself, PAT, by passing them along, though I doubt it, Maybe you're protected as a 'reporter' though I'm not sure newsgroups and their editors constitute journalism or the press. I guess we should just hope the government is monitoring usenet or the internet too carefully ... Jeff Sicherman ------------------------------ From: "Owen M. Hartnett" Subject: Re: Well Len, Was it Worth a Prison Term? Date: 17 Jun 91 02:31:09 GMT Reply-To: "Owen M. Hartnett" Organization: Brown University Department of Computer Science > [Moderator's Note: In your example, it probably would be unreasonable > to force a garage mechanic to tell a prospective employer he had > robbed a bank. It would not be as unreasonable to force the same > person to reveal this if he applied for employment as a bank teller. I guess my point is that currently the bank robber isn't forced to reveal that he was, even if he does apply for the bank teller position. Whether it is reasonable or not, I've heard of no other criminal sentence which required any criminal to reveal past criminal activity before being asked about it. (Of course, if asked, either as part of an employment application or directly, and he lies, this is wrong, but in most employment contracts, it's the employer beware, why is this one different?) It seems kind of funny when convicted murderers do not have reveal the past when not asked and why computer crackers are. Owen Hartnett omh@cs.brown.edu ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Well Len, Was it Worth a Prison Term? Date: Sun, 16 Jun 91 18:39:49 EDT From: "W.A.Simon" To Moderator: I guess you have been roasted over quite a few times by now, by Mike and a few others. I will nevertheless add my five cents worth. I feel you are doing a great job and I am sorry to see you jump to conclusions and accept so easily what our enlightened elites have to say about this case. You realize, I hope,this was a witch hunt all along, and that even if Mr Rose had committed some unspeakable act, justice was not the purpose of the exercise. As a rule, distrust the suits... Alain Home Sweet Office: (514) 934 6320 UUCP: alain@elevia.UUCP ------------------------------ From: Henry Mensch Date: Mon, 17 Jun 91 14:33:33 -0700 Subject: Well Len, Was it Worth a Prison Term? Reply-To: henry@ads.com I find this sort of moralization really objectionable. i thought we were here to talk about telecommunications and not to be sermonized. Henry Mensch / Advanced Decision Systems / [Moderator's Note: Good point, Henry. So with this latest round of messages let's call the thread quits in so far as TELECOM Digest is concerned. Jim Thomas has agreed to take overflow discussion in a future issue of Computer Underground Digest (tk0jut1.niu.bitnet) for interested parties. My thanks to all who wrote me. Even if you did not get included here, I hope your point of view was fairly presented by one or more other writers. If someone will supply a mailing address for Len, his family or his attorney I will publish it for anyone who wishes to provide further financial assistance. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #466 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa28768; 18 Jun 91 5:37 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa20115; 18 Jun 91 3:46 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab12892; 18 Jun 91 2:38 CDT Date: Tue, 18 Jun 91 1:47:34 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #467 BCC: Message-ID: <9106180147.ab21529@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 18 Jun 91 01:46:33 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 467 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Modification of Ringback Tone by Subscriber Apparatus [Eric Hildum] Dumb (Neophyte) Cellular Question [Laird Broadfield] Re: Wireless Phone Security [Dave Levenson] Re: What Was the Real Reason For Change in AT&T Cards? [Ken Abrams] I Need Opinions on These PBX's [Laird Broadfield] Mich Bell Second Line Promo [Ken Jongsma] Historical Note - First Transcontinental Phone Line [haynes@cats.ucsc.edu] Comsec Data Security [Sam Parker] Netiquette and the Telecom Newsgroup [Tod McQuillin] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 17 Jun 91 15:27:30 PDT From: hildum@ariel (Eric Hildum) Subject: Re: Modification of Ringback Tone by Subscriber Apparatus Reply-To: ntmtv!hildum@amdahl.com (Eric Hildum) Organization: Northern Telecom (Mountain View, CA) In article covert@covert.enet.dec.com (John R. Covert 05-Jun-1991 1440) writes: > Specifically, 416 392-7715 rings with double ring, but you are not > billed until someone answers. I have verified this from a trunk which > provides positive indication of answer supervision. Soon, this will no longer neccesarily be true (at least in the USA.) According to recent changes to FCC Part 68.314(h), when a DID call is forwarded out of the receiving switch, answer supervision will generally be returned after about 15-20 seconds (final value yet to be determined), regardless of the actual state of the call. This change was made at the request of the service providers; they felt that they were losing significant sums of money delivering DID calls to PBXes which, due to misprogramming or forwarding of calls over nonsupervisory trunks (eg, out to the public network again), did not return answer supervison when the call was actually answered. The upshot of it all is that you will no longer be able to tell from the call progress tones what the billing status of the call actually is. Eric Hildum Standard disclaimer here (I really don't know what I'm talking about) ------------------------------ From: lairdb@crash.cts.com (Laird P. Broadfield) Subject: Dumb (Neophyte) Cellular Question Reply-To: lairdb@crash.cts.com (Laird P. Broadfield) Date: Tue, 18 Jun 1991 03:35:35 GMT Okay, here it is: Can you have two cellphones (I guess you can't call them "desk sets", can you?) on the same number? I'm sure you could get ring-no-answer and busy-forward from one to another, but I'm talking about for-real both sets on one 7digit. What happens if they're in the same cell? What happens if they both originate a call? What happens if they both *answer* a call at the same time? I can mentally make a case that this would work, but I can also make a good case that it wouldn't. It all depends on how the interaction between the 7digit and the ESN works; does the switching equipment broadcast on the control channel for a particular device, or does it say "Would anyone like to be 555-1212 today?" and listen for replies? I'd appreciate it if one of you in-the-know people would give the $0.05 lecture on how this all works, and/or point me toward a cellular primer. (P.S. U.S. West is the B carrier out here; does anybody know if they have sales offices anywhere where bundling *is* legal?) Laird P. Broadfield UUCP: {ucsd, nosc}!crash!lairdb INET: lairdb@crash.cts.com ------------------------------ From: Dave Levenson Subject: Re: Wireless Phone Security Date: 18 Jun 91 03:13:30 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In article , sbeagle@kennels.actrix. gen.nz (Sleeping Beagle) writes: > This doesn't have encryption either, but the people at Telecom NZ tell > me that as it uses digital communications, there aren't any gadgets > around that can pick it up anyway. You apparently have one such gadget in your posession! The portable set, itself, contains whatever it needs to receive and decode the digital signals. Someone with another such phone could probably listen to your transmissions, by reverse-engineering and 'hacking' the phone, or perhaps by discovering how to put it into its maintenance or technician mode by entering a magic number into its keypad. Dave Levenson Internet: dave@westmark.com Westmark, Inc. UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave Warren, NJ, USA AT&T Mail: !westmark!dave Voice: 908 647 0900 Fax: 908 647 6857 ------------------------------ From: Ken Abrams Subject: Re: What Was the Real Reason For Change in AT&T Cards? Organization: Athenanet, Inc., Springfield, Illinois Date: Mon, 17 Jun 1991 21:28:10 GMT In article andys@ulysses.att.com writes: > In article you write: > Obviously, you missed the followup traffic from AT&T people, including > me, on this. AT&T now buys card verification services from the LECs Apparently I did miss some articles. I didn't even see MY post and only realized it had been published when I started receiving mail. > I hope we don't lose you as a customer. Certainly, the new card > should be a plus, not a minus, once you understand what it can do. And > it *CAN* do your local calls. I have received about five mail messages and have seen a couple of posts but so far, nobody has been able to tell me what the "government rules" are which "forced" AT&T to make this change (or so the literature implied). Some folks have been nice enough to tell me what the "real" reasons are for the change. Why were some of those things not mentioned in the announcement instead of the tripe about government rules?? I dislike being deceived even more than I dislike shoddy service! Several people have mentioned that the "old" (LEC) card number will still work for some unknown period of time. If this is true, the (potential) confusion with OCCs will still exist. I strongly suspect that there will be a cut-off for using the old numbers and it will not be in the too distant future. To achieve some of the aforementioned benefits, AT&T must stop accepting the LEC card numbers. After this happens, I suspect the the RBOCs will stop accepting AT&T cards for local calls since they will then be paying to access AT&T's data base for verification. The business benifits for AT&T are fairly obvious; the benefits to the consumer are not quite so obvious, however. As long as I can place a credit card call to my home number by dialing only 4 additional digits, I will stay with AT&T. If, and when, they force me to use the new number, my decision will probably go the other way if I can find a carrier that will let me use my phone number for credit card calls. Ken Abrams nstar!pallas!kabra437 Illinois Bell kabra437@athenanet.com Springfield (voice) 217-753-7965 ------------------------------ From: lairdb@crash.cts.com (Laird P. Broadfield) Subject: I Need Opinions on These PBXs Reply-To: lairdb@crash.cts.com (Laird P. Broadfield) Date: Tue, 18 Jun 1991 03:48:49 GMT Over the last couple of years we've experienced "explosive growth" as they say, and while Centrex made sense once, it doesn't any more. Right now, we're looking at the following PBXs: AT&T System 25 (soon to be discontinued? that's the rumor...) Mitel SX-200D Toshiba Perception EX Meridian Option 11 (not quite out yet, doesn't seem mature...) The business has about 60 employees at this building, with about 80 lines among us, the intention is to bring in a T1 from AT&T for all the LD and 800 traffic, plus some DID trunks from Pac*Bell. We already have an Octel voicemail system, but that'll integrate with nearly anything. I'd appreciate any opinions pro, con, or neutral on the above list, and will accept (for a limited time!) pointers to anybody else I should look at. Thanks! Laird P. Broadfield lairdb@crash.cts.com (800)367-9947x9483 +1 619 792 9483 ------------------------------ Subject: Mich Bell Second Line Promo Date: Mon, 17 Jun 91 22:04:02 EDT From: Ken Jongsma I just received some interesting marketing material from Michigan Bell. It would seem they are taking Pac Bell's lead in marketing second lines to residential customers for business purposes. Only MB is going Pac Bell one better. They want full business line rates! The flyer is entitled "Introducing Second Line from Michigan Bell" The letter and flyer are printed on very nice coated stock and go on at great length how one can save $35 off normal installation if one gets a "Second Line" installed. They also want to know if one plans on using an answering machine, FAX machine or modem on the line. (Why? To market future services?) They continue on about all the supposed advantages of a "Second Line" (emphasis theirs). Normal residential installation is around $40 from MB, so I thought the $35 off sounded pretty good. Then I reread the material very closely. They are definitely selling a business rate line as the $35 reduction is only 30% off the installation. Since business rates are higher and are all measured service, this is no big bargain. Ken Jongsma ken@wybbs.mi.org Smiths Industries ken%wybbs@sharkey.umich.edu Grand Rapids, Michigan ..sharkey.cc.umich.edu!wybbs!ken ------------------------------ From: 99700000 Subject: Historical Note -- First Transcontinental Phone Line Date: 18 Jun 91 05:48:54 GMT Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz Open Access Computing "Transcontinental telephone line is 75 years old" by Philip I. Earl, Nevada Historical Society published in The Record-Courier, Minden/Gardnerville, NV, July 13, 1989 "The Nevada Historical Society in Reno is currently featuring a new exhibit commemorating the 75th anniversary of the completion of the first transcontinental telephone line. "Sponsored by Nevada Bell and making use of photos from the archives of the Nevada Historical Society, the exhibit will run through the end of August [1989]. Call the Society at 789-0190 for further information. "The telephone in Nevada dates back to the installation of a set of instruments in the Consolidated Virginia Mine in Virginia City in November of 1877 by Frank Bell, a cousin of Alexander Graham Bell. He subsequently established the first central offices and household service in Virginia City and Reno, but the telephone business did not catch on. "In later years, he served a term as Warden of the Nevada State Prison, was appointed Lieutenant Governor on Nov. 30, 1889 and moved up to the Governorship on Sept. 1, 1890. "Telephone linkages with other communities were established as the years passed and long distance service between New York and Salt Lake City was in operation by 1911. In 1910, Theodore Vail, President of the American Telephone and Telegraph Company, began planning for the bridging of the final gap across the Great Basin. "On Jan. 13, 1913, Bell Telephone Company of Nevada was incorporated as a holding company of Pacific Telephone & Telegraph for the construction of the last link. John J. Carty, chief engineer for AT&T, headed a team which developed the vacuum tube repeater and three survey crews were put in the field in Noverber, 1913 to lay out a line between Wadsworth, Nevada and the Utah line at Wendover. "Within five months, the surveyors had staked the entire line - over 400 miles - and right-of-way agents had determined property lines and purchased easements. "An army of 100 men, 34 wagons, 116 horses, four trucks, three automobiles and a crawler tractor had meanwhile descended upon Nevada, but a worse time could not have been picked. The spring of 1914 was one of the wettest in 30 years and crews often found the stakes under water when they arrived. Roads had to be built the whole way to haul in poles and wire as well as every crumb of food, piece of bedding and drop of water. "In some areas, the vehicles bogged down in the sand; in others they mired in the mud. Mosquitos swarmed out of the sagebrush in such numbers that the men had to make blankets out of barley sacks to keep the horses from being eaten alive and they had to be constantly on guard against rattlesnakes. There were also personal hardships aplenty, but the men persisted since each and every one of them felt a sense of mission and history as they went about their daily tasks. "A total of 13,900 poles were erected; each man had perhaps taken a million steps in the course of the four-month project and the linemen had climbed another half-million steps up and down the poles. "As the end of the line near Wendover was reached in the summer of 1914, Bell of Nevada crews met their counterparts from the Mountain States Telephone and Telegraph Company who had been working west from Salt Lake City. On June 17, a "Golden Spike" ceremony was held. "Telephone executives in dark, heavy business suits were on hand that day, as were townspeople, visitors who wanted to be present on that historic occasion, photographers and movie cameramen. When the last pole went up, the ground was tamped. A lineman then climbed up and nailed an American flag to the crossarm. He also attached a banner lettered: S.F. - N.Y. Toll Line Completed June 17, 1914 "The foreman signaled their crews and two teams and wagons crossed under the last pole as a movie cameraman cranked away. The final strands of wire were reeled off and linemen completed the final splice in the line which extended across 13 states. "For the next three days, the men celebrated, dining on roast duck, catered gourmet delicacies and champagne. As it happened, the dining tent was set up on the Utah side, so there was a beaten path across the line into Nevada where the bubbly wine and other libations were served in glass insulators. "Following several weeks of testing by telephone engineers, the line was declared to be ready for service on July 29, 1914. The first official coast-to-coast call was made on Jan. 15, 1915 at the opening of the Panama-Pacific Exposition. The call featured a conversation between Alexander Graham Bell in New York and his old collaborator, Thomas Watson, in San Francisco. [I've read elsewhere that Bell said, "Mr. Watson, come here. I want you." and Watson replied he would, but it would take him a lot longer than it did when Bell said those same words into the first successful telephone.] "A scant three-quarters of a century later, long distance telecommunications account for more than 40 million calls a day, 1.5 million of them from coast-to-coast." haynes@cats.ucsc.edu haynes@ucsccats.bitnet [Moderator's Note: Thanks for an excellent article marking the 75th anniversary of this occassion. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Sam Parker Subject: Comsec Data Security Organization: NIA - Network Information Access Magazine Date: Mon, 17 Jun 91 22:37:33 GMT I would like to know, what are ya'lls opinions on Comsec Data Security? Judge Dredd Editor - NIA Magazine samp@nuchat.sccsi.com ..!uunet!nuchat!samp ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Jun 1991 0:25:34 EDT From: TM1D@nike.cheme.cmu.edu Subject: Netiquette and the Telecom Newsgroup Hello. I've been reading your newsgroup for some time now, and I find that it covers topics of great interest to me. However, I have never participated in a moderated newsgroup before, and I was hoping you could tell me: 1) Where to obtain information both on proper etiquette and the proper method for submitting an article for consideration. 2) Where to get the dictionary of confusing telecom acronyms. Thanks in advance for your reply. Tod McQuillin tm1d@nike.cheme.cmu.edu [Moderator's Note: (1) The new users group on Usenet has regular postings you will find of interest. But the main thing to remember is when writing to a moderated newsgroup, you must write to the moderator in email rather than attempting to reply/post direct to the newsgroup. In most cases, your direct posting would fail, and would be forwarded here anyway ... but not always. Try to edit your message in the style you see others in the group. Make sure your article has a pertinent title. Shorter articles get priority here. (2) You will find three files o finterest in the Telecom Archives which will explain the terms we use here. Use 'ftp lcs.mit.edu' and login anonymous, giving your name@site as the password. 'cd telecom-archives', and pull the three files which begin with the word 'glossary'. Be sure to get the file sent to us from {Phrack Magazine} with glossary terms. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #467 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa01968; 19 Jun 91 2:46 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa03743; 19 Jun 91 1:12 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa22421; 19 Jun 91 0:01 CDT Date: Tue, 18 Jun 91 23:48:06 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #468 BCC: Message-ID: <9106182348.ab16040@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 18 Jun 91 23:47:24 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 468 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Len Rose Assistance Fund - Baltimore Attorney [Mike Godwin] Len Rose Assistance Fund - Chicago Attorney [Brendan Kehoe] Re: Looking for Inexpensive Outside Wire [Irving Wolfe] Re: German Telephone Unification [Wolf Paul] Re: Local Calling Areas (was Surprise!!) [Mark W. Wheatley] Re: John Cooperated With the Mercury? [John Higdon] Re: Looking for Inexpensive Outside Wire [Paul Wexelblat] Re: I Need Opinions on These PBXs [Jim Langridge] Re: What Was the Real Reason For Change in AT&T Cards? [Andy Sherman] Re: Wireless Phone Security [Dan Jacobson] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mike Godwin Subject: Len Rose Assistance Fund - Baltimore Attorney Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation Date: Tue, 18 Jun 1991 11:42:42 GMT > [Moderator's Note: Your concern is deeply appreciated, I'm sure. For > yourself, and anyone else who wishes to contribute to the continuing > expenses of Len Rose's defense or his family's welfare, I'm sure the > best way to do it would be through his attorney, whose address escapes > me immediatly ... perhaps one of the EFF people will provide it. PAT] Len's attorney is Jane Macht of Baltimore. Although I don't have her address at my terminal here, her phone number is 301-294-0461. Mike Godwin, mnemonic@eff.org (617) 864-1550 EFF, Cambridge, MA ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Jun 91 09:18:47 -0400 From: Brendan Kehoe Subject: Len Rose Assistance Fund - Chicago Attorney Reply-To: brendan@cs.widener.edu From CuD 2.10: Sheldon Zenner, the attorney who successfully defended Craig Neidorf, has agreed to channel donations to Len for those wishing to support him. *THIS IS NOT* a legal defense fund, but humanitarian assistance to provide food, rent, and utilities for wife and family. Contributing even a few dollars, the cost of renting a video tape, is one means of supporting one who appears to be bearing the brunt of the hostility of government toward the CU. Len Rose Donation c/o Sheldon Zenner c/o Katten, Muchin and Zavis 525 W. Monroe, Suite 1600 Chicago, IL 60606 Brendan Kehoe - Widener Sun Network Manager - brendan@cs.widener.edu Widener University in Chester, PA A Bloody Sun-Dec War Zone [Moderator's Note: So here are two contacts where one may assist in helping Len and his family for those who wish to do so. Even a dollar from each person reading this would result many thousands of dollars to insure the kids are fed and the rent is paid, etc. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Irving_Wolfe@happym.wa.com Subject: Re: Looking for Inexpensive Outside Wire Date: 18 Jun 91 02:58:06 GMT Reply-To: Irving_Wolfe@happym.wa.com Organization: Happy Man Corp., Vashon Island I missed the original article in this thread, but I have some 700 feet of direct burial 25-pair, left over from a temporary job the local phone company did here for me until they could do the real job with 50-pair. (I had to pay for, and got stuck with, the 25-pair.) I honestly don't remember the exact price, but I think I paid 48 cents a foot, which checks with local supply houses suggested is a good price to begin with. If someone would take the whole thing and pick it up here, I'd sell it for just 30 cents a foot, assuming all this happens soon. Please get in touch with me if you're interested. I'm not interested in shipping it or selling little pieces, but I'd have a guy drive it to Seattle or Tacoma for you if you don't have a truck and want the whole thing and will pay the full 48 cents. Then I'll take the loss on the truck and driver instead of on the cable. ------------------------------ From: Wolf PAUL Subject: Re: German Telephone Unification Date: 17 Jun 91 13:22:47 GMT Organization: IIASA, Laxenburg/Vienna, Austria, Europe linc@tongue1.berkeley.edu (Linc Madison) writes: > First of all, I think that Pacific Bell has had more than enough > notice of the reunification of Germany that they could have made some > mention of Germany and then listed "the area formerly the G.D.R." or > something like that. Granted. But in a country that sends mail addressed to Vienna, Austria via Sydney or Melbourne, what do you expect? (I am not joking!) > Beyond that, though, what are the plans for bringing Germany under a > single country code? Have the plans been finalized and a date set, or > is it all still up in the air? It seems clearly unacceptable to have > Berlin a united city in a unified German nation, but with two country > codes. [apologies if this has been covered recently] I think it is mostly a financial problem. There are problems which ***to the citizens*** of the former GDR are much more pressing than the issue of country codes, and there does not seem enough money even for those things without raising taxes rather more dramatically than the citizens of the former FRG are willing to put up with. For the time being, quite a few things just continue as they have always been, Postal Codes and Car Tags come to mind. The former FRG and GDR continue to use their old Postal Codes, with FRG-Codes prefixed with "W" (West), and GDR Codes prefixed with "O" (Ost=East). And even newly registered cars from the former GDR are recognizable by the fact that their license tags do not look like the FRG tags, even though they now sport the international code "D" instead of "DDR". Symbolic changes were important in Germany during the year leading up to unification, and for a short time thereafter; now reality has caught up with the people, and symbols are the last thing folks worry about. W.N.Paul, Int. Institute f. Applied Systems Analysis, A-2361 Laxenburg--Austria PHONE: +43-2236-71521-465 INTERNET: wnp@iiasa.iiasa.ac.at FAX: +43-2236-71313 UUCP: uunet!iiasa!wnp HOME: +43-2236-618514 BITNET: tuvie!iiasa!wnp@aearn.BITNET ------------------------------ From: Mark W Wheatley Subject: Re: Local Calling Areas (was Surprise!!) Organization: Engineering Computer Network, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK Date: Tue, 18 Jun 1991 16:21:08 GMT In article arielle@taronga.hackercorp. com (Stephanie da Silva) writes: > In article , gs26@prism.gatech.edu > (Glenn R. Stone) writes: >> The Metro Atlanta calling area extends for 80 some miles in a couple >> directions ... it'll be in its own area code in March, 1992. >> Can anybody top that? > I'm surprised no one has mentioned Houston. I thought we had the > largest local calling area in the US. The reason why so many local > BBSs have sprung up around here. A local paper here (Capitol Hill Beacon) announced that the Oklahoma City calling area has been expanded to include all exchanges wthin 35 miles of the "Central Oklahoma City exchange area". The resulting area is said to to be "three times the size of Rhode Island" and the paper states the new area is the "biggest in the nation". It's about 4,000 suqre miles if I remember my formulas correctly :-). For those with a map handy, it runs from Purcell in the South to Guthrie in the North, El Reno on the West and Shawnee on the East. Of course for the ability to call this far we have to pay $25.00/month. And we still have to pay $1.50/month for tone service. You gotta love Oklahoma ... University of Oklahoma * Mark W. Wheatley Norman Campus * mwwheatl@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu BS in Computer Science May 1992 * CIS: 72417,3171 ------------------------------ Subject: Re: John Cooperated With the Mercury? Date: 18 Jun 91 11:27:26 PDT (Tue) From: John Higdon Todd Inch writes: > Perhaps this kind of slant: "Telemarketers Harrass Millions of > Innocent Residents -- Law Suit Threatened" ? > Seriously, I'm surprised you cooperated with the "perpetrators". Alex Barnum, of course, has nothing to do with the telemarketing slime at what is considered (as much as I hate to admit it) by many to be California's finest newspaper. Mr. Barnum approached me with concerns that many of the "popular" computer hacker stories were less than accurate or complete. No excrement! If there is anyone in the media who is interested in factual and complete reporting, I am most willing to offer my time and cooperation to further that end. Even if it is someone from the "dreaded" {San Jose Mercury}. Mr. Barnum, unlike Joe Abernathy, seems to have a handle on it. I was not disappointed by his latest effort. John Higdon (hiding out in the desert) ------------------------------ From: Paul Wexelblat Subject: Re: Looking for Inexpensive Outside Wire Reply-To: mailrus!ulowell!wex@uunet.uu.net Organization: Univ. of Lowell CS Dept. Date: Tue, 18 Jun 1991 18:29:02 GMT About old garden hose as conduit, trouble pulling wire through; I have used silicone spray and/or "pulling compound" (your local electrical supply house/electrician) when the going got rough; buy I have never had trouble with short lengths (100'). The gpstwr!merv@eecs.nwu.edu (Merv Graham) suggestion of plastic water pipe sounds fine; I was suggesting a way to reuse junque. Wex ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Jun 91 17:03:53 edt From: jlangri@relay.nswc.navy.mil Subject: Re: I Need Opinions on These PBXs In Vol 11 #467 lairdb@crash.cts.com (Laird P. Broadfield) writes: > Right now, we're looking at the following PBXs: > AT&T System 25 (soon to be discontinued? that's the rumor...) > Mitel SX-200D > Toshiba Perception EX > meridian Option 11 (not quite out yet, doesn't seem mature...) Laird, I manage and maintain an SX200 (not 200D) here at my office. I like the support Mitel offers and I like the the equipment. I haven't had a whole lot of experience with any of the others though I like what AT&T equipment I have worked with. Jim Langridge | jlangri@relay.nswc.navy.mil | NICCS OA Synetics Corp. | (703) 663 2137 | jlangri 24 Danube Dr. | (703) 663 3050 (FAX) | King George, VA.| 22485-5000 | ------------------------------ From: andys@ulysses.att.com Subject: Re: What Was the Real Reason For Change in AT&T Cards? Date: Tue, 18 Jun 91 18:25:11 EDT In article kabra437@athenanet.com (Ken Abrams) writes: > I have received about five mail messages and have seen a couple of > posts but so far, nobody has been able to tell me what the "government > rules" are which "forced" AT&T to make this change (or so the > literature implied). Some folks have been nice enough to tell me what > the "real" reasons are for the change. Why were some of those things > not mentioned in the announcement instead of the tripe about > government rules?? I dislike being deceived even more than I dislike > shoddy service! What we all gave you were lots of good reasons for AT&T to start using its own card numbers, even if there were no regulatory considerations. However, there is one. In short, the FCC says we have to issue cards with our own card numbers on them or get out of the card issuing business. Currently, under the terms of Shared Network Access Facility Arrangements (SNAFA) set forth by the FCC, AT&T and RBOCS are allowed to share the database and credit card numbers used for card validation. As of 1/1/92, the SNAFA come to an end, and the RBOCS *MUST* use their own database for their own cards and AT&T *MUST* use its own database for its own cards (or get out of the card business). I think that the RBOCs and AT&T are free to sell each other verification services for calls carried by one and billed to the others card, so an RBOC Calling Card should still be able to be used for AT&T calls, just as your Universal Card can be used for RBOC carried calls. Nobody is deceiving you. Come 1/1/92, any card issued by AT&T must have a different number from a card issued by the LECs. I've not seen the announcement that came with the cards, but I gather it wasn't detailed. But explaining all that stuff in the above paragraph to the general consumer LD marketplace (as opposed to Telecom Digest readers) is not an easy task. If you tell too little you get flamed in the Digest. If you tell too much, you confuse an awful lot of people with information they neither want nor need. The statement that new card numbers are being issued because of new regulatory requirements is complete and accurate. Now, if *I* were writing the enclosure, I'd sure put an "and by the way, you get these benefits as a side effect" paragraph and make it clear that local calls can be charged to the new AT&T card. But that's just a quibble. The enclosure was honest, after all (as I always hoped and expected of my employer). I hope that this can put the deception issue out to pasture once and for all. > Several people have mentioned that the "old" (LEC) card number will > still work for some unknown period of time. If this is true, the > (potential) confusion with OCCs will still exist. I strongly suspect > that there will be a cut-off for using the old numbers and it will not > be in the too distant future. To achieve some of the aforementioned > benefits, AT&T must stop accepting the LEC card numbers. After this > happens, I suspect the the RBOCs will stop accepting AT&T cards for > local calls since they will then be paying to access AT&T's data base > for verification. As I pointed out to you in private mail, unless the FCC forbids it, I'd imagine that any IXC would want to accept LEC-issued cards to pick up casual business from people who have other Dial-1 carriers. The major business benefits from the new cards in terms of relationships with regular customers still applies. Depending on the nature of the regulations, I doubt that the LECs would stop using AT&T and/or OCC verification services out of pique. They risk pissing off too many people. > The business benifits for AT&T are fairly obvious; the benefits to the > consumer are not quite so obvious, however. As long as I can place a > credit card call to my home number by dialing only 4 additional > digits, I will stay with AT&T. If, and when, they force me to use the > new number, my decision will probably go the other way if I can find a > carrier that will let me use my phone number for credit card calls. In the absence of any regulations, the consumer still benefits from protection against inadvertant AOS billing. Given the volume of customer complaints on this issue, AOS billing to what customers *thought* was and AT&T card is a customer relations problem, not to mention lost revenue. But it is good for the consumers to know that they can control with whom they do business by what card they use, which they cannot with the old cards. But all that is beside the point, in a way. The Feds require the change. This is just why it would be a good thing to do anyway. Andy Sherman/AT&T Bell Laboratories/Murray Hill, NJ AUDIBLE: (908) 582-5928 READABLE: andys@ulysses.att.com or att!ulysses!andys What? Me speak for AT&T? You must be joking! [But the regulatory information did come from reliable sources] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Jun 91 18:13 CDT From: Dan_Jacobson@att.com Subject: Re: Wireless Phone Security "Paul" == Paul Elliott x225 writes: > We have been discussing the issue of "wireless eavesdropping" on > cordless and cellular phone conversations [...] On ABC-TV's "This Week With David Brinkley" White House staffer John Sununu claimed he was `on the phone practically the whole time' as he was being chauffeur driven from Washington to New York to attend a rare stamp auction, among other things. One wonders how secure his phone was ... (those had better be all business calls, John :-)). [Replies: to the Digest.] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #468 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa06850; 19 Jun 91 15:52 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa31689; 19 Jun 91 14:48 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab08232; 19 Jun 91 3:22 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab29183; 19 Jun 91 2:12 CDT Date: Wed, 19 Jun 91 1:51:24 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #469 BCC: Message-ID: <9106190151.ab22939@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 19 Jun 91 01:50:31 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 469 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Telephone Advertising Consumer Rights Act [Doug Fields] Re: Fighting Phone Hackers in SoCal [Doug Fields] Re: MCI Telecom Consultant BBS: What's Up? [Paul Cook] Deregulation Down Under (and Phone Cards) [David E. A. Wilson] Funny Fault [John Pettitt] Smart/Friendly Modems [Grant A. Lowe] Re: 1991 AT&T Outage [Kath Mullholand] LOD Goes Corporate - Meet the Folks at Comsec [Time Magazine via C Neidorf] 1-900-GIRLS [Dan Jacobson] Questions About Caller*ID Boxes [John Temples] CO Buildings [Robert L. Oliver] Re: Well Len, Was it Worth a Prison Term? [tanner@ki4pv.compu.com] Re: Well Len, Was it Worth a Prison Term? [Steve Forrette] Re: What Len Rose and Al Capone Have in Common [Greg Hennessy] Re: What Len Rose and Al Capone Have in Common [Mark Eckenwiler] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Doug Fields Subject: Re: Telephone Advertising Consumer Rights Act Organization: The Admiral's Unix System & The Grid BBS Date: Tue, 18 Jun 1991 15:59:56 GMT In article Scott Horne writes: > I'm not a lawyer, either, but I think you've been misinformed. First, > the First Amendment doesn't give anyone else the right to speak about > anything on your property. Second, the First Amendment (_q.v._) > doesn't differentiate between political speech and other speech, > anyway; hence, either "NO SOLICITING" signs apply to all solicitations > or they apply to none. Third, "the First Amendment right of the > solicitor to engage in political speech" guarantees only that the > government can't prevent political speech; it says nothing about the > rights of others to keep you from annoying them on their property. I thought the first amendment gave you the right to say anything to anyone anywhere. While you may be welcome on someone's private property, the "No soliciting" sign might imply if you say something then you are automatically unwelcome, turning you from a welcome guest to an unwanted tresspasser. Thus, you can still say what you want, but you have another problem: you are tresspassing, and there are certain rights property owners have over tresspassers. Remember -- "the pursuit of happiness" was "the pursuit of property" ... indicating (to me, IMHO) that owning your own piece of property is a place where you can have your own private happiness -- and you can't have that if someone is annoying you. Doug Fields -- 100 Midwood Road, Greenwich, CT 06830 --- (FAX) +1 203 661 2996 uucp: uunet!areyes!admiral!doug ------- Thank you areyes/mail and wizkid/news! Internet: fields-doug@cs.yale.edu --------------- (Voice@Home) +1 203 661 2967 BBS: (HST/V32) +1 203 661 1279; (MNP6) -2967; (PEP/V32) -2873; (V32/V42) -0450 ------------------------------ From: doug@admiral.uucp (Doug Fields) Subject: Re: Fighting Phone Hackers in SoCal Organization: The Admiral's Unix System & The Grid BBS Date: Tue, 18 Jun 1991 15:50:49 GMT In article Mark Seecof writes: > steal. And these are not kids who need to steal. They come from > white-collar families.'' Obviously; otherwise how could they afford the computer and modem? (I'm not saying that this is a necessity, but to have a high end '386 and a HS modem it can be a pretty safe assumption.) > with search warrants. If the hacker seemed relatively small, however, > Bigley took matters into her own hands, telephoned the suspect and > presented an ultimatum: Either pay up or face criminal charges. Not to protect the "cracker"'s actions, but this is technically extorsion, no? But five bucks says it brings in a LOT more revenue than just handing the name over to the police. > Teen-age hackers tend to be ``very intelligent and somewhat > introverted,'' says Garden Grove Police Detective Richard Harrison, a "crackers", please. I pride myself in being a legit "hacker". > educate themselves about their children's computers. ``If a kid is > spending a whole bunch of time on his computer and it's hooked up to a > modem, he's not just running his software. What is he doing on that >computer? Does he really need a modem?'' > [ed. note -- this officer may be an expert on fraud but is clearly > unqualified to make such sweeping assertions about what (young) people > do with computers. Playing rogue can eat up as much time as hacking > while the modem remains idle.] Wow; wouldn't my mother love this person. Not only am I on the computer for two hours or so a day (of course they must be the only two hours that my mother ever notices me), but I have SIX modems ... I must be a big time mafia boss in the computer business by that reasoning! Doug Fields -- 100 Midwood Road, Greenwich, CT 06830 --- (FAX) +1 203 661 2996 uucp: uunet!areyes!admiral!doug ------- Thank you areyes/mail and wizkid/news! Internet: fields-doug@cs.yale.edu --------------- (Voice@Home) +1 203 661 2967 BBS: (HST/V32) +1 203 661 1279; (MNP6) -2967; (PEP/V32) -2873; (V32/V42) -0450 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Jun 91 17:48 GMT From: Proctor & Associates <0003991080@mcimail.com> Subject: Re: MCI Telecom Consultant BBS: What's Up? Dave Leibold writes: > I had a number for MCI's Consultant BBS from long ago: 1 800 873.5548. > Is the BBS still going? Yes, but they changed the number sometime back. The new number is: 800-274-6241 Paul Cook Proctor & Associates Redmond, WA 206-881-7000 3991080@mcimail.com ------------------------------ From: David E A Wilson Subject: Deregulation Down Under (and Phone Cards) Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Wollongong University, Australia Date: Wed, 19 Jun 91 03:35:45 GMT 1) Deregulation of the first phone in homes and small businesses. From July 1st, 1991 consumers will have three choices wrt the first phone in their home or small business: a) No change - continue renting the phone they have from Telecom Australia. If it breaks down then Telecom will either fix it or replace it at no charge in the home. b) Continue renting from Telecom but if it breaks take it into the Telecom office and have it repaired or replaced on the spot - save $1.25/month ($15/annum). c) Return rental phone to Telecom and buy your own phone from either Telecom or any retailer - save $2.50/month ($30/annum). If you have a new service installed with this option you get a once-only discount of $43 on the connection fee [$250 last time I checked]. 2) Phone cards. Available in $2, $5, $10 & $20 sizes. The card value is debited in multiples of the $0.30 payphone call unit. If the card is left with an odd amount (eg $0.10) this can be used to make one local call. The card can have a phone number programmed into it - either tempor- arily or permanently and either overdialable or not. Thus for example parents could buy a card and program the home number into it and give it to a child and know it could only be used to call home. If the number is overdialable you have 4 seconds after insertion of the card [before it dials the pre-programmed number] to dial a different number. David Wilson Dept Comp Sci, Uni of Wollongong david@cs.uow.edu.au ------------------------------ From: John Pettitt Date: Tue, 18 Jun 91 07:26:00 BST Organization: Specialix International Subject: Funny Fault Yesterday due to a fault all calls to our local ComputerLand store were going to `Toys R Us', the strange thing is I don't think anybody noticed. John Pettitt Specialix International jpp@specialix.co.uk ------------------------------ From: "Grant A. Lowe @second" Subject: Smart/Friendly Modems Reply-To: "Grant A. Lowe @second" Organization: TeleSoft, San Diego, CA Date: Mon, 17 Jun 1991 18:02:33 GMT I'm checking to see what anybody knows about Smart/Friendly modems. There is a dealer locally selling them for under $250. The dealer told me that it is American made, supports V.42, and is guranteed for one-year. Can anybody tell me anything about the modem, either good or bad? Thanks for any help! grant ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Jun 1991 9:02:49 EDT From: KATH MULLHOLAND Subject: Re: 1991 AT&T Outage Refer to {Science News}, Vol. 139, page 104 article titled "Finding Fault" by Ivars Peterson which gives a brief summary of a software fault responsible for a nine-hour long-distance outage on AT&T's long distance network in January of 1990. Kath Mullholand Durham, NH ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Jun 91 11:30:06 CDT From: Craig Neidorf Subject: LOD Goes Corporate - Meet the Folks at Comsec Reprinted from TIME Magazine, June 24, 1991, page 13. AFTER YOU'VE BEAT 'EM -- JOIN 'EM After inflitrating some of America's most sensitive computer banks, is there any challeng let for a digital desperado? Only to go legit, say three former members of the notorious hacker group, the LEGION OF DOOM, who have quit the outlaw game to start Comsec Data Security. The Legionnaries claimed an 80% success rate in penetrating computer networks, and now they want to teach private industry to protect itself from the next generation of intruders. "You can't put a price tag on the information we know," says Scott Chasin, a Comsec partner. But they'll try. (This article features a color photo of the three founding members: Erik Bloodaxe, Doc Holiday, and Malefactor.) Craig Neidorf C483307 @ UMCVMB.MISSOURI.EDU ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Jun 91 18:38 CDT From: Dan_Jacobson@att.com Subject: 1-900-GIRLS Regarding Northern Telecom History; TONY@mcgill1.bitnet (Tony Harminc) adds: > (I can't resist an aside on the Simcoe Street building. This > was built in the early 1970s, and is a very tall, modern looking > building *with no windows* right in the middle of downtown. If > Tony> I am conducting out-of-country visitors around town, I often > contrive to pass by the building and say in an off-hand manner: > "that's the headquarters of the Secret Police". The building > looks forbidding enough that it sometimes works with gullible > visitors.) For added kicks, take them past your TV set late at night. If they are not English speakers, then they probably would get the impression that often those "talk to the girl of your dreams" 1-900 phone advertisements are apparently for prostitution. Certainly this "fool the foreigner" theme must have already been used in a Saturday Night Live type TV show skit already. Also, I noticed "Member of NAIS" (or was it NIAS?) flashed on the screen during one of these ads here in Chicagoland. Perhaps another Telecom correspondent can fill us in on this organization. [Replies: to the Digest.] ------------------------------ From: John Temples Subject: Questions About Caller*ID Boxes Organization: The Museum of Barnyard Oddities Date: Tue, 18 Jun 1991 18:27:03 GMT With the imminent arrival of Caller*ID here in Florida, I want to get the necessary boxes required to support it. Even though the tentative turn-on date of Caller*ID is July 1, the business office has no information to offer me yet. Does one normally purchase the display box from the phone company, or is rental of one included in the monthly fee for Caller*ID? I'd like to get a box that has an RS-232 port on the back so I can have my computer monitor it. Is such a device available? Finally, what about support for multiple lines? Are there multi-line boxes I can hook all my phone lines to, or must I purchase a separate box for each line? John W. Temples -- john@jwt.UUCP (uunet!jwt!john) ------------------------------ From: "Robert L. Oliver" Subject: CO Buildings Organization: Rabbit Software Corp. Date: 19 Jun 91 03:17:29 GMT macy@fmsys.uucp (Macy Hallock) writes: > Look for brick buildings, kinda square, usually one story, with no > windows ... the older buldings for SxS were usually two or three story > in larger areas and did have windows ... these were usually in downtown > areas ... or ask a craftsman. Ahh ... the CO building in my town, Phoenixville, PA is a two or three story building with windows right downtown and was cleared out some time ago to make way for the new switch they're putting in now. Apparently Bell of PA (our Local Bell Atlantic division) is putting in DMS100s not 5ESSs. Comments? We just had a slew of mysterious problems with our DID lines at work (not in Phoenixville), but I suspect that could happen to any switch. The incomming trunks would just all light, but there weren't really calls there. This would go on for either a brief time (7 different incomming phanotom calls) or longer (minutes). Lots of equipment swapping and a few levels of technical problem escalation and nearly a week of problems finally ended. This was all accompanied by real DID calls not being delivered to us. Robert Oliver Rabbit Software Corp. 215 993-1152 7 Great Valley Parkway East robert@hutch.Rabbit.COM Malvern, PA 19355 ...!uunet!cbmvax!hutch!robert ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Jun 91 04:05 EDT From: tanner@ki4pv.compu.com Subject: Re: Well Len, Was it Worth a Prison Term? Organization: CompuData Inc., DeLand [Moderator's Note: Even though I wanted to close out this thread here in the Digest, I had the late arrivals which follow below. PAT] Mr. Rose is on his way to jail for posessing unlicensed source code. The world is now safer for humanity. One stark bad example. Heading off to jail. Now, let us contrast the damage done by Mr. Rose to the damage done by the SS to Steve Jackson Games, and scale an appropriate sentence for them. ...!{bikini.cis.ufl.edu allegra uunet!cdin-1}!ki4pv!tanner ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Jun 91 02:38:31 -0700 From: Steve Forrette Subject: Re: Well Len, Was it Worth a Prison Term? Organization: University of California, Berkeley In article Jim Thomas writes: > And, contrary to another post in the same issue of TCD, there > is no evidence that the programs Len possessed or sent were ever used > in criminal activity. Isn't transportation of stolen property across state lines "criminal activity?" > The question is whether his actions justify a prison sentence, and to my > mind the answer is an emphatic *NO!*. I agree -- probation would have been more appropriate, IMHO. Steve Forrette, forrette@cory.berkeley.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Jun 91 10:30:35 -0400 From: Greg Hennessy Subject: Re: What Len Rose and Al Capone Have in Common Organization: University of Virginia In article is written: The title that you chose borders on libel. How long are you going to libel Len? For someone who claims to sympathise with Len, you sure do kick him a lot. Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia USPS Mail: Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA Internet: gsh7w@virginia.edu UUCP: ...!uunet!virginia!gsh7w ------------------------------ From: Mark Eckenwiler Subject: Re: What Len Rose and Al Capone Have in Common Date: Wed, 19 Jun 91 00:54:29 GMT Organization: Dudley & Stephens, Maritime Caterers Writing for the plurality in , Justice mnc@css.itd.umich.edu stated: > In Telecom Moderator (Patrick Townson) > writes: >> Neither the government or your attorney can ram a guilty >> plea down your throat >if you do not want to go along. Check out the >> Federal Court Rules of Procedure: > Have you ever been in a courtroom, Patrick? The only time the judge > goes through that rigamarole is when there's a court full of > reporters. I've sat through plenty of arraignments in my past life as > a reporter; never unless it was a media circus with full theatrics did > anyone make an issue of why the defendant was pleading guilty (aside > from the judge mumbling a single sentence reminding him or her that > the choice to plead guilty is a voluntary one). What PAT describes is Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It is the *only* means by which a federal judge can take a guilty plea, and the allocution (colloquy between judge and defendant regarding factual basis for plea, etc.) must be made *on the record*. Absent compliance with Rule 11, no guilty plea in federal court will ever hold up on appeal. Period. Mark Eckenwiler eck@panix.com ...!cmcl2!panix!eck ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #469 ******************************  ISSUES 470 AND 471 REVERSED IN TRANSMISSION. ISSUE 470 FOLLOWS 471.  Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa08481; 20 Jun 91 16:11 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id as21590; 20 Jun 91 14:59 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa23378; 20 Jun 91 3:51 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab03554; 20 Jun 91 2:32 CDT Date: Thu, 20 Jun 91 1:24:03 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #471 BCC: Message-ID: <9106200124.ab19935@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 20 Jun 91 01:24:00 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 471 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: More Strange Recorded Messages [Jim Hickstein] Re: What The Heck is "Fiber Optic Quality" Anyway? [Jim Redelfs] Re: Comsec Data Security [B.J. Herbison] Re: The Wonderful Thing About Standards [Arnold Robbins] Re: German Telephone Unification [Charles Hoequist] Tour Given Freely of CO; No Questions Asked [Doctor Math] Speaking in Defense of ThriftyTel (was Phone Hackers) [Kurt Guntheroth] Please Explain the Terms 'Hacker' and 'Phreaker' [Jennifer Lafferty] IDDD From a Cellular Phone [Jim Hickstein] Hook Tapping [Dan Shapin] Need Information About Symposia [J. Porter Clark] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 19 Jun 91 14:06:39 PDT From: Jim Hickstein Subject: Re: More Strange Recorded Messages > "For your convenience, the number you have reached, > 800-338-wxyz, has been changed. The new number is 800-676-wxyz ...". Perhaps this is yet another example of a common abuse of English that drives me up the wall: "If X, then Y" where X and Y have no such relationship. My favorite is: "If you're interested, the number is nnn-mmmm." And if I'm *not* interested, the number is something else? This I've got to see: truly action at a distance, and at faster than the speed of light, no doubt! All I have to do to change the physical property of something is change my mind! :-) Maybe they really meant "For your convenience, we're *telling* you that the number ... has changed." Of course, it's really for their convenience either way, but it would be too much to ask that they admit this in their announcement. Jim Hickstein, Teradyne/Attain, San Jose CA, (408) 434-0822 FAX -0252 jxh@attain.teradyne.com ...!{decwrl!teda,apple}!attain!jxh ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Jun 91 15:01:41 CST From: Jim Redelfs Subject: Re: What The Heck is "Fiber Optic Quality" Anyway? Reply-To: ivgate!macnet!jim.redelfs@uunet.uu.net Organization: Macnet Omaha Mark Miller wrote: > as I understand it, virtually all long distance calls are sent in a > digital format. I believe this is in error. Although AT&T is actively replacing the analog facilities within their VAST system, I'm sure they have a LONG way to go. It wouldn't surprise me to find that only HALF of their traffic makes the long haul digitally -- perhaps even less. > is this "fiber optic quality" spiel just some marketing drival You can bet that it is actively persued my the marketing honchos, but there is certainly a lot of truth to the implication that data transmitted via optical fiber is usually of a higher quality than that which is not. As far as I know, ALL transmissions over fiber ARE digital, whereas NOT all (at LEAST!) transmissions over OTHER type of plant is. Hear a pin drop? So what?!! A fat lot of good that kind of "quality" means when there's a Sports Illustrated "SneakerPhone" on one end and yet another CheapieChirper phone on the other!! JR --- Tabby 2.2 MacNetOmaha(402)289-2899 Multitasking w/MacOrphans (1:285/14) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jun 91 08:43:40 PDT From: "B.J. 19-Jun-1991 1142" Subject: Re: Comsec Data Security > I would like to know, what are ya'lls opinions on Comsec Data Security? In my opinion, the phrase `Communication Security Data Security' sounds like gibberish. If you meant `Data Comsec', then I'm in favor of it. I would like to have the option to encrypt everything (data or voice) I send over telephone connections (both the old-fashioned kind and cellular). I've also spent eight years working for a group that develops network security products. B.J. ------------------------------ Reply-To: arnold@audiofax.com From: Arnold Robbins Subject: Re: The Wonderful Thing About Standards Date: 19 Jun 91 18:41:13 GMT Organization: AudioFAX, Inc., Atlanta Georgia In article forrette@cory.berkeley.edu (Steve Forrette) writes: >> "That's the wonderful thing about Standards; there're so many >> to choose from!" > I believe this can be attributed to Nick Tredennick, who designed the > MC68000 architecture, among other things. But I could be wrong. For sure it's in the first edition of Andy Tanenbaum's book "Computer Networks." I don't know if it made it into the second edition or not. Arnold Robbins AudioFAX, Inc. 2000 Powers Ferry Road, Suite 200 / Marietta, GA. 30067 INTERNET: arnold@audiofax.com Phone: +1 404 618 4281 UUCP: emory!audfax!arnold Fax-box: +1 404 618 4581 ------------------------------ Date: 19 Jun 91 15:00:00 EDT From: Charles Hoequist Subject: Re: German Telephone Unification Just to add some information about German government activity in getting phone service to the Five New Bundeslaender, as they are referred to there: As has been pointed out, people have started using cellular phones to bring their connections with them. This should intensify, as the German federal govt. granted a mobile phone license to a private company (Mannesmann Mobilfunk), the first time anybody's been allowed to compete with the post/telephone monopoly Telekom.There are plans to grant a second private license this year, but restricted to the F.N.B. (are they afraid of some wireless-telephone entrepeneur beating Telekom on its home turf?) This could lead to the F.N.B. using wireless phone almost exclusively for the immediate future, a definite reversal of the situation elsewhere, where wireless is for gadget lovers and yuppies. To improve the wire infrastructure, the German federal government has budgeted 55 billion DM from now through 1997 (about US$32.3 billion right now). This is certainly a low figure, however, as the 1991 improvements budget has already had close to two billion marks added to it. Don't look for anything like the MFJ taking place in Germany, though; Telekom's monopoly is written into the constitution. I can only assume there was some sort of narrow interpretation of the relevant clause in order to allow the wireless competition. Charles Hoequist hoequist@bnr.ca BNR Inc. PO Box 13478 Research Triangle Park NC 27709-3478, USA 919-991-8642 [Moderator's Note: Now that is what we need here in the USA: A constitutional amendment declaring there is but One True Telephone Company and that the others are unconstitutional. :) PAT] ------------------------------ From: Doctor Math Subject: Tour Given of CO Freely; No Questions Asked Date: Tue, 18 Jun 91 10:41:08 EST Organization: Department of Redundancy Department rfarris@rfengr.com (Rick Farris) writes: > I may be moving my office soon, and because I entertain fantasies of > my own leased line connection to the Internet, I'd like to move right > next door to my CO. > Easier said than done. > I live in a small (5k) suburb of San Diego, and I *know* that I have a > CO inside the town limits. I even know it's a 1AESS. (619/259) For > some reason or other, TPC considers the physical location of its > plants to be some kind of top secret information -- probably so that > saboteurs won't come ashore and blow them up. How strange. I called, asked for, and got a tour of my CO (219/28x and 23x) They have a 5ESS and a 1AESS. Some of the out of service recordings and such are on wheels covered with magnetic tape (these are on the 1A floor, not the #5 :-) The #5 is equipped for ISDN and SS7. Some business customers apparently have ISDN lines. The switch serves about 70000 local subscribers. > So, is there some physical clue (besides fat wires) that I could look > for? I know to look for short fat brick buildings. Anything else? It will have NO windows, it may have Bell emblems on it, and you should find a parking lot behind it which is filled with Bell vehicles. ------------------------------ From: Kurt Guntheroth Subject: Speaking in Defense of ThriftyTel (was Fighting Hackers) Organization: John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc., Everett, WA Date: Wed, 19 Jun 1991 17:33:18 GMT Alex Barnum, Mercury Staff Writer says: > "Other critics charge that Thrifty Tel is deliberately haiting hackers > with antiquated switching technology and short access codes that are > easier to hack than the more modern, secure technology and 14-digit > access codes of the major long-distance carriers." John Higdon says: > Mr. Barnum has all the quotes from Ms. Bigley that the {LA Times} > article had, which essentially contain the circular argument that it > costs money to upgrade to FGD and why should Thrifty have to spend > that money on account of "thugs and criminals" while whining about all > the losses suffered at the hands of the hackers. Thrifty's technique > looks more like a profit center than hacker "prevention". Let's suppose ThriftyTel is deliberately baiting hackers (though using older equipment because it is cheap sounds more reasonable to me). How can this be considered more reprehensible than stealing network services in the first place? I find it quite just that a company should hang hackers with their own rope. If ThriftyTel was posting the access codes on pirate BBS's, this might be going a bit too far on the entrappment side, but there is no evidence this is happening. And whoever asked whether ThriftyTel was inducing minors to enter into an unenforceable contract, or an ex-post-facto contract, this may be true. The hackers do have the option of refusing the contract and letting ThriftyTel make good on its threat to initiate criminal proceedings if it can. Probably most hackers, caught crouched over the body with the smoking gun in their hand, and with the knowledge of their guilt in mind, are reluctant to test their luck in court. Record me as a supporter of ThriftyTel. ------------------------------ From: jdl@pro-nbs.cts.com (Jennifer Lafferty) Subject: Please Explain the Terms 'Hacker' and "Phreaker' Organization: Crash TimeSharing, El Cajon, CA Date: Thu, 20 Jun 1991 00:16:05 GMT I'm kind of lost here. Exactly what is "phreaking" and "hacking" as you are using the terms. I'm a computer novice who barely managed to plug in the modem and figure out the communication program! Thanks, Jennifer [Moderator's Note: A 'phreak' is someone who likes to rip off the telephone company by finding devious ways to place calls and circumvent the billing. They also like to burrow around inside telephone company switching equipment looking for things to amuse themselves with. They typically take words which begin with the letter /f/, as in freak, file, and fool, and swap the /f/ for /ph/. A 'hacker' used to be a person who was knowledgeable about computers and wrote programs for them. A 'hacker' was usually a very smart computer person, and generally honest. Beginning a few years ago, the media started identifying phreaks who use computers connected to phone lines as 'hackers' (we prefer to call them 'crackers') and the term stuck. So in common parlance -- unfortunatly, and I use it myself sometimes -- 'hacker' has come to mean a Bad Person Who Phools Around With Computers, ripping off accounts, disrupting the network, etc. Many 'hackers' (crackers) are also phreaks, and vice-versa. Is that all clear now? Try and remember, the correct term for the bad guys is 'cracker' -- not 'hacker'. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Jun 91 23:26:42 PDT From: Jim Hickstein Subject: IDDD From a Cellular Phone I recently signed up with GTE Mobilnet in San Francisco (give or take 100 miles), and almost immediately tried to dial a number in Japan, with 011 +81 ... and got a recording saying that I could not dial this call directly, but had to use some sort of calling card arrangement with a long-distance company. I promptly dialed 01+81 ... and my Pacific*Bell calling card number (while managing not to drive over the edge of the San Mateo bridge), and the call was completed. Humph. So, what was that all about? 10288.700.555.4141 gave an intercept of some kind (my memory is unclear), indicating that equal access was not available. 700.555.4141 yielded a polite "Thank you for using AT&T." So, if AT&T is *the* long-distance company I must use, how could there possibly be any confusion about billing arrangements? That was the explanation that seemed most likely to spring from the lips of a GTE employee the next morning. (*611 and *111, the latter for reporting network trouble, were routed to a recording that told me to call them back when it was convenient for them to come to the phone, i.e. business hours! Clearly their network doesn't *have* trouble during off-peak times, when I will do most of my calling. But I digress.) A friend of mine who reads every word of Telecom (I only manage about 10 per cent of it) mentioned that it was a policy to forestall fraud by "tumbler" phones making urgent international calls to drug-producing regions. Really? How? Or is it: How much? I was informed not an hour before by the GTE tech that my phone told the MTSO both its directory number *and* ESN, and that they had to match in the switch before a call would be completed. Doesn't this go far enough in avoiding fraud of that sort? Or must the customers (the *paying* customers, remember) be inconvenienced, forcing them to dial yet more digits? Why is equal-access not mandated for cellular telephone service, if indeed it is not? Could not the cellular companies provide it anyway, because they're nice guys? Or to get me off their backs? I *was* satisfied with GTE's service representative, who told me that he couldn't give me a map of the exact cell sites, but graciously showed me the big map on the wall of his office, updated daily. It had blue pins for cells off the San Jose switch, and red ones for the San Mateo switch. I thereby determined that I had made the right choice of carrier, as they had a number of cells in crucial locations that I transit in the hills around here. And I was *delighted* to discover that I could dial ten-digit numbers in my own area code (408), so my phone (formerly in 415) did not have to have all its memories reprogrammed. He confirmed that I can call from King City to Vacaville for the normal rate, a distance of some 150 miles, all that territory being part of my home system. In fact, I roam to Stockton (in my driveway, my house is a long-distance call: I live in Tracy) for $0.15/minute off-peak, even cheaper than the $0.20 home system rate, with no per-diem or other nonsense. They seem to do things right. I also confirmed, however, that they charge airtime twice if you use their voice message facility: once to record the incoming call, and again to get your message, which evidently *must* be done from the cell phone, and cannot be done with access codes from a land line. I did not find out whether they charge anything other than the monthly fee for forward-no-answer; I can imagine an unscrupulous carrier nailing the poor slobs every time a call is forwarded, or even airtime for calls forwarded to a land line! I hear someone nails you for 2x airtime for "conference" calls which clearly use only one radio channel. Let us hope this is not a vision of the future. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 May 91 08:33 PST From: Dan Shapin Subject: Hook Tapping How do you place a call with out dialing it using the "Hook tapping" method. Does it work on any phone? ------------------------------ From: "J. Porter Clark" Date: 19 Jun 91 13:07:27 GMT Subject: Need Information About Symposia I'm trying to build up a database of regularly scheduled symposia, standardization committees, trade shows, etc. in the following fields: {digital|analog} signal processing speech technology voice recognition and synthesis audio technology I need to have names and phone numbers and/or e-mail addresses for points of contact. Send me e-mail and I'll summarize whatever I get. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #471 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa08501; 20 Jun 91 16:11 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aq21590; 20 Jun 91 14:53 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa03554; 20 Jun 91 2:32 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa12804; 20 Jun 91 1:11 CDT Date: Thu, 20 Jun 91 0:12:17 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #470 BCC: Message-ID: <9106200012.ab09828@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 20 Jun 91 00:11:39 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 470 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Transporting a Bitstream on a Video Channel [Jim Hickstein] Re: Transporting a Bitstream on a Video Channel [Brian Litzinger] Re: Voice-Mail [John Gilmore] Re: Dumb (Neophyte) Cellular Question [Douglas Scott Reuben] Re: Local Calling Areas (was Surprise!!) [Stan M. Krieger] Re: COCOT Regulations With Reference to New NPA and Prefix [Steve Vance] Re: Wireless Phone Security [Bill Berbenich] Re: What Was the Real Reason For Change in AT&T Cards? [Skip Collins] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 18 Jun 91 21:29:48 PDT From: Jim Hickstein Subject: Re: Transporting a Bitstream on a Video Channel Your mention of USEnet news brings to mind an outfit called "Stargate" that did precisely this. Does anyone remember them? How dead is "Stargate", anyway? Data in the vertical interval on PBS is being used (one line) by a company called InSight Telecast of Palo Alto, CA. (I am a former employee.) It will (does?) carry program schedule information to devices to be embedded in future VCRs that will provide an on-screen version of the upcoming week. I believe the rate was to be about 9.6Kbps. There were a few people at PBS (or was it NPR?) who read news; perhaps they can comment further on the technical aspects of the VBI data equipment. One factor in deciding to use PBS was that, compared to the big three commercial TV networks, they had by far the most modern network. Also, there was (is?) a legislated penetration of public TV into cable markets that the big three's affiliates did not have. PBS had some sort of venture to develop and sell this data service in the VBI, which I personally question as being within the range of "public" broadcasting.* I won't tell you how much they charged for a full-time one-line slot, but it wasn't peanuts. InSight Telecast was mentioned in a press release a few months back which described their announced product. I don't have a reference handy. ----------- * Perhaps this is just another facet of the gradual commercialization of non-commercial broadcasting in this country. I am revolted by the "non-commercials" using up ten-second slots, with full video and voice controlled by the "underwriter" (read: sponsor), at the beginning of many programs. So far, they do not intrude into the *middle*, but it's a slippery slope. I send them money -- quite a bit -- to escape being targeted by commercial pitches. *sigh* ------------------------------ From: Brian Litzinger Subject: Re: Transporting a Bitstream on a Video Channel Date: Tue, 18 Jun 91 18:37:54 PDT Reply-To: brian@apt.bungi.com In , rmz@ifi.uio.no (Bj|rn Remseth) wrote: > Does anyone know about existing hardware that puts a bitstream on a > video channel and let you extract the same bitstream out of the video > video signal, after it has been transmitted on standard video > transport media such as satellite links, video cassettes and cable TV > networks. > This kind of equipment could use spare capacity on local cable > networks and satellite sattelite links to spread e.g. usenet news > quite inexpensively. > But, the Big Question is: Does this hardware exist? I'm not entirely sure if this company has both ends or if the information is transmitted in a reliable manner, but you can certainly ask them such questions. TeleText Communications, (phone 1 408 735 8833) has at least a head-end which runs in a IBM PC Compatible. I've seen it operating on a local TV channel. Brian Litzinger @ APT Technology Inc., San Jose, CA brian@apt.bungi.com {apple,sun,pyramid}!daver!apt!brian ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Jun 91 23:35:22 PDT From: John Gilmore Subject: Re: Voice-Mail Stutter dial tone indicating that voicemail is pending is fine, but it requires that you pick up your phone *for dial tone* periodically. If you pick up the phone *to answer incoming calls* then you never find out that you have mail. I use a PacBell voicemail system (that has some odd quirks but works most of the time), and one thing I'd really like is if it would give me a half-ring when I hang up from an incoming call and there is voicemail. Sort of like the half-rings that GTE phones in Santa Monica used to give in the late '70's anytime an extension phone hung up. This is particularly useful when the voicemail has newly arrived during your current call, due to forward-on-busy. Of course, the morons who answer the voicemail trouble reports swear that outright bugs in the system can't ever get fixed by customer request, let alone having us suggest features to be added. Anybody know a good non-PacBell voicemail service available in Palo Alto? John Gilmore [Moderator's Note: Ameritech Mobile has a nice way of handling this. Whenever you have mail waiting, anytime you use the phone for incoming out outgoing calls you will hear a double set of three short tones just after you press the send button. You can turn this feature on or off in your voicemail account as desired. The default of course is to leave 'notification on'. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: 19-JUN-1991 02:53:11.87 From: Douglas Scott Reuben Subject: Re: Dumb (Neophyte) Cellular Question In article , lairdb@crash.cts.com (Laird P. Broadfield) writes: > Can you have two cellphones (I guess you can't call them "desk sets", > can you?) on the same number? I'm sure you could get ring-no-answer > and busy-forward from one to another, but I'm talking about for-real > both sets on one 7digit. I think this was mentioned here about a year ago (?), and from what I have read, as well as discussions about this with people at various cell companies, you can only have ONE phone assigned to a specific phone number, ie, there can only be one valid phone #/ESN combo active in a system at a time. (Your ESN can have multiple valid numbers assigned to it, though.) The problem lies in that the ESN is "unique", ie, unless you go out of your way and copy the ESN (not too easy), the second, or "extension" phone won't work because the cellular company won't recognize the ESN. In order to place/receive a call, the cellular company does a phone number <-> ESN match check. If your phone number and ESN match with their records, you are allowed to place/receive the call. If not, your call is blocked. So if you have two phones, and you program both to have 415-555-1234 as their number, but they have different ESNs, then only the one with the valid ESN (according to the cellular company's records) will ring. The other will just sit there when someone calls, and do nothing. Some systems may even "lock out" the "invalid" ESN phone from being used even if you switch it back to a valid number at a later time. > What happens if they both originate a call? > What happens if they both *answer* a call at the same time? These are some of the reasons why there is only one phone assigned to a cell phone number, even though I think both can be circumvented. IE, let's say you DO copy your ESN from the original to the "extension" phone. So now both phones have an ESN/number match. Wouldn't both of them ring? I don't know much about the "software" that the MTSO and/or associated computers run, but would the system, seeing two phones answering the same page/call, lock both of them out? (or even lock them out after getting TWO valid ESN/number matches, if the system routinely or for some reason queries the phone(s) ? ) It seems POSSIBLE that cellular companies could offer this service, assuming they modified their software to allow for this. IE, you tell them you want to assign two different ESNs (so you don't have to copy them yourself) to the same number, and that both should ring if a call comes in. The one that picks up the call first gets to talk. If both pick up at the same time, the program will only allow one ESN to get the call, based on some pre-arranged priority system. The system would be similar for Call-Waiting, and Nationlink/FMR, but let's not get into roaming! ;) > I can mentally make a case that this would work, but I can also make a > good case that it wouldn't. It all depends on how the interaction > between the 7digit and the ESN works; does the switching equipment > broadcast on the control channel for a particular device, or does it > say "Would anyone like to be 555-1212 today?" and listen for replies? I think it sends out a number first, ie, 555-1212, and if 555-1212 responds, some protocol takes over and an ESN match check is then done. If all checks out OK, the channel opens, and the phone starts ringing. This takes less than a second. (I was told by a tech guy at Cell One/Boston that BOTH the number and ESN are sent out initially, but perhaps I misunderstood what he meant by "initially"...) (I've been in systems where they did not SEEM to do an ESN/number check for incoming calls -- Cell One/ Stockton allowed me to RECEIVE calls, but not place them, since my cell number was not programmed into their switches. They may have still done as ESN check through their validation system, but you would think that if they could get an "OK" validation on my ESN/number, they could then use this info and assume that my number is a real cell number, and allow me to place calls, no? Weird ... this was in July of 1990 ... I'm sorry now that I didn't experiment further and put totally weird numbers into my phone, then call these numbers via the roam port, and see what happens ...!) > I'd appreciate it if one of you in-the-know people would give the > $0.05 lecture on how this all works, and/or point me toward a cellular > primer. Oh, sorry, that was only the two cent lecture! :) But that's because I doubt I'm an "in-the-know" person! I would suggest the "Red Radio Shack" book which has been mentioned here. A good, brief summary of how Cellular (they call it by its old name, "AMPS") works. If you are interested, I'll see if I can dig it up for an exact reference, but it is available at all Radio Shacks as is called *something* like "An Introduction to Telephone Electronics". Hope this helps, Doug (back from New Mexico where USWEST has no Follow Me Roaming! dreuben@eagle.wesleyan.edu // dreuben@wesleyan.bitnet [Moderator's Note: Actually, the way some cellular companies handle it now, like Cellular One - Chicago and Ameritech Mobile is if they / you want more than one phone to work on a a line, they exempt that number from any ESN checking at all. Example: a cell phone dealer has dozens or hundreds of phones in stock. He lets you test one out. He does not have dozens or hundreds of phone lines with the ESN of a phone in stock associated with each ... he has a special phone line for demo purposes which allows any cell phone to make calls, even one you bougvht from his competitor a year before that you programmed to the special demo phone number! Example: the cellular company customer service department has a few phones laying around they use in the office for tests. The cellular company technicians have phones they carry around all day. They don't want to have to be bothered carrying a certain phone to go with a certain line ... so the administrative phone lines at the cellular company itself as often as not are exempt from ESN checking. Then there are the temporary numbers assigned to roamers coming through town. When you issue a 'follow me' command, the cellular company assigns you a number and tells your home company to forward calls to that number. And those lines of necessity are not ESN-checkable either, so if you know what numbers your local cellular carrier uses for assignment to roamers, and you program your phone to that number, you will get incoming and outgoing calls just fine without the 'nuisance' of an ESN check. This is a gap the carriers should close down if they could figure out a way to do it. One thing they might try is to lock out calls (on demo and/or administrative phone numbers) not originating via the tower they would normally be expected to come on. The dealer will always be at the same location, after all, and his demo traffic would always be on the same tower. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jun 91 08:31:32 EDT From: S M Krieger Subject: Re: Local Calling Areas (was Surprise!!) Organization: Summit NJ > A local paper here (Capitol Hill Beacon) announced that the > Oklahoma City calling area has been expanded to include all exchanges > wthin 35 miles of the "Central Oklahoma City exchange area". In distance, I remember a local calling area that got all of this beat. It was a local call from Kwajalein in the Marshall Islands to Honolulu (about 2200 miles). Stan Krieger All opinions, advice, or suggestions, even AT&T UNIX System Laboratories if related to my employment, are my own and Summit, NJ do not represent any public or private att!uslunix!smk policies of my employer. ------------------------------ From: Steve Vance Subject: Re: COCOT Regulations With Reference to New NPA and Prefix Date: 18 Jun 91 21:54:55 GMT Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link, Sausalito, CA > N0X/N1X prefixes in Los Angeles area before 1980 (that's when New York > City started getting them); I had a 213-413 number in L.A. in 1976. I'm not surprised that COCOTs didn't know about them then, though -- I had trouble with human operators believing that I had such a phone number. Steve Vance {hplabs,lll-winken,pacbell}!well!stv well!stv@lll-winken.llnl.gov ------------------------------ Organization: Georgia Tech, School of EE, DSP Lab From: bill@fisher.eedsp.gatech.edu Date: Wed, 19 Jun 1991 10:08:47 EDT Subject: Re: Wireless Phone Security In article "It Was Written...": > On ABC-TV's "This Week With David Brinkley" White House staffer John > Sununu claimed he was `on the phone practically the whole time' as he > was being chauffeur driven from Washington to New York to attend a > rare stamp auction, among other things. One wonders how secure his > phone was ... (those had better be all business calls, John :-)). Although I don't know it for certain, I would assume that Sununu had a limo which is equipped with a cellular STU-III. STU is an acronym for Secure Telephone Unit (III indicating the third generation of such). STU-IIIs come in landline and cellular models, the last I heard. It is also possible that he used another form of communications available to the White House. They've gotta stay in touch, you know! Most U.S. federal agencies have STU-IIIs in order to conduct classified or otherwise confidential conversations. RCA and Motorola are two of the contractors who make/made STU-IIIs. Motorola still makes them and even sells a STU-III clone for public purchase - no doubt for businesses which don't want their conversations monitored; if any of you attended the Spring COMDEX this year, Motorola had a STU-III on display there at their booth. All of the STU-IIIs that I have ever encountered will also pass a clear or secure 2400 bps data signal from a built-in RS-232 port on the phone itself. That is, of course, in addition to passing clear or secure voice. I wonder what Sununu's roaming charges are like? Bill Berbenich, School of EE, DSP Lab Georgia Tech, Atlanta, GA 30332-0250 ------------------------------ From: Skip Collins Subject: Re: What Was the Real Reason For Change in AT&T Cards? Date: 19 Jun 91 15:42:54 GMT Organization: JHU/APL, Laurel, MD Andy Sherman writes: > In the absence of any regulations, the consumer still benefits from > protection against inadvertant AOS billing. Given the volume of > customer complaints on this issue, AOS billing to what customers > *thought* was and AT&T card is a customer relations problem, not to > mention lost revenue. But it is good for the consumers to know that > they can control with whom they do business by what card they use, > which they cannot with the old cards. Couldn't consumers control with whom they do business by using carrier access codes such as 10ATT, 10222 etc.? Why do we need separate cards and separate numbers to carry around and remember? If I have a 14 digit account number which is recognized by all the LD carriers that I access via 10XXX, I'm happy. This is exactly what I have now with my LEC card. I hope I am not forced to switch. Skip Collins, collins@aplcomm.jhuapl.edu ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #470 ****************************** ^A^A ISSUES 470 AND 471 WERE REVERSED IN TRANSMISSION. 472 IS NEXT.  Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa07575; 21 Jun 91 3:55 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa17996; 21 Jun 91 2:11 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa05349; 21 Jun 91 1:03 CDT Date: Fri, 21 Jun 91 0:16:34 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #472 BCC: Message-ID: <9106210016.ab08377@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 21 Jun 91 00:15:49 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 472 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Hook Tapping [gypsy@silver.lcs.mit.edu] Re: Hook Tapping [Brad Hicks] Re: Does a National Phonebook Exist? [Leonard P. Levine] Re: How to Connect (Cheaply) From Marin to Berkeley? [Steve Vance] Re: What Was the Real Reason For Change in AT&T Cards? [Brian Charles Kohn] Re: Tour Given of CO Freely; No Questions Asked [Wally Kramer] Re: Comsec Data Security [Jeff Carroll] Re: ComSec Data Security [David M. Querin] Re: What The Heck is "Fiber Optic Quality" Anyway? [Jeff Carroll] Re: Please Explain the Terms 'Hacker' and 'Phreaker' [Brad Hicks] PBX Interface Help Needed [Larry Krone] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: gypsy@silver.lcs.mit.edu (The Gypsy) Subject: Re: Hook Tapping Organization: MIT Laboratory for Computer Science Date: Thu, 20 Jun 91 23:51:44 GMT "Hook Tapping" can be used in most (all?) areas to dial a telephone - by imitating a 'pulse-dial' telephone. You simply 'tap' down the 'hook' for a brief second (much less than a second actually) the number of times required to produce a 'digit.' Example ... if you wanted to dial the operator (0), you would simple 'tap' the 'hook' (to hang-up the phone temporarily) 10 times quickly. You can dial a normal telephone number in this way, stopping for a brief period in between each completed 'digit' of the number. This process, of course, does take a bit of practice to do, as the timing of the whole thing is highly important. While trying to dial a 0 for example, you might pause just a bit too long after 5 'taps' - resulting in the telephone company believing that you dialed 5 5 - instead of 0 (10 clicks). To my knowledge, it works anywhere that you could use a normal, 'old,' pulse-dial telephone (which is pretty much anywhere). The Gypsy [gypsy@silver.lcs.mit.edu (18.52.0.230)] ------------------------------ Date: 20 Jun 91 11:10:19 EDT From: "76012,300 Brad Hicks" <76012.300@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Hook Tapping In TELECOM Digest vol 11, #471, Dan Shapin asked: > How do you place a call with out dialing it using the "Hook > tapping" method. Does it work on any phone? I used to do this to call out for pizza from the electronics lab at my college, which had a phone that was technically for inbound calls only. Pick up the handset, then lightly "tap" the switch-hook, the number of times equal to the first digit, as fast as you can while still making the button travel all the way down and all the way back up. Pause a half-second or so, then repeat for the second digit, and so forth. Zero=ten clicks. What you are doing is simulating the clicks of a pulse-dial phone. It takes patience, a steady hand, and a phone that has good "travel" on its switch-hook (most of the old ones, very few of the $5 cheapies), but it can be done. [Personal replies to jbhicks@mcimail.com, please; it's cheaper. Thanks!] ------------------------------ From: Leonard P Levine Subject: Re: Does a National Phonebook Exist? Date: 20 Jun 91 20:08:49 GMT Reply-To: levine@csd4.csd.uwm.edu wallyk@bicycle.wv.tek.com (Wally Kramer) writes: > Is there a ``phonebook'' which covers everywhere in the U.S.? > Electronic, CD-ROM, 900-FIND-THEM :-) or whatever (even paper). > I'd like to track down some college buddies, but I don't have clue as > to what city some of them are in. > [Moderator's Note: No, there is no single phone directory covering the > entire USA in any media. But any large metropolitan library will have > a huge collection of out of town phone books you can review. PAT] There is a product called PhoneDisc USA available on a subscription basis. It resides on 2 CS ROMs and I have no idea of the cost. I am not associated with the product. I have merely seen the ad. Phone: 1-800-284-8353 Mail: 8 Doaks Lane Little Harbor Marblehead, Mass 01945 Leonard P. Levine e-mail levine@cs.uwm.edu Professor, Computer Science Office (414) 229-5170 University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Home (414) 962-4719 Milwaukee, WI 53201 U.S.A. FAX (414) 229-6958 ------------------------------ From: Steve Vance Subject: Re: How to Connect (Cheaply) From Marin to Berkeley? Date: 20 Jun 91 07:39:12 GMT Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link, Sausalito, CA In article rstanton@leland.stanford.edu (Richard Stanton) writes: > I've just moved to Larkspur in Marin, and will be spending a lot of > time connected to a computer in Berkeley. To do this directly costs > 21c/10c per minute on Pacific Bell. I can cut this by about 60% using > one of their calling plans, but it will still be a lot of money if I > stay connected for a few hours every day. I had the "Call Bonus" to Berkeley plan when I worked there (I live in San Rafael), but didn't call for several hours a day. I think you could set up an RCF link, with the distances involved. Call the PacBell business office for new BUSINESS service, and get a "Remote Call Forwarding" service set up in Richmond, pointing at your Berkeley number. Then, it's a local call for you from Larkspur to Richmond, and a local forward from Richmond to Berkeley. Total cost: about $18 a month, plus one cent per minute for the call from Larkspur to Richmond. Steve Vance {hplabs,lll-winken,pacbell}!well!stv stv@well.sf.ca.us ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Jun 91 09:44:40 EDT From: Brian Charles Kohn Subject: Re: What Was the Real Reason For Change in AT&T Cards? Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Quality Process Center In article collins@aplcomm.jhuapl.edu (Skip Collins) writes: > Couldn't consumers control with whom they do business by using carrier > access codes such as 10ATT, 10222 etc.? No. > Why do we need separate cards > and separate numbers to carry around and remember? If I have a 14 > digit account number which is recognized by all the LD carriers that I > access via 10XXX, I'm happy. This is exactly what I have now with my > LEC card. I hope I am not forced to switch. As previously stated, you will be able to take your chances with your current LEC card and selecting your long distance carrier via 10XXX. However, almost none of the privately-owned coin phones in my area accept 10XXX, and those that do accept the code ignore it. Of course I refuse the charges on my bill from AOSs that steal my business in this way, however it is a hassle convincing NJ Bell that I am in my rights. (Which is strange because they rarely give he a hard time when there's an errant LOCAL charge on my bill ... I guess that's because it's easier for them to fix their own problems that it is to fix AOS's problems.) Related quetsion: What obligation to AOSs have currently to provide access to "the big three" via 10XXX? Can I request a phone be taken out of service if it doesn't respond to the code and the AOS operator cannot connect me to AT&T directly? Brian Charles Kohn AT&T Bell Laboratories Quality Process Center Quality Management System E-MAIL: att!hoqax!bicker (bicker@hoqax.ATT.COM) Consultant PHONE: (908) 949-5850 FAX: (908) 949-7724 ------------------------------ From: Wally Kramer Subject: Re: Tour Given of CO Freely; No Questions Asked Date: 20 Jun 91 20:12:49 GMT Reply-To: Wally Kramer Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Wilsonville, Oregon nstar!syscon!viking!drmath@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (Doctor Math) writes in Volume 11, Issue 471, Message 6 of 11: > [The CO] will have NO windows, it may have Bell emblems on it, and you > should find a parking lot behind it which is filled with Bell > vehicles. There are windows on the Corvallis, Oregon CO (503 75x, x=2,4,7). They have mini-blinds on them, but you can look through the holes where the string goes and see the equipment from outside. Also the entrance on the street side used to have a Bell logo on the door and as well as a sign discouraging visitors ("Telco employees only" or something like that.) It's been many years since I visited it though. Wally Kramer contracted from Step Technology, Portland, Oregon 503 244 1239 wallyk@orca.wv.tek.com +1 503 685 2658 ------------------------------ From: Jeff Carroll Subject: Re: Comsec Data Security Date: 20 Jun 91 19:33:58 GMT Reply-To: Jeff Carroll Organization: Boeing Aerospace & Electronics In article herbison@ultra.enet.dec.com (B.J. 19-Jun-1991 1142) writes: >> I would like to know, what are ya'lls opinions on Comsec Data Security? > In my opinion, the phrase `Communication Security Data Security' > sounds like gibberish. If you meant `Data Comsec', then I'm in favor > of it. I would like to have the option to encrypt everything (data or > voice) I send over telephone connections (both the old-fashioned kind > and cellular). I could see this coming. COMSEC is a military term, the meaning of which I won't go into here. Those with a need to know are adequately familiar with its meaning. "Comsec Data Security" is apparently the name of a consulting enterprise recently launched by ex-LoD-types. A spectacularly inappropriate name, if you ask me. Neither, strictly speaking, has anything to do with encryption of commercial data, using DES or otherwise. Jeff Carroll carroll@ssc-vax.boeing.com ------------------------------ From: "David M. Querin" Subject: Re: ComSec Data Security Date: 20 Jun 91 15:49:23 GMT Organization: Texas A&M University A clarification is in order directed at the man from DEC. The individual who was asking about opinions on ComSec Data Security was referring to the new corporation started by various retired members of the "famed" cracking group, The Legion of Doom. David Querin dmq6899@tamuts.tamu.edu The opinions expressed do not reflect upon anyone I work with/for et al. ------------------------------ From: Jeff Carroll Subject: Re: What The Heck is "Fiber Optic Quality" Anyway? Date: 20 Jun 91 19:45:44 GMT Reply-To: Jeff Carroll Organization: Boeing Aerospace & Electronics In article ivgate!macnet!jim.redelfs@ uunet.uu.net writes: > Mark Miller wrote: >> as I understand it, virtually all long distance calls are sent in a >> digital format. > I believe this is in error. Although AT&T is actively replacing the > analog facilities within their VAST system, I'm sure they have a LONG > way to go. This is certainly *not* the case in our corporate network, and I'd guess that AT&T is still some time away from being fully digital, as well. While Barry Margolin made a good point about noisy cable and error rates, I've never *noticed* any impairments on copper-carried digital lines, and I'd assert that you can't actually *hear* the difference. (The only digital call I can remember hearing problems on was overseas, and carried by satellite, I believe; there the error rates *can* be significant.) > As far as I know, ALL transmissions over fiber ARE digital, whereas > NOT all (at LEAST!) transmissions over OTHER type of plant is. Yup. And that's why I'm a Sprint customer (as bad as their customer service is). > Hear a pin drop? So what?!! A fat lot of good that kind of "quality" > means when there's a Sports Illustrated "SneakerPhone" on one end and > yet another CheapieChirper phone on the other!! And *that's* why all the phones at my house are genuine AT&T. Jeff Carroll carroll@ssc-vax.boeing.com ------------------------------ Date: 20 Jun 91 10:59:48 EDT From: "76012,300 Brad Hicks" <76012.300@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Please Explain the Terms 'Hacker' and 'Phreaker' In TELECOM Digest vol 11, #471, jdl@pro-nbs.cts.com (Jennifer Lafferty) asked: > I'm kind of lost here. Exactly what is "phreaking" and "hacking" > as you are using the terms. This should make a LONG thread. Everybody has their own definitions. Pat Townson, the TELECOM moderator, chimed in with his own. If I may paraphrase in the interest of brevity, Pat sez that a phreaker is someone who likes to rip of the Phone Cops; a hacker, a bright computer programmer; and a cracker, someone who rips off computer users. If true, this leaves a gaping hole in the language: what do we call a bright phone system expert who isn't a bright computer programmer? That aside, let me chip in my own definitions, which hopefully will shed as much light as they will heat (grin): HACKER: (n) Derived from "to hack," a verb used at MIT for dozens of years now to mean "to throw something together quickly" with an alternate, but related meaning, "to prank." (In MIT usage, a great prank is still called a hack, whether or not it has anything to do with computers.) Computer hackers are people who live for their hobby/profession. What seperates a truly brilliant hacker from a truly brilliant programmer is that the hacker is only interested in results; s/he will achieve the impossible in record time but with code that cannot be maintained and no documentation. As one of Nancy Lebovitz's buttons says, "Real programmers don't document. If it was hard to write, it SHOULD be hard to understand." Or as we used to say at Taylor U., a hacker is someone who will sit at a computer terminal for two solid days, drinking gallons of caffeinated beverages and eating nothing but junk food out of vending machines, for no other reward than to hear another hacker say, "How did you get it to do THAT?" PHREAK: (n) Derived from the word "phone" and the Sixties usage, "freak," meaning someone who is very attached to, interested in, and/or experienced with something (e.g., "acid freak"). A "phone freak," or "phreak," is to the world-wide telephone system what a hacker is to computers: bright, not terribly disciplined, fanatically interested in all of the technical details, and (in many cases) prone to harmless but technically illegal pranks. CRACKER: (n) A hacker who specializes in entering systems against the owner and/or administrator's wishes. Used to be fairly common practice among hackers, but then, computing used to be WAY outside the price range of almost anybody and computers used to have lots of empty CPU cycles in the evenings. (There also used to be a lot fewer hackers; what is harmless when four or five people do it may become a social problem when four or five thousand do it.) Now hackers who don't illegally enter systems insist on a distinction between "hackers" and "crackers;" most so-called crackers do not, and just call themselves hackers. CRASHER: (n) Insult used by computer bulletin board system operators (sysops) to describe a cracker who enters for the malicious purpose of destroying the system or its contents. Used to be unheard of, but when I was last sysoping, was incredibly common. Crashers (who insist on calling themselves hackers) insist that this is because sysops are more obnoxious about asking for money and insisting on collecting legal names and addresses. CYBERPUNK: (n) A cyberpunk is to hackers/phreaks/crackers/crashers what a terrorist is to a serial killer; someone who insists that their crimes are in the public interest and for the common good, a computerized "freedom fighter" if you will. PROPOSITION FOR DEBATE: "It is immoral for anyone to do that which, if everybody did it, would destroy civilization." [I'll chip in with my position on that last part later, if others are interested enough to perpetuate the thread. Please send personal replies to jbhicks@mcimail.com, it's cheaper.] ------------------------------ From: Larry Krone Subject: PBX Interface Help Needed Date: Wed, 19 Jun 91 18:59:52 CDT I have an application that requires a PBX that with at least a 100 line X 24 Trunk matrix ... I need to interface 3 T1's to connect remote sites with voice and data ... if a remote site presses 9, they need to receive dial tone --- if a person at site A needs to call an extension X at site B, it needs to go seamlessly over the circuits. Any Ideas, Larry Please reply via EMAIL: krone%swatty@attmail.com (Preferred (CHEAPER) address) root@mus.com (Alternate Address) ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #472 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa09876; 21 Jun 91 5:04 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa15914; 21 Jun 91 3:19 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab17996; 21 Jun 91 2:11 CDT Date: Fri, 21 Jun 91 1:39:10 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #473 BCC: Message-ID: <9106210139.ab06379@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 21 Jun 91 01:39:03 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 473 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Important Change in Sprint Plus Rates [Carol Springs] Modem vs. Line-Powered 'In Use' Light [Geoff Steckel] Old Phone Wiring Puzzle [Lynn Goodhue] Campaign for Lower ISDN Rates [Mitchell Kapor] Stopping Telemarketing Sleeze [Douglas W. Martin] All AOS's Aren't Scum [Jim Allard] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Carol Springs Subject: Important Change in Sprint Plus Rates Date: Wed, 19 Jun 91 21:44:49 EDT I noticed on this month's Sprint Plus bill that my June 5 and 6 evening calls were billed at evening rates rather than at night rates. When I phoned customer service to inquire, the rep told me that there has been a change in the Sprint Plus calling plan. Volume discounts now start at $20 rather than $25, and there have been some modifications to the structure of these discounts (to which I didn't pay much attention during the conversation, but I can tell from my bill that I'm getting no more discount than before, and possibly less). In exchange for these "improvements," the *** standard evening rates have gone back into effect *** for Sprint Plus customers. I asked the rep when customers were being notified about these changes, since I had received no warning of any sort. She said that the insert should come in the statement for the June billing cycle, which should be my *next* bill. I told the rep that I was extremely uncomfortable with discount plan changes that take effect without prior notification to customers. She was apologetic but made no offer of credit. I plan to write to: US SPRINT Customer Service P.O. Box 152046 Irving, TX 75015-2048 asking that they credit me for the difference between night and evening rates on all calls made from my home phone between the day the changes took effect (sometime in early June) and the day I received word of the change. I suggest that all concerned Sprint Plus customers do the same. Since I felt it would do no good to give the rep herself flak over the matter, I thanked her for the information and told her I would pass the word on. B-) Carol Springs carols@world.std.com ------------------------------ From: Geoff Steckel Subject: Modem vs. Line-Powered 'In Use' Light Date: 20 Jun 91 04:14:23 GMT Reply-To: gsteckel%Ecd@sun.com Organization: Omnivore Technology, Newton, Mass. (617)969-3448 Recently I bought a PP 9600-SA modem, and attempted to use it. No joy -- the best I could do was 4800 BPS. Mysteriously, only the incoming data were incorrect -- the remote system received my transmissions essentially perfectly. After a lot of futzing around, I disconnected a two-line phone with a line powered 'in-use' light. Voila! 9600 BPS V.32 worked with very low error rates. The culprit was a U.S. Tron # PL2125 two-line phone. It isn't a good phone -- I'm not sure how it passed the part 68 drop tests, and it had other problems. Still, it's the ONLY commercial example of a line-powered 'in use' light I've seen. My Panasonic and 'SW Bell' both use batteries to power the lights. Since the request for line-powered 'in use' indicators recurs frequently on at least two of these newsgroups, I'm posting this to suggest that they might not be a good idea. One could have the possibility of adding significant distortion to the phone signal, which for a V.32 modem could cause very bad interactions between outgoing and incoming data. Grossly simplified, one could easily present a nonlinear load on the line. Any phone engineers have any comment? geoff steckel (gwes@wjh12.harvard.EDU) (...!husc6!wjh12!omnivore!gws) Disclaimer: I am not affiliated with Sun Microsystems, despite the From: line. This posting is entirely the author's responsibility. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1991 22:30:57 EDT From: Lynn Goodhue Subject: Old Phone Wiring Puzzle I've got a puzzle for all you Telecom experts out there. My mother-in-law lives in a house built in the 1950's and the telephone wiring is probably as old as the house is. She's bed-ridden now, and we wanted to rewire the phone in her bedroom so we could unplug it at night and it wouldn't ring in her room. I bought the modular converter for the wall jack, and a modular to four-wire cable to wire in to her phone. When I took apart the old jack, there were only three wires -- green, red and yellow -- no black. So I connected the green, red and yellow wires to the new surface-mount outlet, and screwed everything down tightly. I took apart the phone, and connected up the green, red and yellow wires where the corresponding old wires were on the phone itself, left the black wire dangling, buttoned everything back up, and plugged it in. The phone worked fine -- dial tone, could dial a call, everything. Except that the phone doesn't ring any more. The old wires were a heavier gauge than the new stuff. My trusty AT&T _The_Telephone_Book:_AT&T_Guide_To_Installing_Telephones_&_Accessories doesn't say anything about three-wire wiring, or about what could be wrong if the phone doesn't ring. It *does* say that if the red and green wires are swapped, you wouldn't be able to break dialtone. For the moment, this mystery has actually *solved* the original problem, which was to have the phone available for Mum, without it ringing in her room. (It's one of those old, reliable desk sets that will never die, and you couldn't turn the ringer off, just down a bit.) But some day we'd like to make the phone work again the right way, short of putting back the old heavy three-wire non-modular stuff. Any ideas, guys? Thanks! Lynn Goodhue Smith College BITNET: lgoodhue@smith Internet (maybe): lgoodhue@smith.smith.edu [Moderator's Note: In the box you mounted on the wall try connecting the yellow wire (to the phone) with the red wire. If that does not work then try the yellow wire connected with the green wire. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Jun 91 11:05:12 -0400 From: Mitchell Kapor Subject: Campaign For Lower ISDN Rates On June 13 the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities held its first public hearing about NYNEX's newly re-filed ISDN tariff. Prodigy, Sprint, MCI, and the New England Cable Television Association were present and are expected to enter the proceedings as intervenors (opponents). The DPU's decision will not come before October. In the meantime there will be hearings and briefs. While telcos appear to have made national ISDN deployment a priority, prices in New England are prohibitively high. While ISDN access itself would be available for a fixed monthly fee to business and residential subscribers, there would always be a "metered" usage fee. A circuit-switched connection from a subscriber to a provider would be charged under the "Switchway" tariff, which carries a substantial per minute usage charge (about 16 cents). Packet-switched connections would be charged under the "Infopath" tariff, which carries a substantial per kilopacket charge (60-70 cents per kilopacket). Both of these compare very unfavorably to residential and business rates for a voice-grade line over which data can be transmitted at 19.2 kpbs. I gave testimony at the hearing which emphasized ISDN as an enabling technology for a telecommunications platform to spur information innovators. "I believe there are substantial and vastly under-appreciated entrepreneurial opportunities which would arise out of the wide-spread availability of ISDN at affordable prices. To understand why, it's helpful to appreciate a bit of history of the personal computer field. "The most important contribution of the PC field is not a product, but an idea. It is the idea that a good computer system is simply a platform upon which other parties can exercise their ingenuity to build great applications. When Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak conceived of the Apple II computer in a Silicon Valley garage in the mid-1970's, they had no clear idea what it would be used for. But they went to great trouble to make it attractive for software developers to use. " It also called for lower rates to stimulate demand. In order to be attractive to business and residential customers in large numbers, the price of ISDN must be comparable to what they are already paying for an analog data line. My guess is that "comparable" means 1-2x the existing rate. The filed rates are so high they will create an artificially low demand. My understanding is that Pac Bell's ISDN tariff is more reasonable. If anyone has details about this, I would appreciate hearing about it. A full copy of my testimony may be found in ~ftp/isdn/isdn.testimony on eff.org. If you and/or your company is interested in participating in an effort to persuade the DPU in Massachusetts to set low, affordable ISDN rates, drop a note to isdn@eff.org. EFF will be coordinating an advocacy campaign on this issue and we would like your support. ------------ [Moderator's Note: Mr. Kapor is an officer and founding member of the Electronic Frontier Foundation. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Jun 91 10:30:22 PDT From: "Douglas W. Martin" Subject: Stopping Telemarketing Sleeze A telephone sales person makes a call to an unknown prospect and a very small, very soft, very quiet, and obviously young person answers the phone. Sales person: Hello, may I speak to the man of the house please? Youngster: (whispering) No, he's busy. Sales person: Well then, can I please speak to your mother? Youngster: (in a whisper) She's busy too. Sales person: I see, how about your brother? Can I speak to him? Youngster: (whispering) No. He's busy too. Sales person: (losing patience) Is your sister there? Can I talk to her? Youngster: (in a whisper) She's busy too. Sales person: ( by now quite exasperated) What are all these people doing that keeps them so busy?!!! Youngster: (still whispering) Looking for me. Doug Martin martin@nosc.mil ------------------------------ From: Jim Allard Subject: All AOS's Aren't Scum Organization: Equicom Communications, Inc. Date: Thu, 20 Jun 1991 14:13:11 GMT Since my favorite UNIX afficionado introduced me to the Digest a few months ago, I have been quietly sitting in the background reading the various utterings of respondents, as AOSs and COCOTs in general have been heavily smacked around. While I will agree there are some unethical providers out there, some of us have made a serious effort to provide services which attempt to validate the reasons for the MFJ -- competition. I offer some thoughts of my own as an attempt to balance the picture a bit: Let me begin by clearly stating I would do many of the same things AT&T has done post-divestiture, in an effort to protect my customer base. Great credit must be given to AT&T and the Bell Labs for the technology which allows much of what we do on a daily basis. No one is more impressed with their R&D capabilities than I. Let's not lose sight of the fact that much of that technology was paid for by you and me in over 100 years of a regulated, telecommunications monopoly (with guaranteed rates of return). Not to mention the built-in customer base. 1. Hasn't anyone noticed that AT&T LD rates have dropped dramatically since divestiture? Does anyone really believe they (AT&T) would have done that on their own? If you had a monopoly, would you? Wake up and smell the coffee ... competition among other things have been responsible for more realistic pricing in the LD market. There has also been an increase in charges for local service (not necessarily corresponding but understandable). 2. Anyone who believes there is anything close to a "level playing field" should sit with my operators when someone needs international directory assistance, collect overseas calls and/or connection to non-direct dial countries. No one can do these things except big momma, and she isn't interested in sharing, (not that I blame her). There is a definite advantage on AT&Ts side when these and other services are required. I'd love to have one day's worth of their advertising dollars. I won't bother to discuss the huge differences in what network costs us compared to the "in place" net AT&T has available (paid for by rate payers during the 100+ years they've been around). 3. Every public IXC except AT&T provides 800 or 950 access to their network as a convenience to their customers. AT&T steadfastly sticks to 10XXX as the ONLY means for non-subscribed customer access (or access by their customers from non-AT&T phones). If you owned 200 switches at your hotel chain, would you give guests unrestricted fraud potential? Fact is, it cost us $1500 per switch to allow guests full AT&T capability with fraud protection. We spent the money because some of our clients' guests like AT&T ... go figure, but we believe in service. Interestingly, only 5% of our AOS customers ask for other carriers, a percentage of that for AT&T. We carefully provide instructions for access to the caller's carrier of choice and various other alternative billing methods. 95% of our callers CHOOSE to use us. And yes, we clearly brand our service at the beginning and end of our involvement (which we've been doing since well before it was law). This based on two years of handling greater than 400,000 calls per month. 4. This business of an AOS connecting callers to the AT&T network is a joke. While we can technologically do so, they refuse to take the call, claiming possible fraud and high error concerns as some of their reasoning. It would be a nice service to 'their' customers, and we would have to pay origination charges for the entire length of the call. Their position reminds me of the kid who takes his ball and goes home if you don't want to play by his rules. 5. My company DOES NOT apply any additional surcharges to calls we handle, even though it's legal in many states and for interstate traffic. The same stipulation is in every contract we write. Our rates mirror AT&T's. We guarantee not to charge more than their standard time-of-day discounted rates. In fact, our billing programs round down (not up) to ensure compliance with the policy. Yes, we also issue immediate credit for mis-dialed calls. 6. Until recently (introduction of AT&T's 'new' CIID calling card) there was a major misconception in the minds of the public regarding whose card they had in their hand. There are millions of pre-divestiture calling cards out there with AT&T logos, really issued for the LECs as shared cards. Callers erroneously believe they have AT&T cards. You'll notice they didn't rush to change that 'shared card' perception. AT&T's announced intent is to convert "it's" millions of cards to CIID format by the end of 1991. I for one am very happy about the change. I can't wait to see what will happen when those new card holders find the card no longer works at the hotel/airport/hospital of their choice. This could be the best thing that ever happened to AOS. These callers will soon realize they can get greater flexibility with cards issued by their LEC. They can still use the AT&T network if they want to dial 10288, but my suspicion is they won't want to dial the extra digits. Brand loyalty is great, but most people will default to what is easiest and fastest if the cost and services provided are comparable. I wouldn't throw out my line ID (LEC) card with the comfortable pin just yet. Ohio Bell is making major inroads in the calling card business using just that approach " ... card is accepted by virtually every long distance carrier." Regardless of the belief (and I agree) that 10XXX dialing should be available, reality is that it is not. Is AT&T deliberately designing a card system which will create serious customer dissatisfaction in an effort to pressure aggregators into presubscribing to AT&T? I don't think the last legal shot has been fired on this issue and I hope the public isn't that gullible. I sincerely hope this does not come off sounding like a whining step-child. We expect to be successful or fail on our own merits. If we can provide the service at reasonable costs to the calling public, on a level playing field, I say let the market determine the winners and losers. Keep the politicians out of it, or we'll end up with three LD phone companies about five years from now. That's not what I call choice, and the playing field is far from level. James H. Allard, Jr., Director Operator Services Equicom Communications, Inc. [Moderator's Note: Thank you for sending along a most interesting alternative viewpoint regarding AOS'. I appreciate having you as a reader. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #473 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa26984; 22 Jun 91 0:58 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa30553; 21 Jun 91 23:31 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa03882; 21 Jun 91 22:25 CDT Date: Fri, 21 Jun 91 21:30:25 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs Subject: SPECIAL REPORT: Braided Streams BCC: Message-ID: <9106212130.ab31158@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> The special article which follows has been in sci.crypt, and when Mr. Simon passed it along to c.d.t. he edited it with a special emphasis on telecommunications. I thought youo might enjoy reading it. PAT Subject: Braided Streams (better, bigger and unobfuscated) Date: Mon, 17 Jun 91 18:37:19 EDT From: "W.A.Simon" Warning: the following material was created neither in the United States, nor in a US owned corporation or a US government establishment abroad, nor by a US citizen. It has also been previously published, in whole and in parts, outside the US, as well as within. It would therefore be ridiculous and useless to subject it to restrictive orders regarding the distribution of cryptographic material. ------------- There were a few preliminary postings, in the past three years, but this one is easier to read and to understand. It also addresses, more in depth, some of the points which have been fingered by a number of people, as being unclear. Finally, it explores variations on the theme. Two concepts are explored here, one is the multiplexing/ encrypting algorithm, the other is the manufacturing of cryptologically useful keys. The first concept depends on the existence of the second one to exist in the way it is described here, but it would be best to assume the second problem has been resolved in order to evaluate the first one fairly. There are a number of unproven assertions, for which I make no apologies; if the readers of c.d.t can contribute anything for, or against, I'll be very happy. Of course, since it contains no dazzling mathematical pyrotechnics, a number of the inner cryptology cognoscenti crowd will just up their nose and poopoo; but who said they owned the place |8-)? To those who are still with us by now, I say: Relax, be happy and enjoy the pretty pictures. ------------- Introduction The Braided Stream Secure Communication System is a simple and fast multiplexer system which provides high levels of cryptographic security without having recourse to weak, dubious, or government controlled technologies. Key management is inherent to the design. Unlike public key systems, it is not vulnerable to progress in mathematics or in computational technologies, however unlikely we think these may be. Based on a key which is read n bit(s) at a time (bit stream), and forever refreshed (infinite length one-time pad), a number of streams of data are multiplexed into one output stream. The choice of which input stream, to take the next bit to be output from, is determined by the value of the bit(s) from the key stream. Principles of operations The elementary (and least secure) mode of operation is the two stream mode, which require using up the key one bit at a time, is also known as the 1-bit-mode (1bm). If the value of the next bit of key is 0, the next bit of the first input stream is output; if it is 1, the next bit of the second input stream is output. The contents of each stream are normally a plaintext and a key management channel. Reciprocally, at the other end of the communication link, if the value of the next bit of key is 0, the next bit of input is appended to the first stream; if 1, to the second stream. In such 1bm application, the second stream is used to communicate fresh key material. As new key material is generated/received, it is appended to the key string, and the used up key bits are discarded. In the 2-bit-mode (2bm) the key is read 2 bits at a time; the value of the combined bits range from 0 to 3, therefore allowing the mixing of 4 streams. The 3bm will obviously work on 8 streams, and the 4bm on 16... The choice of bit mode is left to the user (I am in favor of deferring this decision to the value of, for example, the next 2 unused bits in the key, plus one, which would result in either of the bit modes in the range from 1 to 4). Two communicating stations are initially loaded with a startup key, through conventional means (cloak and dagger?). If this seed is uncompromised, so will the link be, for as long as it is used. Management of keys is done on the basis of pairs of stations; if a station communicates with more than one other station, keys must be kept and managed separately. Whichever bit mode is selected, at least one stream is always reserved for key management. The contents of all other streams is a choice for the client to make. A channel (stream) that appears to contain noise only, may itself be a braided stream from a previous processing stage; such practice is left to the users to decide; this could be useful in staggered protective arrangements whereby a corporate system separates streams for its divisions, which can in turn unbraid their own material. The more streams are braided together, the better the security. One or more channel(s) could contain innocuous "give up" message(s), for the relief of duress, should one be forced to divulge some plaintext |8-( ... Unneeded channels can be used to transmit more fresh key material or plain noise. The station initiating the communication link generates a, very ideally, random (see Appendix B) key stream. The stream of bits is appended to whatever existing key string is currently in use. There is the unavoidable problem of key exhaustion to be dealt with. The more streams we need, the faster we use up the key. But considering the high level of security available, there is nothing to prevent us from cheating a bit. A number of strategies for the rejuvenation of old key material can be left to the imagination of the clients. Basically, some key material is sent through one or more streams, and this material is then processed through an algorithm that will artificially increase its length. This can be done for all communications, or periodically, by common consent. A much better way would be to use one channel as a key manager, not just as a pipe for key material; this would require that we develop a simple key management language and a few algorithm to implement it. This should not weaken the security of the system. Appendix A will provide a number of sound methods. Appendix B will address the issue of random keys. Features A transmitted message will have a length that is different from that of the plaintext. The difference in length is grossly determined by the selected bit mode (about double the length in 1bm), and finely affected by the statistical profile of the key. This is an added level of great incertitude that confronts the opposition. This also multiplies (the word is much too weak!) the number of plausible solutions that an exhaustive search can generate. Finally, the "known plaintext" approach is defeated (to be proven) as just any arbitrary plaintext can be retrieved, given a sufficiently long ciphertext, with an adhoc key. Assuming, in a 2bm operation, that a randomly generated key is used to transmit two message streams, one stream of key management information, and one stream of random material to confuse the opposition, the output stream will be undistinguishable from a truly random source (to be proven, but probably wrong in the absolute sense). Four totally unrelated, but not random, streams would, if braided with a random key, appear totally unpredictable (to be proven), if not statistically unbiased. Applications and variations An obvious application would be in multiplexing. A provider of services could, without added effort, multiplex several client channels, and insure confidentiality from mux to demux. In a reversal of roles, the decryption method (unbraiding) could be used to split a long plaintext in 2, 4, 8 or n segments, which could be transmitted "en clair" without further processing. The braiding algorithm could then be used to put the file back together (radio frequency hopping could also be used that way). This is a strong variation, but not quite as strong as the original idea, as it conserves the length of the plaintext. This variation is very useful for schemes in which several communication channels are used, which in itself adds a lot of security. For example, if four courrier runners are to be entrusted each with a piece of the message, this message can be split up in such a way that none of them possesses enough information to guess even a little bit of the contents. Even three of them together don't have enough material. All four segments are required to retrieve any information at all, plus the key. This could be usefull for electronic banking arrangements whereby several people must provide an authentification string, but only the banker knows the decoding key. One could, of course, combine the two approaches, by first mixing plaintext and noise into one stream then, using another key, the result would be split into a number of separate communication channels. With a slight modification in the way keys are managed, we could provide people with varying amounts of information, depending on their security clearance and their need to know, from the same source. Appendix A - Key regeneration Key material gets exhausted faster than it can be transmitted. Therefore, we need a method for the creation of long keys from short ones. It is assumed the short key is cryptoanalytically sound. The first kind of recipe relies on the codebook principle. The two correspondants each have a copy of identical files. Using the safety of the system, one can tell the other which file is to be used as fresh key material to be appended to the current key string. Likewise, instructions can be transmitted as to the kind of transformations to be applied to the file, before use. There are ways to process data in such a way that it loses enough information contents to become useable in this application. The methods are wasteful (See Appendix D for an example). Another recipe involves recycling old key material. As each bit of new key material is transmitted, a number of old key bits are being discarded; in a 2bm transmission (4 streams), on average 8 bits of old key get used up for every bit of new key sent over. We could arbitrarily decide that instead of simply appending the new bits to the key string, the bits that would otherwise have been discarded are also re- appended. Intuitively, one might think that this weakens the system. I don't think so (to be proven). A randomizing system could be used with old key material in order to refresh it. Taking the new key material, in chunks of, say, 8 bits, one search through the old (to be discarded) key stream, for a match; when a match is found, the next, say, 64 bits are cyclically rotated left by one bit, and appended to the current key string. Then the search continues from the current position, with the next chunck of 8 new bits, within the circular buffer. Kind of weak, but still quite usable... A purely algorithmical recipe, involving operations of the various streams upon each others, could be used to increase the total length beyond a simple arithmetic sum of the respective segment lengths. If we send 4 streams of random noise to be used as key material, these 4 streams, known as A B C and D are processed as follows: Using A as key, as many times as required, in 1-bit-mode, mix B and C, then mix C and D, then D and B. Repeat through all permutations, using B C and D, in turn, as key. I think this method would not be acceptable for use in a conventional cryptographic system, as the processing would always involve the same material but, in this case, new material is used every time. These were all first draft samples; imaginative clients can find their own. The basic idea is that if some key material is secure and sound, the results of applying algorithmic transformations to it are secure and sound as well (to be proven). The preferred approach would be to develop a key management language and use one channel to "program" key production. Appendix B - Randomness requirements Key material, ideally, should be random. Manufacturing random number, algorithmically, is not possible. A good compromise must be found, which does not compromise security while allowing automated generation. Should a non deterministic device be available, it would be wise to take advantage of it. Failing this, a pseudo-random number generator (PRNG or prang) will be used. A prang is considered to be cryptographically useful if it is unpredictable. In other words, if we generate a string of 0's and 1's, and we can't guess the next value more than half of the time, we have a good prang. In order to be statistically unpredictable, a prang must be unbiased, as any bias will increase the odds in favor of guessing right. It is not the purpose of this document to provide a good prang. It is assumed that random key material, once processed through an algorithm, can keep its random attributes. The choice of algorithm is critical. Appendix C - How do we know when to stop The stopping problem is another hurdle we have to address. Plaintext streams, key management streams, noise streams, don't all contain the same number of bytes, nor do they get exhausted at the same rythm, because of key randomness. Another problem arises from the fact that most current communication interfaces work with 8 bit bytes and, inherent to the algorithm, we may find ourselves stopping before a whole byte can be i/o'd. The first principle is that the longest plaintext stream dictates the earliest stopping time; so we pad the shorter streams with garbage. The second principle is that we pad the ciphertext up to the next full 8 bit byte. When transmitting noise or key management material, there is no objection to padding. But when processing plaintext, we must have a way of knowing where the end of the plaintext is. There is, so far, no elegant solution. I suggest reserving a character for escape purposes, and use this character as end of file marker, unless it is itself escaped. The ASCII escape character seems to be indicated. When padding an uncomplete byte up to its full 8 bit complement, we don't actually use up any key bits, but for the sake of synchronicity, we must discard as many dummy key bits as there are padding bits. These key bits must all point to a plaintext stream, as it is the only type of stream in which we know where the actual material stops. Appendix D - Recipes for "almost-randomness" Any file, when analyzed, will yield a number of patterns. Contents dependant characteristics and redundancies resulting from the presence of natural language will appear. These are artifacts which cryptanalysts exploit to make educated guesses about the key you have used. But if you are willing to sacrifice efficiency, you can subject your file to a number of reducing algorithm that will remove these hints. The result will still not qualify as fully random, but unless you have been very careless in your choice of files, chances are that you will have reached the limit at which order turns to chaos. The most simple algorithm would be to discard all bits except the parity bits. A better one would be to split a file into two parts (in any way you choose), or to use two distinct and unrelated files, and compare bytes from each file, one pair at a time, to output a binary 0 or 1, depending on the result of the comparaison (skip when equal). The approximative 16 to 1 ratio of "entropization" (?) would bring you very close to having a random output. A sure way of reducing redundancies is to compress the file, but this process usually leaves tell tales patterns. So it is necessary to subject it to further processing. One of my favorite recipes is to take two compressed and unrelated files; I then swap the high order nibbles from one file with the high order nibbles from the other (shades of genetic manipulations). I finally subject the two files to a reducing process, through pair comparaison, as outlined above. ----------------- Enjoy... Alain UUCP: alain@elevia.UUCP   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa27211; 22 Jun 91 1:04 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab30553; 21 Jun 91 23:36 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab03882; 21 Jun 91 22:25 CDT Date: Fri, 21 Jun 91 21:58:44 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs Subject: SPECIAL REPORT: NY Tel and Caller ID BCC: Message-ID: <9106212158.ab01637@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> This special announcement will be primarily of interest to our readers in the New York area served by New York Telephone, but others will find the letter from NY Tel to the Public Service Commission of interest as well. All followups should go to Telecom Privacy. PAT] Date: 20 Jun 91 17:09:40 GMT From: John Cowan Subject: New York Telephone Caller-ID Letter The text of an advertisement in {The New York Times}, 20 June 1991, page D23: STATE OF NEW YORK PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION June 7, 1991 PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OFFERS PUBLIC AN OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT ON THE APPLICATION OF NEW YORK TELEPHONE COMPANY TO INTRODUCE CALLER IDENTIFICATION SERVICE IN SELECTED AREAS OF NEW YORK STATE. The New York Public Service Commission will convene a special hearing before Administrative Law Judge John T. Vernieu to receive comments from affected members of the public concerning the application of New York Telephone Company to introduce Caller ID service: Plainview, New York: June 27, 1991, 2:00 and 7:00 p.m., Cornell Cooperative Extension, Nassau County, 1245 Old Country Road, Plainview, New York 11803 Each of the sessions will continue until all persons wishing to comment have been heard and will remain in session for at least one hour. The company proposes to introduce this service in Poughkeepsie, Kingston, Newburgh, Beacon, and surrounding Mid-Hudson communities initially and to expand it to other parts of the State gradually over the next several years. Caller ID service automatically transmits the telephone number of the calling party to the called party through use of a display device provided by the customers. The company proposes to make available to callers at no charge the option of not sending forward the number of the telephone from which they are calling. However, this option would require callers to dial a special (3-digit) code each time a call is made, to prevent the transmission and disclosure of the caller's telephone number to the called party. The company has set forth its view on this matter in a letter to members of the Commission. A copy of one such letter is attached, and interested parties are welcome to address comments to its contents. The Commission may ultimately adopt, reject, or amend any of the proposals presented by New York Telephone Company and may order increases or decreases in the rates which the company has proposed in this proceeding. It is not necessary to make advance appointments or to present written material in order to speak. All statements will be made part of the stenographic transcript in the case. Persons not wishing to speak may nevertheless comment on the company's request in writing by mailing their statements to Secretary John J. Kelliher at the offices of the Commission, Three Empire State Plaza, Albany, New York 12223. Both written and oral statements will become part of the official case record and will be considered in the Commission's review process. Disabled persons who may require special accommodations at the hearing other than a sign language interpreter are asked to contact the Commission's Compliance Officer at (518) 473-8869. Persons requiring a sign language interpreter should call the Commission's TDD telephone number (collect) in New York City at (212) 219-4292. These special arrangements should be requested at least one week before the hearing date. In the near future, the Commission will also conduct evidentiary hearings to determine whether, or to what extent, the company's proposals are justified under legal standards. The testimony and exhibits offered by the company in support of its proposals, when filed, may be examined at the following locations: Commission offices at Three Empire State Plaza, Albany, New York 12223 and 400 Broome Street, New York, New York 10013 Garden City Public Library, 60 7th Street, Garden City, New York 11530 This matter will be heard in [italics] Case 91-C-0428 -- Proceeding on Motion of the Commission to Investigate New York Telephone Company's Proposal to Institute Caller ID Service. [end italics] JOHN J. KELLIHER [italics] Secretary [end italics] [beginning of attachment] [Bell logo] New York Telephone A NYNEX Company 1095 Avenue of the Americas New York, New York 10036 Bailey M. Geeslin Vice President-Regulatory and Planning April 5, 1991 Commissioners State of New York Public Service Commission Three Empire State Plaza Albany New York 12223 Dear Commissioner: Today we are filing a Petition for Reconsideration of the Order to Modify or Suspend Tariff Filing of the CLASS and Caller ID services tariff. I wanted to use this less formal forum to discuss some of the concerns that led us to the decision to file for reconsideration. We start with the strongly held view that Caller ID is a service that is valuable to individual consumers, to society and to New York Telephone Company. We believe that there is a strong policy need for this service to be available in New York. We also understand that the method of deployment that maximizes its service value introduces privacy issues. On the other hand, methods that eliminate the privacy issues debilitate the service value. Therefore, there is a need to strike a balance. We believe that the balance point is critical and there is not a safe direction in which to err. The current balance of privacy between calling and called parties is the result of technology, not social policy. In early telephone service, all calls were placed through operators, who identified the caller to the called person. Party-line service, which three-quarters of American telephone customers had in 1950, provided a check on the anonymity of the caller, since outgoing calls could not be depended upon to be private. By the 1960s, telephone technology tipped the balance in favor of the caller when direct-dial, single party telephone service became widespread, as did annoyance calls. Technological change, which caused the imbalance, now can help improve it, in the form of Caller ID. The Public Service Commission has recognized how privacy expectations have changed over time, as indicated in the eighth Telecommunications Privacy Principle: "Privacy expectations may change over time requiring, in some instances, changes in telecommunications services. At the same time, changes in telecommunications technology services and markets may lead to changes in customers' privacy expectations." We believe that this may, indeed, be one of those times when changes in telecommunications technology may lead to changes in our customers' privacy expectations. It is New York Telephone's desire to work in close cooperation with our customers and in identifying how to achieve the best balance between the privacy of the calling party and the called party. We are firm in our belief that this balance can best be struck by Caller ID with per-call blocking only (offered at no charge). The privacy value offered by Caller ID to our customers is vastly diminished by the intrusion of the all-call blocking option to all customers and presumptive all-call blocking to all non-published service customers. For example, more than one-third of New York Telephone's New York City customers are non-published. This could mean that subscribers to Caller ID could have the validity of the service pre-empted so often as to call to question its usefulness. Conversely, Caller ID with only per-call blocking [underscore] enhances [end underscore] the privacy level of the called party because it offers the called party the certainty of knowledge that when an incoming call is accompanied by a "P" or "Private" on the Caller ID display unit, the calling party made a conscious effort to block passage of his or her number to the called person. Customer surveys have indicated that this critical piece of information provides the option for Caller ID subscribers to decide to [underscore] not [end underscore] answer these calls. If, however, one-third of all potential calls sends out a "P" automatically, this privacy decision-making capability is essentially voided. From the point of view of non-published service subscribers who don't respond to opportunities to select a blocking option, their privacy decision-making capabilities will also be abrogated. By mandating that these subscribers shall be defaulted to all-call blocking status, they would be placed in a position different from all other customers. Certainly, an opportunity would be offered to check off a preference for per-call blocking. But this type of "negative check-off" tends to elicit a "no action" response on the part of most customers, leaving many customers with a service they don't really want, but simply don't take the time or action to reject. What are the privacy implications of per-call versus all-call blocking options? Per-call blocking maintains the privacy status of calling parties by permitting them to make individual decisions on when to block the passing of their phone number. At the same time, it increases the level of privacy for called parties by giving control over their telephones in making individual decisions on whether to answer a particular call. On the other hand, all-call blocking may not address a privacy issue so much as a convenience issue. Some maintain that non-published service customers should not have to dial the *67 blocking code all the time to block passing of their number. The amount of time it takes to dial *67 for per-call blocking is the same as that to dial an area code. This would not seem to be a great inconvenience. Customer surveys in other states support the joint research we recently concluded with the Commission's staff. Survey results, including a very recent study in Tennessee, show strong opposition to blocking options. Of particular interest is the fact that 41 percent of Caller ID residential customers in Tennessee have non-published service. But we must interject our primary and most urgent objection to all-call blocking -- an objection that has been joined in by emergency response agencies across the country. In addition to diminishing the value of Caller ID, all-call blocking compromises the ability of police, fire, and other emergency service providers to determine the source of the call, thus impeding responses in emergencies and increasing false alarms. All-call blocked callers to fire, police, or medical agencies (non-E-911) calling in an emergency would be likely to forget to "unblock" their telephone number. Customer focus group interviews in New York also indicated a concern that children, currently taught to dial 911 or the police direct dial number to summon help, would not remember to or be able to disengage the line blocking feature in an emergency. From a public safety point of view, per-call blocking is clearly the best option. The debate over privacy issues raised by the opportunities offered by Caller ID clearly centers around achieving a balance between the privacy rights of the calling party and the called party. From the outset, the industry position had been to offer Caller ID without a blocking option. New York Telephone decided to break with the industry position by providing a solution -- per-call blocking -- that we feel balances the privacy rights of the calling and called parties alike. That position is now becoming the industry norm with local operating companies across the nation. As discussed in detail in our petition for reconsideration, we do not believe there are any legal or tariff impediments that would prevent New York State from adopting this balanced approach to Caller ID. We believe that this solution best meets both the privacy expectations and service needs of our customers. I hope that the petition for reconsideration serves as a basis for you to change the order to allow this service to achieve its potential value. I would be more than happy to meet with you at your convenience, if this would be helpful. Very truly yours, [Signature of Bailey M. Geeslin] Identical letter addressed to: cc: Margery Baker Commissioner Harold A. Jerry, Jr. William Cowan Commissioner James T. McFarland Daniel Rosenblum Commissioner Gail Garfield Schwartz Lisa Rosenblum Commissioner Henry G. Williams Richard Stannard --------------- Follow-ups to this TELECOM Digest SPECIAL REPORT should be directed to the Telecom Privacy Mailing List (telecom-priv@pica.army.mil). Thanks.   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa29548; 22 Jun 91 2:13 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa11787; 22 Jun 91 0:42 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac30553; 21 Jun 91 23:36 CDT Date: Fri, 21 Jun 91 23:00:07 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #474 BCC: Message-ID: <9106212300.ab10157@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 21 Jun 91 23:00:00 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 474 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Communications Privacy Statement [Marc Rotenberg] GTE Mobile Communications - LD Ripoff [Bob Stratton] Never Sleep in Room 411 [Terry J. Wood] Wanted: Bennett and Davey Book: Data Transmission [David Moon] ISDN and X-Windows [Menco Duursma] Information Wanted on T1 Rotaries [Jack McMahon] Wanted to Swap or Buy: AT&T D4 Channel Banks [Donald E. Kimberlin] Operator Busy Break-In Now Costs $1.60 [Gary W. Sanders] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 14 Jun 91 10:25:08 PDT From: mrotenberg%cdp.UUCP@labrea.stanford.edu Subject: Communications Privacy Statement STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF COMMUNICATIONS PRIVACY Washington, DC June 10, 1991 As representatives of leading computer and telecommunications companies, as members of national privacy and civil liberties organizations, as academics and researchers across the country, as computer users, as corporate users of computer networks, and as individuals interested in the protection of privacy and the promotion of liberty, we have joined together for the purpose of recommending that the United States government undertake a new approach to support communications privacy and to promote the availability of privacy-enhancing technologies. We believe that our effort will strengthen economic competitiveness, encourage technological innovation, and ensure that communications privacy will be carried forward into the next decade. In the past several months we have become aware that the federal government has failed to take advantage of opportunities to promote communications privacy. In some areas, it has considered proposals that would actually be a step backward. The area of cryptography is a prime example. Cryptography is the process of translating a communication into a code so that it can be understood only by the person who prepares the message and the person who is intended to receive the message. In the communications world, it is the technological equivalent of the seal on an envelope. In the security world, it is like a lock on a door. Cryptography also helps to ensure the authenticity of messages and promotes new forms of business in electronic environments. Cryptography makes possible the secure exchange of information through complex computer networks, and helps to prevent fraud and industrial espionage. For many years, the United States has sought to restrict the use of encryption technology, expressing concern that such restrictions were necessary for national security purposes. For the most part, computer systems were used by large organizations and military contractors. Computer policy was largely determined by the Department of Defense. Companies that tried to develop new encryption products confronted export control licensing, funding restrictions, and classification review. Little attention was paid to the importance of communications privacy for the general public. It is clear that our national needs are changing. Computers are ubiquitous. We also rely on communication networks to exchange messages daily. The national telephone system is in fact a large computer network. We have opportunities to reconsider and redirect our current policy on cryptography. Regrettably, our government has failed to move thus far in a direction that would make the benefits of cryptography available to a wider public. In late May, representatives of the State Department met in Europe with the leaders of the Committee for Multilateral Export Controls ("COCOM"). At the urging of the National Security Agency, our delegates blocked efforts to relax restrictions on cryptography and telecommunications technology, despite dramatic changes in Eastern Europe. Instead of focusing on specific national security needs, our delegates continued a blanket opposition to secure network communication technologies. While the State Department opposed efforts to promote technology overseas, the Department of Justice sought to restrict its use in the United States. A proposal was put forward by the Justice Department that would require telecommunications providers and manufacturers to redesign their services and products with weakened security. In effect, the proposal would have made communications networks less well protected so that the government could obtain access to all telephone communications. A Senate Committee Task Force Report on Privacy and Technology established by Senator Patrick Leahy noted that this proposal could undermine communications privacy. The public opposition to S. 266 was far-reaching. Many individuals wrote to Senator Biden and expressed their concern that cryptographic equipment and standards should not be designed to include a "trapdoor" to facilitate government eavesdropping. Designing in such trapdoors, they noted, is no more appropriate than giving the government the combination to every safe and a master key to every lock. We are pleased that the provision in S. 266 regarding government surveillance was withdrawn. We look forward to Senator Leahy's hearing on cryptography and communications privacy later this year. At the same time, we are aware that proposals like S. 266 may reemerge and that we will need to continue to oppose such efforts. We also hope that the export control issue will be revisited and the State Department will take advantage of the recent changes in East-West relations and relax the restrictions on cryptography and network communications technology. We believe that the government should promote communications privacy. We therefore recommend that the following steps be taken. First, proposals regarding cryptography should be moved beyond the domain of the intelligence and national security community. Today, we are growing increasingly dependent on computer communica- tions. Policies regarding the appropriate use of cryptography should be subject to public review and public debate. Second, any proposal to facilitate government eavesdropping should be critically reviewed. Asking manufacturers and service providers to make their services less secure will ultimately undermine efforts to strengthen communications privacy across the country. While these proposals may be based on sound concerns, there are less invasive ways to pursue legitimate government goals. Third, government agencies with appropriate expertise should work free of NSA influence to promote the availability of cryptography so as to ensure communications privacy for the general public. The National Academy of Science has recently completed two important studies on export controls and computer security. The Academy should now undertake a study specifically on the use of cryptography and communications privacy, and should also evaluate current obstacles to the widespread adoption of cryptographic protection. Fourth, the export control restrictions for computer network technology and cryptography should be substantially relaxed. The cost of export control restrictions are enormous. Moreover, foreign companies are often able to obtain these products from other sources. And one result of export restrictions is that US manufacturers are less likely to develop privacy-protecting products for the domestic market. As our country becomes increasingly dependent on computer communications for all forms of business and personal communication, the need to ensure the privacy and security of these messages that travel along the networks grows. Cryptography is the most important technological safeguard for ensuring privacy and security. We believe that the general public should be able to make use of this technology free of government restrictions. There is a great opportunity today for the United States to play a leadership role in promoting communications privacy. We hope to begin this process by this call for a reevaluation of our national interest in cryptography and privacy. Mitchell Kapor, Electronic Frontier Foundation Marc Rotenberg, CPSR John Gilmore, EFF D. James Bidzos, RSA Phil Karn, BellCore Ron Rivest, MIT Jerry Berman, ACLU Whitfield Diffie, Northern Telecom David Peyton, ADAPSO Ronald Plesser, Information Industry Association Dorothy Denning, Georgetown University David Kahn, author *The Codebreakers* Ray Ozzie, IRIS Associates Evan D. Hendricks, US Privacy Council Priscella M. Regan, George Mason University Lance J. Hoffman, George Washington University David Bellin, Pratt University (affiliations are for identification purposes only) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Jun 91 16:37:21 EDT From: Bob Stratton Subject: GTE Mobile Communications - LD Ripoff Reply-To: strat@ai.mit.edu Some of you may remember me asking for any reasons NOT to buy cellular service from GTE Mobile Communications in the Washington, DC area. Well, I have one now - I'm inclined to think it's a big one, too. For background: In the D.C. Area, GTE resells service from both the A and B carriers (Cellular One, and Bell Atlantic Mobile Systems or BAMS). I elected GTE's resold BAMS service - they had some neat price plans, and were the only people stocking the phone I wanted. After I had the phone for a little while, I called GTE about changing my cellphone's PIC (LD carrier) from AT&T. They said that I'd have to call the carrier I wanted and have them do the switch; no problem, or so I thought. I called MCI and asked them to do the switch, set up some fancy billing to mesh with my existing accounts, etc. They said it would take about ten days to take effect. Last weekend, I discovered that my phone will not dial 700 and 900 numbers, but gives me the fast, high-pitched, "no service" reorder when I dial them, with or without a leading "1". I dialed *611, to ask BAMS what the deal was. They looked at my number, got confused about whether it had been turned on yet, and I explained the GTE reseller status. They then brusquely told me to call GTE. I called GTE to ask why I can't dial 700 and 900 numbers, and they give me some fluff about how "some" 700 and 900 numbers can't be dialed. I explain that this is too vague, and "Eva" says she'll get back to me. This was last Thursday, and I haven't heard from them since, except for a card saying welcome, and that they've tried to reach me without success to see if everything's all right (which I know to be false, as I would have received a message or been paged if they called me). I dialed "00" and got an AT&T operator, which told me who my PIC was. Today, I called MCI to check on the status of the switch. I got a VERY helpful and professional rep who called GTE first, got referred to Bell Atlantic, which said two things: a) I have to write AT&T. and b) call GTE's regular customer service number. The MCI rep three-wayed me with the GTE rep, who then proceeded to tell me that GTE has "chosen" AT&T to carry their cellphone LD traffic in Bell Atlantic-land, and that if I want to change LD carriers, I have to cancel my GTE account and get new service from Bell Atlantic. Needless to say, the MCI rep and I were both disappointed. I'm going to write a letter to the Great Telephone Experiment asking why this condition exists. Do any of you GTE Mobilnet users have to use one particular LD carrier? Inquiring minds want to know. Bob Stratton Stratton Systems Design| SMTP: strat@gnu.ai.mit.edu, c_bstratton@hns.com Alexandria, Virginia | PSTN: +1 301 409 2703 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Jun 91 11:17 EDT From: "Terry J. Wood" Subject: Never Sleep in Room 411 On a recent vacation, I made the mistake of getting room 411 in a hotel. I also made the mistake of being the one to sleep next to the telephone. Around 3 AM the phone rings: Me: "Yea, uh, what, uh, HELLO?" Some woman: "Help! I've fallen and I can't get up!!!" Me: "That's nice. Goodbye" Ok, she didn't really say "Help. I've fallen and I can't get up", but she did say something similar. I also received several calls from other guests in the hotel asking for directory assistance. I guess that in some cities the number "411" connects you to directory assistance. However, dialing it inside the hotel connects you to room 411. Needless to say, I got a different room the next night. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Jun 91 11:29:59 EDT From: moon@gdc.portal.com Subject: Wanted: Bennett and Davey Book: Data Transmission WANTED: a copy of William R. Bennett and James R. Davey, _DATA TRANSMISSION_, McGraw-Hill, 1965. It is out of print. David Moon Internet: moon@gdc.portal.com General Datacomm, Inc. ATTMail: !dmoon Middlebury, CT 06762 (203) 758 1811 FAX: (203) 755 0896 ------------------------------ From: Menco Duursma (pttrnl!duursma@hp4nl.nluug.nl) Subject: ISDN and X-Windows Date: 20 Jun 91 09:07:01 GMT Hello, For one of our projects we try to get the following stack of hard/software working together for a MS-DOS PC: X-windows TCP/IP ISDN (The German 1TR6-protocol) Until now we could not find an ISDN-card for the MS DOS PC (386 or 486) on which we could use standard TCP/IP software in order to use X-windows. We are looking for a complete stack from German ISDN up to X-windows commercially available. However, if you have a better stack, but including ISDN and X-windows, please let me know! Thanks in advance, Menco Duursma (pttrnl!duursma@hp4nl.nluug.nl) PTT Research Tele-informatics P.O. BOX 15000 9700 CD Groningen The Netherlands PHONE: +31 50 821169 FAX: +31 50 122415 ------------------------------ From: Jack McMahon Subject: Information Wanted on T1 Rotaries Organization: GE Information Services, Rockville, MD Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1991 17:47:08 GMT It's my understanding that the RBOCs are now starting to offer T1 rotaries with 24 channels. I'd like to know if anyone can provide additional info. How widespread is this? Are there any vendors making T1 boards to handle such rotaries for HP, Sun, or other Unix platforms? Thanks for all replies... Jack McMahon, Sr. Design Engineer * UUNET: uunet!ge!mcmahon GE Information Services * INTERNET: ge!mcmahon@uunet.uu.net 401 N. Washington St. MC07B * PHONE: 301-340-5166 Rockville, MD 20850 * GE DIAL COMM: 273-5166 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jun 91 14:01 GMT From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <0004133373@mcimail.com> Subject: Wanted to Swap or Buy: AT&T D4 Channel Banks WANTED TO SWAP OR BUY FOR: AT&T D4 Channel Banks HAVE: An excess quantity (50-60) Type 4TO Channel Units One excess OIU - 1 WANT: Similar quantity (24 minimum) OCU-DP One OIU - 2 WARRANTY: Renowned management expert Billy Crystal said, "Warranty? We don't need no steenking warranty!" HAGGLE WITH: Donald E. Kimberlin MCIMail dkimberlin -or- ATTMailP!dkimberlin ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jun 91 09:33:11 EDT From: Gary W Sanders Subject: Operator Busy Break-In Now Costs $1.60 Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories With my Ohio Bell Phone bill I saw an interesting little notice. This capability has been around for a long time, but was generaly used for emergencies. Now Ohio Bell is encourging people to use the service for non-emergency calls.. DIAL 0 (OPERATOR) TO INTERRUPT A BUSY LINE ON A LOCAL CALL. Do you need to talk to someone, and the line is busy? For a $1.60 per call, you can ask the Ohio Bell Operator to interrupt a busy line. The Operator will inform the called party that someone is trying to reach them. The called party will then have to the option to hand up, freeing the line for you to make your call to them. Gary Sanders (N8EMR) AT&T Bell Labs, Columbus Ohio gws@cblph.att.com 614-860-5965 [Moderator's Note: But you should be aware that the called party has the option to NOT break the connection if he so chooses, and you will still pay the $1.60. The Operator did her work by notifying the party. Also, if you claim an emergency exists as the reason for the busy party to break the connection when in fact there is no emergency, then you are probably guilty of a misdeamenor crime. Likewise if an energency *does* exist and the called party refuses to yield the line then he is guilty of a misdemeanor crime. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #474 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa01444; 22 Jun 91 3:15 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa13643; 22 Jun 91 1:48 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ad11787; 22 Jun 91 0:42 CDT Date: Fri, 21 Jun 91 23:55:29 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #475 BCC: Message-ID: <9106212355.ab05045@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 21 Jun 91 23:55:18 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 475 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Let's Hear It For Analog (Was "Fiber Optic Quality?") [Donald Kimberlin] 800-311 Prefix [Carl Moore] Reusing Numbers After Just One Day [David Gast] I Cannot Access MCI ... Any Help? [Peter J. Dotzauer] The Former West Berlin [Carl Moore] Information Wanted About AT&T ISN [David M. Meyer] Call Message Delivery [Marc Fusco] Where is the SLC-96 Power Supply? [Jim Rees] Answering Machine With Date/Time Stamp Needed [Dave Niebuhr] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 21 Jun 91 01:20 GMT From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <0004133373@mcimail.com> Subject: Let's Hear It For Analog (Was: "Fiber Optic Quality?") In Digest v11, iss 471, Jim Redelfs continues a thread Mark Miller started ("What the Heck is Digital Fiber Optic Quality Anyway?">, quoting Mark, then responding: > Mark Miller wrote: >> as I understand it, virtually all long distance calls are sent in a >> digital format. > I believe this is in error. Although AT&T is actively replacing the > analog facilities within their VAST system, I'm sure they have a LONG > way to go. > It wouldn't surprise me to find that only HALF of their traffic makes > the long haul digitally -- perhaps even less. Au contraire, Monsieur Redelfs! Not only has digital transmission been what supplied the explosive expansion of public telecommunica- tions in North America and worldwide; it is also been so increasingly cheap to install and operate that the vast majority of analog plant has been taken out of service. The real reasons for this were money reasons; no more, no less. (Can you say "Cheaper ... VASTLY Cheaper!"?) In the case of AT&T, some may recall that almost two years ago, AT&T took a large write-down to "retire obsolete plant". That was the end of the analog era for AT&T. And, MCI did a similar thing about a year later, with similar effect. Sprint's claim to fame is that they started up building a new network that was all digital from the beginning. (But in fact, they were really only expanding nationwide and replacing the far smaller analog plant their antecedents had built beginning back with Southern Pacific Communications Company in the 1970's..) And the "digital revolution" has gone far beyond the interstate common carriers, too. The Local Exchange Companies (LEC's) have similarly been tossing out analog plant at an incredible rate, replacing and expanding it with digital transmission plant. Only one reason: Cheaper. Continuing Mark's questions and Jim's replies: >> is this "fiber optic quality" spiel just some marketing drival Jim responded: > ....there is certainly a lot of truth to the implication that data > transmitted via optical fiber is usually of a higher quality than that > which is not. I have to take issue here, Jim. Once your inherently analog speech (or analog modem data signals) have been digitized, any difference in error rate due to the underlying transport medium is largely invisible to you. The "last mile" to your house is,with rare exception, still analog copper, while "the last few miles" across your LEC is still very likely digital transmission on copper. This means your "fiber optic quality" phone calls have to transit several miles of copper at each end, anyway. If you happen to be on a campus or in an industrial office of any size, it's pretty likely your signal is digitized as it leaves your premises, for purely economic reasons. On just two wire pairs that once held only two local analog phone lines, your LEC can get 24 circuits. That's done with electronics that costs less than all the copper it would take. If your location is really large (a thousand people or so, and new, such that a lo: of copper would have been required), it's likely your LE C has run fiber right into the premises, because fiber gives them a further economic advantage over larger copper cables ... plus room to expand electronically and not have to pull in even more cable in the future. And it needn't be either fiber or copper, either. There are MANY circuit-miles of microwave radio that bears digitized signals, too. Again, once your signal has been digitized, you can't tell what the transport medium is. Digital transmission is, at once, both a blessing and a curse. When it's working, it works perfectly. Luckily, that's most of the time. But when it fails, it fails flat...and it can go from perfect to failure in microseconds, and even toggle between the two conditions at microsecond rates. One thing to be said for analog: When it's about to fail, you can hear the noise rising, perhaps in sufficient time to do something about it. Not so with digital. What makes digital such an improvement is :hat it's rather unforgiving to its installers. They usually can't get digital to work if they don't do the job with reasonable skill. Old analog could be made to "work," however badly, leading an incompetent installer to tell you that you should be grateful you got anything through! "Olde Analog" really wan't as bad as it was made out to be. Its image problem is that so many people got stuck with so much badly- installed and maintained stuff, they think thxt was intrinsic to analog transmission. Just for a frame of reference: One of my projects in 1971 (Egads! Two decades ago! I'm getting old!) involved 25 analog four-wire circuits that ran 2400 bps 24 hours a day seven day a week, 365 days a year, between Manhattan Island and San Francisco. Each of the 25 data streams had a TDM on it that ran 46 international Telex channels at 50 Baud ... no error correction, no nothing. Couldn't stop; had to transmit everything presented "live." On one channel of each of the 46-channel TDMs, we ran the CCITT-standard international test message, "The Quick Brown Fox Jumps Over The Lazy Dog 12345 67890." (It's in the CCITT book that way.) We kept the telegraphic transmitters and receivers calibrated by the standards books, and scored EVERY character error that occurred. Our typical character errors were three per 24-hour DAY. One time, one of them dropped ZERO characters for THREE DAYS!. This kind of performance was with "ordinary" analog circuits ... circuits that merely met the tariff limits and plant objectives of both AT&T and Western Union (we bought some from each, and Western Union's was all microwave all the way across the country). Oh, we didn't have circuits that were "in spec" when we started out. We had to refuse and test and retest and nagotiate and threaten and deal hard. But magically, once they found out we would take no less than what they advertised and contracted for, the latter two-thirds of our circuits "met spec" when presented to us. So much for "analog being deficient." It's only as deficient as you will accept. Talk about "modern applciations NEEDING digital" is just sophistry. In fact, in a moment, you'll see that analog is coming back. Jim continues with: > As far as I know, ALL transmissions over fiber ARE digital, whereas > NOT all (at LEAST!) transmissions over OTHER type of plant is. This seems a bit garbled, but I take it to mean that"other plant is likely analog." N{t so, as explained previously. However, until very recently, fiber as used for multichannel "telephone network" transmission distances of mroe than a mile or so had only digital electronics to use on it. Our developments in coherent modulation techniques at light frequencies were roughly where radio was at the turn of the century, simply "blasting away" with poorly-shaped, relatively unstable light generators. This has the effect of REQUIRING digital transmission on fiber optics as a practical matter. The jargon for converting older copper plant and microwave to digital operation is called "digital over-build" in the trade. (There! You learned some "inside talk!") But now where are we in 1991? When you read about "erbium amplifers" being applied to fiber cable, you're reading about ANALOG devices being applied to fiber ... because the technique has now been improved such that purer, cleaner lightwave signals can be generated economically ... and AMPLIFIED. "Digital transmission" implies regenerating the signal at intervals along the line, retransmiting a new, cleaned-up pulse signal; getting rid of distortions and noises that can accumulate along the way. Jim concludes with: > Hear a pin drop? So what?!! A fat lot of good that kind of "quality" > means when there's a Sports Illustrated "SneakerPhone" on one end and > yet another CheapieChirper phone on the other!! Absolutely correct, Jim. The vast majority of the public just messes up what's delivered to them anyway. The thing that made a "pin drop" audible was that four-wire transmission has already spread close enough to your phone that transmission levels could be bumped up (with less noise also) so you could hear it without the noi~e. Whether fiber or radio or copper was used to bear the signal was of little importance. Of course, since Sprint had an all-fiber plant, they were at the time FORCED to use digital operation by the lightwave technology of the time. In sense, Sprint's marketeers probably led themselves to believe that fiber was "the only way." The real truth is that in the world of natural physics, there is no such thing as a digital function. Every electrical signal has some small amount of "slope" as it rises, some "overshoot" when it reaches full level, some amount of "slope" when it falls, and some degree of "bounc" when it hits bottom. While these can be ignored in many applications, they are artifacts of the intrinsic analog nature of their transmission medium. And now, even fiber optics is finding the wa~ to maximize capacity is to use analog techniques underlying your "digitized" transmission. If you read the fiber optic engineering journals, they're now saying hurrahs for analog technology ... and advertising for analog-smart engineers and designers, because the universities stopped teaching "analog stuff" a while back, and all the "old analog people" have retired. Were Shakespeare here today, he might say, "All the world's an analog stage upon which digital play only a bit part." ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Jun 91 9:59:45 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: 800-311 Prefix Today, KYW news-radio in Philadelphia announced the 800-311-3414 telephone number. (It was for information regarding a hazardous- material spill today on the PA Turnpike northeast extension, occurring between the east-west junction and exit 31.) I tried this number from MD and got a recording saying my call could not be completed as dialed! I had earlier made use of a number on the 800-800 prefix. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Jun 91 19:05:59 -0700 From: David Gast Subject: Reusing Numbers After Just One Day I called a friend of mine who lived in one of the dorms at UCLA last school year the other night. I called on Sunday and the quarter ended on Friday so I expected to get an intercept like "The number you dialed is not in service ..." and I was hoping "the new number is ..." Instead I got connected to new tenants. I am not sure if it was the same room number, but it was the same dorm (I asked). Less than one business day is way too quick in my opinion. The only reasonable explanation would be that the old tenants forgot to cancel their phone service or that GTE was slow in processing it. Otherwise it is substandard service from our beloved GTE. David ------------------------------ From: Peter J Dotzauer Subject: I Cannot Access MCI ... Any Help? Organization: The Ohio State University Date: Wed, 19 Jun 1991 18:36:54 GMT As an on-campus resident at the Ohio State University, I can't seem to have straight access to MCI that would allow me to subscribe to their 'Call Europe' program (which would save me a lot of money). Ohio State University has its own campus telephone system, and they subscribe to U.S. Sprint for long distance services. U.S. Sprint universally blocked alternate carrier access, so I cannot dial 10222 to connect to MCI; I would have to go through a U.S. Sprint operator. Because of that, MCI says I cannot subscribe to their program, and to some other programs only as a calling card holder (the calling card surchage usually consumes any benefit of a particular program and therefore makes it not worthwhile). Is there anything else I can do? Does Ohio State University or U.S. Sprint violate any rights that I have? Peter Dotzauer, Analyt.Cart.& GIS, Dept.of Geogr., OSU, Columbus, OH 43210-1361 TEL +1 614 292 1357 FAX +1 614 292 6213 FIDO 1:226/50 IRC/ICB/Relay Ratzer INTERNET pjd+@osu.edu UUCP ...!bluemoon!pjd DECnet mapvxa::pjd BITNET pjd+@ohstmail WWIVnet pjd@6450 FreeNet ak061 ProLine pjd@pro-tcc ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Jun 91 10:51:30 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: The Former West Berlin Given the recent messages about unified Germany, you might note that the former West Berlin has city code 30 under country code 49. As you probably know, Berlin is deep inside the former East Germany. [Moderator's Note: Prior to the unification, (or now for that matter) how were 'local' calls between East and West Berlin dialed? PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jun 91 17:06:10 PDT From: "David M. Meyer" Subject: Information Wanted About AT&T ISN I am looking for information about the AT&T ISN switch. Does anyone have any literature (or anything else) about this device? Thanks, David M. Meyer Voice: 503/346-1747 Network Systems Analyst Internet: meyer@oregon.uoregon.edu Office of University Computing Bitnet: meyer@oregon University of Oregon UUCP: ...!uoregon!meyer 1225 Kincaid FAX: 503/346-4397 Eugene, OR 97403 ------------------------------ From: Marc Fusco Subject: Call Message Delivery Date: 19 Jun 91 23:39:15 GMT Organization: Bellcore - Red Bank, NJ I recently caught part of an ad on TV by AT&T promoting a new (?) service, whereby one can call an 800 number from a public phone and leave a message that will be delivered to another party. I assume your credit card will be billed. Does anyone have any further information on this service? Are there any competitors to this service? What about user interfaces (does the service require an operator), billing, and limitations (inter/intra LATA)? Is this only available to public phone users? Any information would be helpful. Thanks, Marc mf@nvuxr.cc.bellcore.com ------------------------------ From: rees@pisa.citi.umich.edu (Jim Rees) Subject: Where is the SLC-96 Power Supply? Reply-To: rees@citi.umich.edu (Jim Rees) Organization: University of Michigan IFS Project Date: Thu, 20 Jun 91 17:00:32 GMT How is an SLC-96 powered? Local AC connected at the site? DC sent down a pair from the CO? I assume it's battery backed, but how long is the battery good for? We had a power outage here a few years back that lasted ten days. The CO stayed up because they have their own diesel generators. But what about customers on an SLC-96 (or equivalent)? ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1991 11:01:56 EDT From: "Dave Niebuhr, BNL CCD, 516-282-3093" Subject: Answering Machine With Date/Time Stamp Needed I'm looking for a telephone-answering machine combination that will put a time and date stamp on each call that is put on the tape. Does anyone know of any good makes and models that I should look for? Please include pros and cons. Direct any replies via e-mail to niebuhr@bnl.gov (Internet) or dwn1 at bnlvmxa on bitnet. The former is preferred but the latter is acceptable. Thanks in advance, Dave Niebuhr Brookhaven National Laboratory niebuhr@bnlcl6.bnl.gov ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #475 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa01582; 22 Jun 91 3:19 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab13643; 22 Jun 91 1:53 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ah11787; 22 Jun 91 0:43 CDT Date: Sat, 22 Jun 91 0:23:30 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #476 BCC: Message-ID: <9106220023.ab07606@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 22 Jun 91 00:23:24 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 476 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: What The Heck is "Fiber Optic Quality" Anyway? [Bryan Richardson] Re: What The Heck is 'Fiber Optic Quality' Anyway? [Jack Dominey] Re: What The Heck is "Fiber Optic Quality" Anyway? [John O'Brien] Re: What The Heck is "Fiber Optic Quality" Anyway? [David Nochlin] Re: All AOS's Aren't Scum [Fred R. Goldstein] Re: All AOS's Aren't Scum [Robert Jacobson] Re: Speaking in Defense of ThriftyTel (was Fighting Hackers) [Dennis Rears] Re: Speaking in Defense of ThriftyTel (was Fighting Hackers) [John Higdon] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bryan Richardson Subject: Re: What The Heck is "Fiber Optic Quality" Anyway? Date: 21 Jun 91 14:23:25 GMT Reply-To: Bryan Richardson Organization: Department of Computer Science, Purdue University In article Jeff Carroll writes: > In article ivgate!macnet!jim.redelfs@ > uunet.uu.net writes: >> Mark Miller wrote: >>> as I understand it, virtually all long distance calls are sent in a >>> digital format. >> I believe this is in error. Although AT&T is actively replacing the >> analog facilities within their VAST system, I'm sure they have a LONG >> way to go. > This is certainly *not* the case in our corporate network, and > I'd guess that AT&T is still some time away from being fully digital, > as well. Every switch in the AT&T network is a digital switch with the exception of a single cross-bar (in North Dakota, I think), and perhaps a few TSPSs which haven't been replaced. If I remember correctly, the transmission facilities within the network are over 99% digital -- fiber, microwave, etc. Thus, it is highly likely that any call placed over the AT&T network is digital from the moment that it enters through the moment that it leaves the network. What often affects sound quality on a call (in addition to the Sports Illustrated phone), is the copper loop from the subscriber to the CO (always analog), the local CO, and the transmission medium from the CO to the AT&T network. Bryan Richardson richard@cs.purdue.edu AT&T Bell Laboratories and, for 1991, Purdue University Disclaimer: Neither AT&T nor Purdue are responsible for my opinions. ------------------------------ From: jdominey@bsga05.attmail.com Date: Fri Jun 21 09:02:55 EDT 1991 Subject: Re: What The Heck is 'Fiber Optic Quality'? In V11#471 Jim Redelfs writes: Mark Miller wrote: >> as I understand it, virtually all long distance calls are sent in a >> digital format. > I believe this is in error. Although AT&T is actively replacing the > analog facilities within their VAST system, I'm sure they have a LONG > way to go. > It wouldn't surprise me to find that only HALF of their traffic makes > the long haul digitally -- perhaps even less. Surprise! My figures are at least a year out of date, but AT&T's network digitization is almost complete. As of mid-1990, about 95% of the network was digital. Since digital circuits are given preference by the switches, the actual percent of calls carried digitally was closer to 98%. AT&T made an immense push starting in '87 or '88 to switch as much as possible from analog to digital facilities. This included a six billion dollar accounting write-down one year to dump some of the old stuff. It's been a remarkable shift, really. >> is this "fiber optic quality" spiel just some marketing drival > You can bet that it is actively persued my the marketing honchos, but > there is certainly a lot of truth to the implication that data > transmitted via optical fiber is usually of a higher quality than that > which is not. Not really. As someone already pointed out, once you go digital, the medium doesn't matter much any more. There's error correction built in to the process. If you're on a modem, the critical part of the data transmission path is the analog line between you and the local telco. Jack Dominey, AT&T Commercial Marketing, Tucker GA voice mail: 404-496-6925 AT&T Mail: !dominey or !bsga05!jdominey ------------------------------ From: John O'Brien Subject: Re: What The Heck is "Fiber Optic Quality" Anyway? Date: 21 Jun 91 14:46:04 GMT Organization: Siemens-Nixdorf Information Systems, Cambridge, MA In article , ivgate!Jim.Redelfs@ uunet.uu.net (Jim Redelfs) writes: > Hear a pin drop? So what?!! A fat lot of good that kind of "quality" > means when there's a Sports Illustrated "SneakerPhone" on one end and > yet another CheapieChirper phone on the other!! All of which makes me wonder if anyone has done a Consumer Reports- style comparison of phone equipment (phones, answering machines, electrical connections) to compare sound quality? ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Jun 91 13:52 EDT From: David Nochlin Subject: Re: What The Heck is "Fiber Optic Quality" Anyway? In response to Jim Redelfs message from June 18, 1991 ... here is the current scoop from the AT&T Fact Book as of April,1991 [available from the AT&T Customer Information Center 1-800-432-6600 as Sel. Code 015-005-001 $0.72]: AT&T Worldwide Intelligent Network Average daily calls handled 120 million --> Digitally transported 100 percent Digital network route miles 72,124 Reach 273 countries/territories Direct dial capability 177 countries Busiest calling day Monday after Thanksgiving At some point within the last year and a bit the network went 100% digital! Cheers, David Nochlin AT&T Bell Laboratories Murray Hill, NJ dhn@ulysses.ATT.COM / or +1 908 582 2663 ------------------------------ From: "Fred R. Goldstein" Subject: Re: All AOS's Aren't Scum Date: 21 Jun 91 18:28:46 GMT Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA In article , jim@equi.com (Jim Allard) writes.: > Since my favorite UNIX afficionado introduced me to the Digest a few > months ago, I have been quietly sitting in the background reading the > various utterings of respondents, as AOSs and COCOTs in general have > been heavily smacked around. While I will agree there are some > unethical providers out there, some of us have made a serious effort > to provide services which attempt to validate the reasons for the MFJ > -- competition. ... Mr. Allard has a disingenuous but ultimately specious defense of his so-called "industry". Beginning with his motherhood and apple pie defense of "competition" (who's disputing that?), he then claims that because his company is doing something apparently in competition with AT&T, he must be good. Hogwash. Speaking as a diehard anti-monopolist who has taken the strong position that "divestiture" was a Good Thing (and disagreeing with the Moderator quite openly, to be sure), I still see no excuse for the AOS/COCOT business to exist. They're bottom-feeding scum whose very existence is no more than an unhappy accident. Fact: Nobody in "power" EVER planned on the COCOT/AOS situation. It was an accident caused by the confluence of several different legal and regulatory events. If it were chemistry, it would be the creature from the Toxic Lagoon, one of those unhappy reactions. Event 1: COCOTs. This was planned. Back in 1977, the FCC Registration program (Part 68) specifically excluded pay phones. At the time, the only pay phones were the CO-controlled kind; mucking with those lines could have caused mis-billing, fraud, etc. No problem. But then somebody invented a new kind of pay phone that ran on a standard line. Was it allowed? The FCC recognized the rationale behind the original pay phone exemption and allowed registation of the COCOT. That was purely a technical issue. Event 2: Resale. This was planned. Back in the '70s, the FCC allowed resale carriers to operate under license; later, the license requirement was dropped. Anybody could resell anything. At any price. This was fine; the telco still got the money from the original supplier and if somebody chose to buy from a reseller, that's their business. This has recently begun in Canada, btw. Reselling is a cheap way to pretend to be an LD carrier. Event 3: Divestiture. This caused the LECs (RBOCs et al) to adopt an arms-length relationship from LD carriers. So they had to accept billing requests from any and all LD comers, if they were to continue to bill for AT&T. Now with anybody allowed to put anything on a phone bill, bottom feeders moved in. They got aggregators and COCOTs to force calls throgh themselves. They charged outrageous, unregulated rates. They gave lousy service. But it was all legal, since reselling was allowed and resellers were, like carriers, allowed to buy LEC billing services. Maybe, just maybe, Mr. Allard's company does't overcharge the way 99.44% of AOSs do. But when I travel on business with my AT&T SDN card, I don't expect to have to pay out of pocket to the hotel what normally gets direct-billed via our Tariff 12 agreement. I don't want to have to argue with the poor underpaid sweatshop operators about my right to be connected to AT&T (though I often do, and I NEVER let the AOS get my money). If we had a responsible FCC that required resellers to file arguable tariffs, and required phones to offer the actual callers a choice of carrier, that's fine. But making "captive" callers use some company, that exists only because of loopholes in the law, is not going to win my sympathy. Fred R. Goldstein Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA goldstein@delni.enet.dec.com voice: +1 508 952 3274 ------------------------------ From: Robert Jacobson Subject: Re: All AOS's Aren't Scum Organization: Human Interface Technology Lab, Univ. of Wash., Seattle Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1991 14:58:59 GMT Having been an alternative IXC customer in the past, I have to say that the service was great and the prices right. But these days seem to be passing as pressure on the independent's becomes tremendous. The politicians get in because they're invited in by one party or another. Exhorting the public (some would say, the masses) to "keep the politicians out" is good rhetoric but ignores the fact that it's probably a carrier who's inviting them in. Who that might be is your best guess. This all goes to show that the market works imperfectly. With or without public intervention, it seems we're on our way back to monopoly or, at best oligopoly/duopoly. History calls. Bob Jacobson ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Jun 91 11:07:35 EDT From: "Dennis G. Rears (FSAC)" Subject: Re: Speaking in Defense of ThriftyTel (was Fighting Hackers) Kurt Guntheroth writes: > John Higdon says: >> Mr. Barnum has all the quotes from Ms. Bigley that the {LA Times} >> article had, which essentially contain the circular argument that it >> costs money to upgrade to FGD and why should Thrifty have to spend >> that money on account of "thugs and criminals" while whining about all >> the losses suffered at the hands of the hackers. Thrifty's technique >> looks more like a profit center than hacker "prevention". > Let's suppose ThriftyTel is deliberately baiting hackers (though using > older equipment because it is cheap sounds more reasonable to me). > How can this be considered more reprehensible than stealing network > services in the first place? I find it quite just that a company > should hang hackers with their own rope. If ThriftyTel was posting > the access codes on pirate BBS's, this might be going a bit too far on > the entrappment side, but there is no evidence this is happening. Have you ever heard of an attractive nuisance? Granted it may be stretching a point, but hey we are talking about California? :-) It could be argued that ThriftyTel has created an attractive nuisance by not securing their systems in accordance with industry standards; just like the homeowner who does not build a secure enough fence to keep the little cretins out of his/her pool. > And whoever asked whether ThriftyTel was inducing minors to enter into > an unenforceable contract, or an ex-post-facto contract, this may be > true. The hackers do have the option of refusing the contract and > letting ThriftyTel make good on its threat to initiate criminal > proceedings if it can. Probably most hackers, caught crouched over > the body with the smoking gun in their hand, and with the knowledge of > their guilt in mind, are reluctant to test their luck in court. Contract, hell it is extortion. As any first year law student could tell you the following must exist to be a contract: o legality of object # OK o mutual consideration # OK o contractual capacity # OK; minors create # a voidable contract o manifestion of consent (offer/acceptance) # NO o meeting of the minds The hacker is not aware of the offer (tariff), there is no manifestion of consent, and there is not meeting of the minds. Another point, California has the Uniform Commercial Code, thus the statue of frauds would apply. This means the contract (including acceptance) must be in writing for amount of over $500.00. One last point if they are saying a contract was formed, it becomes a civil matter only not a criminal. Either it is a contract in all cases or a contract in no cases. If they decide it is a contract they have to sue for breach of contract; they can't have criminal charges too. They must be consistent. BTW, I don't approve of what the hackers/phreakers are doing either, but ThriftyTel response is just as abusive of the laws as hackers/phreakers. We are still innocent until proven guilty, and there is no way I can tolerate any company or govertment "official" altering this. dennis ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Speaking in Defense of ThriftyTel (was Fighting Hackers) Date: 21 Jun 91 12:32:56 PDT (Fri) From: John Higdon Kurt Guntheroth writes: > Record me as a supporter of ThriftyTel. You are overlooking a major flaw in Thrifty Tel's scam. In the United States, the system of jurisprudence requires the plaintiff in a civil case to 1.) prove damages and 2.) show mitigation of damages. Thrifty Tel does neither. In a five-day period, Thrifty Tel whisked a "Hacker Tariff" through the CPUC without comment, showing, documentation, or any justification WHATSOEVER. This tariff, which provides for "charges" that are around three hundred times the company's going rate for services, is then used in civil suits to claim damages. Thrifty Tel sits back in court, presents the logs showing the intruder's usage and then holds up this bogus tariff. In other words, TT has at no time ever proved its claim for the extortion it pulls on the "criminals and thugs" that it so actively crusades against. Concerning point two, let me give you an analogy. Let us suppose that I have decided to go into the banking business, but find that the cost of constructing a vault is prohibitively expensive. So I leave all the cash sitting around in the tellers' drawers. Word gets around that my bank is an easy mark, and consequently I find that frequently the cash has been cleaned out by thieves the night before. To combat this, I install a very sophisticated intrusion detection system with cameras and the like. I am now able to identify the theives and I manage to get a law passed that allows my bank to claim damages against the burglars at about three hundred times the value of the cash stolen. Obviously, a bank vault would solve the lion's share of my problem, but why should I have to pay for a vault when it is "criminals and thugs" that are at the root of my "losses"? This is precisely the argument that TT uses when it is suggested that it upgrade its equipment and use FGD instead of FGB. Of course, FGD would not allow it to skim intraLATA traffic from Pac*Bell as it now does, but that is a different matter altogether. Believe me when I tell you that Thrifty Tel has no moral high ground to stand on. John Higdon (hiding out in the desert) ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #476 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa04277; 22 Jun 91 19:37 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa14169; 22 Jun 91 18:07 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa10683; 22 Jun 91 16:59 CDT Date: Sat, 22 Jun 91 16:14:58 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #477 BCC: Message-ID: <9106221614.ab01967@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 22 Jun 91 16:14:48 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 477 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: All AOS's Aren't Scum [John Higdon] Re: Old Phone Wiring Puzzle [Paul Wexelblat] Re: Old Phone Wiring Puzzle [Andrew M. Boardman] Re: Tour Given of CO Freely; No Questions Asked [Jeff Carroll] Re: Hook Tapping [David Schanen] Re: Hook Tapping [Fred E.J. Linton] Re: Disarmingly Curteous and Friendly US West [Guy Helmer] Re: IDDD From a Cellular Phone [John Higdon] Re: Questions About Caller*ID Boxes [Dave Levenson] Re: Dumb (Neophyte) Cellular Question [Wilson Mohr] Cellular Dial Tone [Martin McCormick] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: All AOS's Aren't Scum Date: 22 Jun 91 10:57:13 PDT (Sat) From: John Higdon Robert Jacobson writes: > This all goes to show that the market works imperfectly. With or > without public intervention, it seems we're on our way back to > monopoly or, at best oligopoly/duopoly. Perhaps, because in this particular business, that is the natural order of things. The "market" can only function where there is informed, unrestriced choice by the consumer. In the case of AOS, the customer is neither informed (usually by design of the AOS), nor does he always have a choice. Also remember that an AOS is NOT a long distance company. It is a reseller. Some of them claim to be "value added" resellers, but none of them own any networks. Some of them, such as Telesphere, may have a leased network (no actual ownership), but most simply route over a major carrier's facility. The original poster complained that without a level playing field we would have only three long distance companies in a few years. If you consider ownership of the network a requirement for being a long distance company, then that is virtually true now. The rest (including the original poster's company) are, as Mr. Goldstein put it, bottom feeders. John Higdon (hiding out in the desert) ------------------------------ From: Paul Wexelblat Subject: Re: Old Phone Wiring Puzzle Reply-To: mailrus!ulowell!wex@uunet.uu.net Organization: Univ. of Lowell CS Dept. Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1991 18:57:20 GMT > I bought the modular converter for the wall jack, and a modular to > four-wire cable to wire in to her phone. When I took apart the old > jack, there were only three wires -- green, red and yellow -- no black. > So I connected the green, red and yellow wires to the new surface-mount > outlet, and screwed everything down tightly. > [Moderator's Note: In the box you mounted on the wall try connecting the > yellow wire (to the phone) with the red wire. If that does not work > then try the yellow wire connected with the green wire. PAT] This is actually a followup to the Moderator's Note: appended to the original query. The Note is almost exactly what I would have said, In the stated case, the yellow was typically ground, ringing current was either between tip (green) and ground or ring (red) and ground. This was the usual case in olden days when there were many more party lines, in this way a two-party line could ring only in the desired place. {Asides; I'm surprised that you could make out the colors at all on wiring that old; and, if the wiring is really old, it is rubber insulated and most likely dried out, be careful if you decide to relocate it.} So much for folklore, the real reason I am posting this is to suggest that: once the correct placement of the yellow wire is determined, making the change at the service entrance will solve the problem for the whole house; may save a little trouble in the future. Wex ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Jun 91 10:38:41 -0400 From: "Andrew M. Boardman" Subject: Re: Old Phone Wiring Puzzle [Lynn Goodhue speaks of telephone house wiring that runs red, green, and yellow, and the telephone not ringing on the "normal" red/green .] I was also raised as a believer in the "this is tip, this is ring, and that's all you'll ever need" philosophy, but the 1954 500 set that I use nowadays won't ring without that third yellow wire connected (to ring side I believe). Of course, omniscient NY Tel service says that the unit is broken. If there's an actual schematic that I could get for this phone without disassembly of the network, I'd appreciate a pointer. ------------------------------ From: Jeff Carroll Subject: Re: Tour Given of CO Freely; No Questions Asked Date: 21 Jun 91 18:45:39 GMT Reply-To: Jeff Carroll Organization: Boeing Aerospace & Electronics In article Wally Kramer writes: > nstar!syscon!viking!drmath@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (Doctor Math) writes > in Volume 11, Issue 471, Message 6 of 11: >> [The CO] will have NO windows, it may have Bell emblems on it, and you >> should find a parking lot behind it which is filled with Bell >> vehicles. > There are windows on the Corvallis, Oregon CO (503 75x, x=2,4,7). > They have mini-blinds on them, but you can look through the holes > where the string goes and see the equipment from outside. There are windows at our CO too (Bellevue, WA; 641, 643, 644, 747 and possibly others now), but admittedly not very big. Big enough, in any case, that you can look in and see part of the MDF as you drive by. Might be a regional thing. The CO/business office in Huntington, Indiana, where I grew up, has windows only on the first floor, where the Indiana Bell business office used to be before they moved out of town. This raises a tenuously related question. Huntington just got its second exchange (the whole town has been (219)356 since time immemorial, when the exchange was named FLint after the original Indian settlement). I see from the latest home town papers that the local hospital and some individual customers are being placed in (219) 358. Yet while I was growing up, other towns of roughly the same size had multiple exchanges in service. Logansport, for example, was served by GTE, and had *six* exchanges. Warsaw, which for most of the period I speak of was a town of *half* the size of Huntington, was served by United Telephone, and had four or five. The question: why? Legal reasons? Better (or more efficient) switching equipment in the Bell System? How much is this sort of thing responsible for the fact that we're rapidly running out of area codes? Jeff Carroll carroll@ssc-vax.boeing.com ------------------------------ From: David Schanen Subject: Re: Hook Tapping Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1991 06:28:52 GMT Heheh, I first tried this when I was 10 or 11 yrs old. I saw someone do it on TV and tried it once and I was magically connected to someone in another state! After a half a dozen or so random connections around the country, and one overseas, the magic wore off as I realized what was going on and started trying to think of ways to explain the inevitable phone bill to my parents. I did learn a valuable skill however, as I have found several touch tone sets with broken tone banks. Most people are amazed to see it work. :) Dave Inet: mtv@milton.u.washington.edu * 8kyu * UUNET: ...uunet!uw-beaver!u!mtv ------------------------------ Date: 22-JUN-1991 14:56:42.82 From: "Fred E.J. Linton" Subject: Re: Hook Tapping In gypsy@silver.lcs.mit.edu (The Gypsy) writes: > "Hook Tapping" can be used in most (all?) areas to dial a telephone - > by imitating a 'pulse-dial' telephone. You simply 'tap' down the > 'hook' for a brief second (much less than a second actually) the > number of times required to produce a 'digit.' Knowing this quaint fact helped rescue a musical group I once belonged to when it found itself locked within the building where it had just finished giving a performance -- we found a telephone, of the rotary persuasion, with a padlocked dial, and were forced to dial out for help by hook-tapping. As you need to hook-tap at the rate of about 0.1 sec per tap for each digit, a certain amount of technique must be developed -- two coordinated hands worked best for our drummer, the only one to succeed at this curious game. Fred or ------------------------------ From: Guy Helmer Subject: Re: Disarmingly Curteous and Friendly US West Organization: Dakota State University Date: Thu, 20 Jun 1991 17:00:20 GMT In Paul Schlveck writes: [... most of story about USWest's truly wonderful service deleted ...] > Another disturbing question was whether or not I required "an > additional line for a computer modem ..." I asked for clarification of > the question, but the rep couldn't give me any more info (reading a > script, etc.). At first I thought they were trying to sell me another > line, but I wonder if it is a sneaky way to monitor modem/BBS traffic > for a possible Michigan Bell-style extortion racket. I of course, > said "no." Any speculation? I called USWest about a second line into my apartment about eight months ago, and I spoke with a person who was very pleasant. After I asked about the second line, though, her immediate question was, "Oh, is that for a fax or modem?" Not wanting to leave myself open to any possibility of being charged business rates for a residential line, I mumbled something about just needing a second line for voice. More recently, I tried to find out if ISDN service would be available here in Madison, SD. A new switch was installed here about 20 months ago, and I've heard rumblings in the rags about USWest offering ISDN in a few locations real soon now. The residential customer service rep I spoke with had no idea what ISDN was, so I talked with a business rep and ended up talking with a guy who wanted to know what I wanted it for and then told me he'd have to look up some things and call me back (he never did, of course). Being a telecom newbie, I haven't pursued this any further :-) It would be great, though, to have high-speed switched service from home into LANs I manage in town and in Sioux Falls. Guy Helmer, Dakota State University Computing Services helmer@sdnet.bitnet, dsuvax!ghelmer@wunoc.wustl.edu, ghelmer@dsuvax.dsu.edu ------------------------------ Subject: Re: IDDD From a Cellular Phone Date: 21 Jun 91 12:45:24 PDT (Fri) From: John Higdon Jim Hickstein writes: > I recently signed up with GTE Mobilnet in San Francisco (give or take > 100 miles), and almost immediately tried to dial a number in Japan, > with 011 +81 ... and got a recording saying that I could not dial this > call directly, but had to use some sort of calling card arrangement > with a long-distance company. I promptly dialed 01+81 ... and > my Pacific*Bell calling card number (while managing not to drive over > the edge of the San Mateo bridge), and the call was completed. Call GTE Mobilnet back and explain that you have the need to call Japan (or wherever). Explain that you do not wish to add to the already high cost of the call by using a credit card. Tell the person that you do not feel it right that you be penalized because of GTE's own internal problems. Then say that you might have to switch to Cellular One, since they allow IDDD. I can almost guarantee that you will have IDDD enabled henceforth from your telephone. The cellular cancellation rate is such that carriers are more than hungry right now and I can assure you that GTE does not want to lose your business. I have two cellular phones (and accounts with GTE) and both of them can call IDDD just fine. You must make the wheel squeak a bit, but you will get action. If for some reason you get flack, I can e-mail you the name of the person that WILL get IDDD running for you. John Higdon (hiding out in the desert) ------------------------------ From: Dave Levenson Subject: Re: Questions About Caller*ID Boxes Date: 21 Jun 91 23:33:16 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In article , jwt!john@uunet.uu.net (John Temples) writes: > With the imminent arrival of Caller*ID here in Florida, I want to get > the necessary boxes required to support it. Even though the tentative > turn-on date of Caller*ID is July 1, the business office has no > information to offer me yet. In NJ, we buy them at Sears, and at the local AT&T Phone Center. We also mail-order them from Bell Atlantic Business Supplies. They offer a number of 'boxes' with display and varying amounts of memory. They also sell another box with the RS-232 output, and no display. > ...Finally, what about > support for multiple lines? Are there multi-line boxes I can hook all > my phone lines to, or must I purchase a separate box for each line? I bought a couple of those boxes at Radio Shack that allow an answering machine to answer two lines. Using three of these in cascade allows up to four lines to fan in to a single ring-detecting device, such as the Call*Identifier box. Dave Levenson Internet: dave@westmark.com Westmark, Inc. UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave Warren, NJ, USA AT&T Mail: !westmark!dave Voice: 908 647 0900 Fax: 908 647 6857 ------------------------------ From: Wilson Mohr Subject: Re: Dumb (Neophyte) Cellular Question Date: 21 Jun 91 17:51:18 GMT Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL In article , lairdb@crash.cts.com (Laird P. Broadfield) writes: > Can you have two cellphones (I guess you can't call them "desk sets", > can you?) on the same number? I'm sure you could get ring-no-answer Each Cellular telephone made has a unique ESN. This ESN is programmed into the switch of the "home" operating system as a unique idenifier to the MID assigned to that phone. (MID = Mobile ID). Via one of several methods, this information is verified periodically by the service providing carrier.(not necessarily the "home" switch.) If a MID responds that does not have a matching ESN, then the ESN is denied (usually nation wide) regardless of MID. This is known as a Bandit mobile. > What happens if they're in the same cell? Nothing until they are called or try to make a call. If called, it becomes a race condition between the phones. If the correct phone answers first the call is completed, otherwise, the call is killed. Only the correct phone can make a call. The Bandit will be denied. (first and all subsequent.) ***discalimer**** This is true of the most simple cellular service offerings. Larger networks have a more agressive manner in which to validate subscribers. I truncated my description because of the complexity. For simplicity I have generalized the validation process description. > What happens if they both originate a call? > What happens if they both *answer* a call at the same time? Same holds true. Some service providers have services whereby you can have more than one phone to a number, but this is your usual hunt group scenario with each phone having a unique indentifier and the switch controlling the routing. (as it should be 8^) !) There are ways to beat this (as in all electronic validation schemes.) But this is costly and a BIG TIME federal offense. The most recent case involves a fraud scheme uncovered by the FBI and Secret Service. (Had us all running!) Wilson Mohr - Motorola CIG 1501 W. Shure Drive, IL27-2315 ..!uunet!motcid!mohr Arlington Heights, IL 60004-1497 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 22 Jun 91 7:35:51 CDT From: u1906ad@unx.ucc.okstate.edu Subject: Cellular Dial Tone Do cell phones get dial tone from the switch or generate it in the individual unit when the switch is ready? I've never used one before so I have no idea. Thanks. Martin McCormick Amateur Radio WB5AGZ Oklahoma State University Computer Center Data Communications Group Stillwater, OK [Moderator's Note: Cellular phones do not have 'dial tone'. You enter the number on the keypad, and press the 'send' key. The switch picks this up, dials the call and then connects you. The first thing you hear is the ringing or busy signal from the other end. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #477 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa06498; 22 Jun 91 20:44 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab04479; 22 Jun 91 19:14 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab14169; 22 Jun 91 18:07 CDT Date: Sat, 22 Jun 91 17:00:13 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #478 BCC: Message-ID: <9106221700.ab32107@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 22 Jun 91 17:00:00 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 478 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Reusing Numbers After Just One Day [Linc Madison] Re: Reusing Numbers After Just One Day [David Albert] Re: Modem vs. Line-Powered 'In Use' Light [Nelson Bolyard] Re: Modem vs. Line-Powered 'In Use' Light [Mike Andrews] Re: Operator Busy Break-In Now Costs $1.60 [Peter M. Weiss] Re: Operator Busy Break-In Now Costs $1.60 [Rob Stampfli] Re: Street Address Wanted For 619/259 CO [Macy Hallock] Re: Call Message Delivery [Sean Williams] Re: What The Heck is "Fiber Optic Quality" Anyway? [Marc T. Kaufman] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 22 Jun 91 02:33:58 PDT From: Linc Madison Subject: Re: Reusing Numbers After Just One Day Organization: University of California, Berkeley In article David (gast@cs.ucla.edu) writes: > I called a friend of mine who lived in one of the dorms at UCLA last > school year the other night. I called on Sunday and the quarter ended > on Friday so I expected to get an intercept like "The number you > dialed is not in service ..." and I was hoping "the new number is ..." > Instead I got connected to new tenants. I am not sure if it was the > same room number, but it was the same dorm (I asked). It was almost certainly the same room number. In any situation where you have a Centrex or PBX for a college dormitory, the assignment of a number to a given line is almost etched in stone. Extension 1234 is and always has been and always will be Room 321 in Unit IV. In order to provide the intercept and such, they would have to reserve more than twice as many telephone numbers in a block. (All numbers in Berkeley prefixes 642 and 643 are reserved for the University of California. They would need to reserve at least two more prefixes to have intercepts.) That's because, when you move the entire student body off campus, or to new rooms for the new year, you would have to take half the numbers out of circulation. There just aren't enough numbers. Actually, I had a problem my senior year in college because of exactly the reverse situation: for no reason whatsoever, New Jersey Bell arbitrarily changed the number for the room I was moving into. Since I knew that the number was suppsed to be 4-0732, that's what I told my friends and family. Since the University knew that the number was supposed to be 4-0732, that's what they published in the student directory. It turns out that they swapped that line with 4-0372 (note the transposed digits), with the same effect on the people who were supposed to have *that* number. I have no idea how many calls I lost that year. Linc Madison = linc@tongue1.berkeley.edu = ucbvax!tongue1!linc ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 22 Jun 91 10:32:25 EDT From: David Albert Subject: Re: Reusing Numbers After Just One Day Organization: Aiken Computation Lab, Harvard University In article David Gast writes: > I called a friend of mine who lived in one of the dorms at UCLA last > school year the other night....Instead I got connected to new tenants. > Less than one business day is way too quick in my opinion. The only > reasonable explanation would be that the old tenants forgot to cancel > their phone service or that GTE was slow in processing it. No; at Harvard, the dorm phone numbers are permanently assigned to the rooms. You can only get one phone line in each room, and if you move out then whoever moves in gets the same number. Intercept recordings are unheard of -- they won't put one on the line even if the room is unoccupied for a period of time. David Albert UUCP: harvard!albert INTERNET: albert@harvard.edu ------------------------------ From: Nelson Bolyard Subject: Re: Modem vs. Line-Powered 'In Use' Light Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc., Mountain View, CA Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1991 18:30:01 GMT gsteckel%Ecd@sun.com (geoff steckel) wrote that his line-powered phone "in use" light was keeping his modem from being able to receive at 9600 bps. He correctly stated that line-powered lights may be sufficiently non-linear to affect the signal. Here is a schematic for a phone line in-use indicator that won't affect your modem. This circuit is a modification of one published in the article "Phone Line Busy Indicator", by Robert M. Harkey, Modern Electronics, November 1988, page 49. In that article, Q1 was incorrectly shown as an NPN transistor. I built this using Radio Shack parts and the box is now sitting next to the phone in my kitchen. It has quite succesfully prevented the old problem of my spouse picking up the phone while in use by my modem. Unlike some of the other circuits I've seen posted, this one presents a balanced load to the phone line, and does not interfere with high speed modems (e.g. I have no trouble communnicating at 19200 bps with my Telebit T-2500 modem). This circuit draws less than 12 microamps from the phone line when on-hook, and even less when off hook. It should not cause any problems on your phone line (e.g. it won't cause any telco equipment to flag you line as leaking/needing repair). o-----------------o--------o | | | | V LED | | --- | | | | o > | /E > R5 | | / > | + B |< | ------- Green (+) o-----VVVVV----o----| Q1 o --- 3Vdc R1 | |\ | /C ------- | | \C B |/ --- > o----VVVVV---o--| Q2 | Phone line > R3 R4 |\ | > | >E | | o | | | | Red (-) o-----VVVVV----o--------------------------o--------o R2 R1 = R2 = 2.2 Megohms Q1 = 2N3906 PNP xistor (276-1604 pkg of 15) R3 = 330 K ohms Q2 = 2N3904 NPN xistor (276-2016) R4 = 33 K ohms Battery = 2 AAA cells. R5 = 100 ohms LED = garden variety red LED Miscellaneous hardware (Radio shack part numbers): 276-159A pkg of 2 printed circuit boards (great for little projects). I built this circuit and a "hold" circuit on ONE of these PCBs. 270-230 project box (3.25x2.125x1 inch) 270-398 Double AAA battery holder 23-555 pkg of 2 AAA alkaline batteries Construction note: when I first built this circuit, the light shone very dimly. The problem was that the Q1 transistor had a "beta" (Hfe) lower than its rating and was passing insufficient current to the base of Q2 to light the lamp. Replacing Q1 with another one from the Radio Shack package of 15 solved the problem. Disclaimer: I have no relationship with Radio Shack except as a (usually) satisfied customer. Nelson Bolyard nelson@sgi.COM {decwrl,sun}!sgi!whizzer!nelson Disclaimer: Views expressed herein do not represent the views of my employer. ------------------------------ From: Mike Andrews Subject: Re: Modem vs. Line-Powered 'In Use' Light Organization: Chinet - Chicago Public Access UNIX Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1991 04:35:31 GMT In article gsteckel%Ecd@sun.com writes: > Recently I bought a PP 9600-SA modem, and attempted to use it. No joy > -- the best I could do was 4800 BPS. Mysteriously, only the incoming > data were incorrect -- the remote system received my transmissions > essentially perfectly. After a lot of futzing around, I disconnected > a two-line phone with a line powered 'in-use' light. Voila! 9600 BPS > V.32 worked with very low error rates. I'm not a "phone engineer" but I did work as a tech support rep at US Robotics. Your experience was one we watched for. The early Panasonic Easa-phone speaker phones were famous for causing line noise and modem data errors. It's the LED connected directly to the the phone line that does it, as you suspected. I guess it turns into a selective filter that attenuates the modem's signal. ------------------------------ Organization: Penn State University Date: Saturday, 22 Jun 1991 09:28:12 EDT From: "Peter M. Weiss" Subject: Re: Operator Busy Break-In Now Costs $1.60 In article , gws@cblph.att.com (Gary W Sanders) says: > [Moderator's Note: (deleted) > The Operator did her work by notifying the party. Since the caller and the callee are potential chargeable w/ a misde- meanor crime, I wonder if the Operator misdials and interupts an in-progress data xfer, if the (s)he can be charged with some crime. (I'm just trying to get everyone chargeable w/ something and not leave any one out.) Pete ------------------------------ From: Rob Stampfli Subject: Re: Operator Busy Break-In Now Costs $1.60 Organization: Little to None Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1991 13:48:48 GMT In article gws@cblph.att.com (Gary W Sanders) writes: > With my Ohio Bell Phone bill I saw an interesting little notice. This > capability has been around for a long time, but was generaly used for > emergencies. Now Ohio Bell is encourging people to use the service for > non-emergency calls.. > DIAL 0 (OPERATOR) TO INTERRUPT A BUSY LINE ON A LOCAL CALL. > Do you need to talk to someone, and the line is busy? For a $1.60 per > call, you can ask the Ohio Bell Operator to interrupt a busy line. The > Operator will inform the called party that someone is trying to reach > them. The called party will then have to the option to hand up, freeing > the line for you to make your call to them. Suppose the line is being used by a modem. I wonder what the operator has been instructed to do in this case. Does the operator "listen" first so as not to disturb the modem, or do they arbitrarily drop the call? If they don't drop the call, what do they tell the intended caller? (Mentioning that a modem is in use is, in my mind, giving away details about the call in progress.) Also, suppose I am using my new AT&T-only-otherwise-unbillable calling card to make the call. Does the charge get billed through AT&T? Rob Stampfli, 614-864-9377, res@kd8wk.uucp (osu-cis!kd8wk!res), kd8wk@n8jyv.oh [Moderator's Note: When the operator is asked to 'verify busy' or interupt a call, they will first listen on the line only for a second or two to detirmine the status. A single word or two of conversation is sufficient. Even that brief intrusion might cause the modem to receive garbage, but the operator DOES NOT 'drop the call'. It is up to the caller and called party to disconnect when they wish to do so. The operator will merely advise them what a third party has requested. In the event it is a modem, the operator is unable to give that advice, and tells the third party that notification is impossible. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Macy Hallock Subject: Re: Street Address Wanted For 619/259 CO Date: Fri, 21 Jun 91 7:56:16 EDT Reply-To: macy@fmsystm.ncoast.org > I'm pretty sure that the CO *used* to be on Hwy 101, in > downtown Del Mar, but now it's inland, next to Hwy 5. Well, just to confuse things... The telcos are starting to bury CO's. The typical small to medium size CO is so compact that they can fit into a 10 X 20 building. To reduce taxes, eliminate zoning problems and reduce real estate costs, the telcos have found that a CO can fit into an underground module in the residential or industrial area. All you see is some HVAC stuff under a grill and a steel door leading into the ground. No cables, nothing ... even the power is buried. The new CO and DACS facility for the Florida Supercomputing Center in Tallahassee is an example of this. Of course AT&T has several larger buried transmission facilities accross the country, built in the 60's as part of a hardened defense strategy. (One of them is right outside Medina, Ohio.) These were much larger ... several stories of 50x60 building or more ... all 25 feet underground with a blast door. All the original L carrier stuff was mounted on springs, too. However, now that transmission gear is much smaller, much of these facilities are unused space. You see, they have converted most of the old L carrier coax routes to digital now. Macy M Hallock Jr N8OBG 216.725.4764 macy@fmsystm.uucp macy@fmsystm.ncoast.org [No disclaimer, but I have no real idea what I'm saying or why I'm telling you] [Moderator's Note: Illinois Bell has a directory assistance office located in the third (or fourth?) sub-basement of the Amoco Building in downtown Chicago. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 22 Jun 91 18:07 GMT From: Sean Williams <0004715238@mcimail.com> Subject: Re: Call Message Delivery Marc Fusco writes: > I recently caught part of an ad on TV by AT&T promoting a new (?) > service, whereby one can call an 800 number from a public phone and > leave a message that will be delivered to another party. I assume > your credit card will be billed. This is called AT&T Voicemark. The access number is 800 562-MARK (6275). It's not really new, I think it's been available on a test-market basis for about two years now in Atlanta. You can bill messages on your credit card or to your Bell*South-endorsed AT&T Calling Card. The number to call for more information is 800 662-2588. The system has many features to make usage convenient, but I haven't called in months so I can't really remember the details. You might want to call to inquire about pricing. > Are there any competitors to this service? MCI provides the MCI Messenger Service. Using your MCI card, dial *44 instead of a phone number to connect to it (sorta like "speed dialing".) From your MCI-served home phone, dial 1 700 200-0000. From any other phone, dial 10222 1 700 200-0000. The charge for this service is $1.60 per message. (appears on your next phone bill) Call 1 800 456-9988 for recorded information, or 1 800 444-3333 for a real person. With MCI's service, you can record a one-minute message and have it delivered to any direct-dialable phone. You can delay delivery up to 48 hours, and the system calls back every 20 minutes for 5 hours until it gets through to someone. > does the service require an operator ... billing, and limitations > (inter/intra LATA)? Is this only available to public phone users? Neither service requires operator intervention. I'm not sure of AT&T's billing, but MCI's has been discussed. I don't think that MCI's 700 number will be accessible from a payphone, that's what the card feature (*44) is for. AT&T's should be accessible from anywhere. There are no limitations of either service regarding inter/intra LATA calls. Sean E. Williams | seanwilliams@mcimail.com Spectrum Telecommunications | "I own Spectrum, so our 333 Prospect Avenue / PO Box 227 | opinions are very similar" Duncannon, PA 17020-0227 USA | voicemail: +1 717 957 8127 ------------------------------ From: "Marc T. Kaufman" Subject: Re: What The Heck is "Fiber Optic Quality" Anyway? Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University, Ca , USA Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1991 15:36:37 GMT Bryan Richardson writes: > Thus, it is highly likely that any > call placed over the AT&T network is digital from the moment that it > enters through the moment that it leaves the network. An amusing anecdote, which may possibly be untrue today: I wanted to order 48 lines of MegaCom bulk 800 service (2 T1 lines) from AT&T. I was told that the circuits were entirely digital to the toll office, where they were broken down into 48 two-wire analog circuits, then sent downstairs (in the same building) to PacTel, where they were re-multiplexed (on a channel bank *I* had to buy) into digital T1 for shipment to the customer site. I couldn't even get four-wire circuits between the channel banks. Marc Kaufman (kaufman@Neon.stanford.edu) ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #478 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa08839; 22 Jun 91 21:46 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa05938; 22 Jun 91 20:19 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa04479; 22 Jun 91 19:08 CDT Date: Sat, 22 Jun 91 18:07:37 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #479 BCC: Message-ID: <9106221807.ab08886@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 22 Jun 91 18:07:20 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 479 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: SPECIAL REPORT: Braided Streams [Jerry Leichter] Re: SPECIAL REPORT: Braided Streams [Jon P. Knight] Re: Comsec Data Security [Dania Bourkoff] Re: What the Heck is "Fiber Optic Qaulity:, Anyway? [Floyd Davidson] Re: IDDD From a Cellular Phone [Carl Wright] Re: Hook Tapping [Miquel Cruz] Re: Questions About Caller*ID Boxes [Keith Otis] Signal Corps Museum [Robert M. Hamer] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 22 Jun 91 10:01:36 EDT From: Jerry Leichter Subject: Re: SPECIAL REPORT: Braided Streams TELECOM Digest recently published a special issue containing an article by W.A. Simon on his proposal for an encryption technique known as Braided Streams. Simon makes all sorts of very strong claims for this technique. Given the way it was published, readers might get the impression that they are looking at a breakthrough in cryptography. Nothing could be further from the truth. There is little really new in what Simon proposes -- in fact, there is little there at all. And what IS new is cryptographically quite weak. Let's consider Simon's basic "1bm" system. In this system, we start with a plaintext bitstream P[0,1,...] and a random key bitstream K[0, 1,,...]. We assume that both ends initially know K[0,k-1]. At time t (starting at 0) we inspect K[t]. If K[t] is 0, the next bit sent in the encrypted bitstream E[0,1,...] is the next bit of P, initially 0; if K[t] is 1, the next bit sent is the next bit of P, initially k. Thus, the new key material is sent along with the data in the stream. How might we cryptanalyze such a system? Actually, it's trivial. We first of all assume a known plaintext. This is a common assumption in cryptography because experience shows that (a) eventually, a known plaintext/encrypted message text will end up in the hands of the cryptanalyst; (b) even if the cryptanalyst doesn't know the exact plaintext, he can usually guess at pieces that are highly likely to be there; (c) even without successful guesses as to the exact contents of the plaintext, statistical information will often yield the same results. So let's start off by guessing that the first bit of the key, K[0] is 0. Hence, E[0] should be P[0]. If this DOESN'T match, we know K[0] is in fact 1. If it DOES match, we have a 50-50 chance that the match is fortuitous - after all, even if E[0] is really a key bit, half the time it will match the plaintext. To eliminate that possibility, we need to guess more bits of the key. As we go along, we learn more bits of the key -- every time we learn for certain that key bit was 1, we look ahead to the corresponding position (or positions, if there are any earlier ambiguities) and repeat the process. This gets rapidly difficult to describe, but it converges rapidly. The basic cause is simple: Each output bit depends on only one key bit and one plaintext bit. There is also a second-order dependence on the number of previous 1 bits in the key, which determines WHICH single key or plaintext bit it is; but for n bits of key, there are only log n possible values for the count of previous bits. Normally, we want the cryptanalyst to be faced with an exponential explosion; but no such explosion occurs here! Simon goes on to various elaborations, in particular using multiple key bits to select one of many input streams. As he himself notes, this will exhaust the key stream rapidly. So he has to fall back on various tricks for expanding the key stream. He won't pin himself down to any one technique -- he lets the client choose. This is pointless: Cryptographers always assumes that the opponent knows EVERYTHING about the system except for the key; again because history has shown that that's the only safe assumption. All of the tricks Simon proposes are variations of old ideas. For example, the use of some commonly-known (but non-random) file is the same as using a multi-alpha- betic cipher, with the particular cipher based on successive letters in some book known to both sender and receiver. This variation was broken many, many years ago -- WITHOUT knowledge of the common book. Like most amatuer cryptographers, Simon has no appreciation for the power of statistics, or for the truely massive amounts of intercepted data available to a cryptanalyst in the situations cryptographers actually worry about. If all you are ever going to transmit is, say, a couple of thousand bytes of data, there are plenty of simple cryptographic techniques that are, in practice, quite secure. Once you start sending megabytes, it's a whole other story. (And, of course, since Simon is proposing this as a cryptographic technique to be used by sellers of network services, there are quickly going to be tens and hundreds of megabytes of data to work with.) In any case, if Simon's tricks for key expansion are secure, there is no reason to use the elaborate "braiding" technique, especially since it expands the message considerably. Instead, just XOR the expanded key with the plain text. If the expanded key really is secure, then this encryption is also secure; conversely, if this encryption can be broken, then the expanded key wasn't really secure to begin with. Its use in "braiding" MAY spread its information around, but then again it may not. Proving such things is quite difficult. Simon makes snide remarks about there not being any mathematics in his writing (which is obviously correct). He then proceeds to make a number of claims, followed by parenthetical "to be proven" remarks. Some of his claims are clearly false as stated, and others, if true, would be VERY hard to prove. Asserting that something is "to be proven" in such a context is tantamount to a claim that you pretty much know how to prove it -- you just haven't worked out the details. Making such claims as Simon does is just plain dishonest. I don't remember which cryptographer first stated that he would never accept a new cryptosystem from anyone who had not already broken a strong one, but this is (in some form) generally accepted in the cryptographic community. I see no reason to believe Simon has done anything of the sort, or in fact that he knows anything in particular about cryptography. He's of course welcome to suggest anything he likes, but if anyone relies on his techniques without a GREAT deal of additional work -- well, I've got this bridge available.... Jerry ------------------------------ From: The Watcher Date: Sat, 22 Jun 91 16:42:57 bst Subject: Re: SPECIAL REPORT: Braided Streams Organization: Loughborough University, UK. > When transmitting noise or key management material, there is > no objection to padding. But when processing plaintext, we > must have a way of knowing where the end of the plaintext > is. There is, so far, no elegant solution. I suggest > reserving a character for escape purposes, and use this > character as end of file marker, unless it is itself > escaped. The ASCII escape character seems to be indicated. As you're treating the streams as bit pipes, can't you just use bit stuffing to allow you to use a flag character such as SDLC's 01111110? Using ASCII escape could cause problems if your plaintext to be encrypted isn't ASCII plaintext but binary, EBCDIC, etc. I should not think that the limitation on the number of sequentially transmitted 1's in any one stream should make much difference as the whole point of the exercise is that your cryptanalyst/spy/cracker doesn't know what stream any one bit belongs to. Then again I'm no cryptanalyst/ spy/hacker... 8-) Jon JANET: J.P.Knight@uk.ac.lut Internet: J.P.Knight@lut.ac.uk Dept. Comp.Sci., LUT, Ashby Road, Loughbourgh, Leics, England. LE11 3TZ ------------------------------ From: dania@violet.berkeley.edu (Dania Bourkoff) Subject: Re: Comsec Data Security Organization: University of California, Berkeley Date: Thu, 20 Jun 1991 18:30:47 GMT In article herbison@ultra.enet.dec.com writes: > In my opinion, the phrase `Communication Security Data Security' > sounds like gibberish. If you meant `Data Comsec', then I'm in favor > of it. I would like to have the option to encrypt everything (data or > voice) I send over telephone connections (both the old-fashioned kind > and cellular). I believe the original post was referring to a specific company, recently formed by three former members of the Legion of Doom. I'd be interested in hearing more specifics of what they offer. ------------------------------ From: Floyd Davidson Subject: Re: What the Heck is "Fiber Optic Quality", Anyway? Date: Wed, 19 Jun 1991 23:04:43 -0800 In article think!barmar@bloom-beacon. mit.edu (Barry Margolin) writes: > In article miller@dg-rtp.dg.com (Mark > Miller) writes: >> OK, this one has been bugging me for some time, but what is the highly >> touted "Fiber Optic Quality"?? >> Now as I understand it, virtually all long distance calls are sent in >> a digital format. Last time I checked, digital data didn't really >> care whether it was sent by copper, microwave or fiber. > Of course it does. Digital data can be corrupted by static or > crosstalk on the line, just as analog data can. Computer > communication generally uses error detection and retransmission on top > of the digital medium in order to produce error-free transmission. > Audio telephone communication is generally more concerned with > transmission speed than fidelity, because listeners are able to deal > with minor errors. Higher fidelity lines mean fewer such errors. The measure of quality on a digital system is the bit error rate. There is no significant difference between the bit error rate of fiber systems compared to other digital systems. In all cases it is specified at something like 10e-5 and typically runs at one or two magnitudes better than that. The usual "turn-up test" done when installing digital systems is a 24 hour run with a zero bit error count. "Fidelity" on the digital part of a digital system has no meaning. The "normal" types of degradation found on digital systems are frame clock slips and high bit error rates. In the case of a single bit error it is not going to be perceptable to the human ear. It is also not going to cause a hit on a modem connection using that line. Framing slips are caused when the transmit data is being sent faster or slower than the receive system is accepting the data. It can either result in one byte being lost or one byte being repeated, and will not normally be detected by a human ear. It will not normally cause data hits for modems operating at 1200 bps or less either, but it does cause a phase jump, which will be detected by 2400 bps or higher modems. (If one byte is lost it is 1/8000 of a second of sound that is different than what it should have been. It may or may not be much different, either.) There are some digital systems that do provide error correction. Most satellite modems use forward convolutional error correction. However this does not necessarily mean the output is exactly the same as the input, but rather that the error rate is going to be less than that 10e-5 figure. The problems one is likely to find with using digital systems, whether fiber or other, are related to data compression. Packet trasmission systems can compress four or five to one, and there are many circuits being provisioned at 32 kbps rather than the 56 kbps or 64 kbps that we tend to think of as one voice channel. High speed modems work well over 56 kbps, and not too well with the lower bit rates or with compression on packet systems. The highly touted "fiber quality" is a marketing ploy. In fact what fiber gives is quantity and cost effectiveness compared to other digital transmission systems. All of them give the same increase in quality compared to analog systems. Floyd ------------------------------ From: wright@ais.org (Carl Wright) Subject: Re: IDDD From a Cellular Phone Date: Fri, 21 Jun 91 05:47:30 GMT Organization: UMCC jim.hickstein@icdwest.teradyne.com (Jim Hickstein) writes: > I hear someone nails you for 2x airtime for "conference" calls > which clearly use only one radio channel. Let us hope this is not a > vision of the future. This is probably because the conference call is represented by two or more toll ticket records off their switch. When they process millions of records a month and often millions a day, they find it alot of work to get them together and then determine how much time was actually used by each caller even though the same caller was recorded on both toll tickets. The programming is complicated. The amount of processing is significant. They are probably have the programming wrong to begin with. The switch manufacturers are changing their toll outputs to make this billing easier for the carriers. This will eventually ease the problem. Carl Wright | Lynn-Arthur Associates, Inc. Internet: wright@ais.org | 2350 Green Rd., #160 Voice: 1 313 995 5590 EST | Ann Arbor, MI 48105 ------------------------------ From: mnc@css.itd.umich.edu (Miguel Cruz) Subject: Re: Hook Tapping Organization: Univ. of Michigan ITD Consulting & Support Services Date: Fri, 21 Jun 91 18:40:47 GMT In article Dan Shapin writes: > How do you place a call with out dialing it using the "Hook tapping" > method. Does it work on any phone? This works on phones that don't have timed switchhooks. I've gotten pretty good at it, but it's by and large a useless skill. Listen to a rotary phone dialing and take note of the timing. Go back in your mind to music class in school and pretend you have to remember the tempo. Obviously it doesn't work on digital phones. (This is the only newsgroup where I would feel paranoid enough to include that). peace ------------------------------ From: Keith Otis Date: Fri, 21 Jun 91 12:24:20 MET Subject: Re: Questions About Caller*ID Boxes John Temples Writes: > Does one normally purchase the display box from the phone company, or > is rental of one included in the monthly fee for Caller*ID? I'd like > to get a box that has an RS-232 port on the back so I can have my > computer monitor it. Is such a device available? Finally, what about > support for multiple lines? Are there multi-line boxes I can hook all > my phone lines to, or must I purchase a separate box for each line? Rochelle Communications in Austin, Texas makes a Caller-ID "demodulator". Their product is called ANI-232, and is available with a DOS software package. It is a DB25 plug with a RJ-11 where the cabel should go. Rochelle's phone number is (512) 794-0088 or FAX (512) 794-9997. Otherwise Hello Direct has a caller identifier without the data port. Keith Otis - Unisys - Airlines Field Support Group, Airlines & Travel Division Oederweg 87, 6000 Frankfurt 1, FRG -- E-Mail: keith@uniwdw.incom.de Telkom: +49 069 55 95 34 Home +49 069 697 9161 Work or +49 06196 99 1936 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 22 Jun 91 11:37 EDT From: "Robert M. Hamer" Subject: Signal Corps Museum "Bill Berbenich" writes: > The U.S. Army Signal Corps operates a very respectable museum at their > Signal Center at Fort Gordon, Georgia. Fort Gordon is on the Last time I was at Fort Monmouth, in Eatontown, NJ, there was a Signal Corps Museum there. My father got his training there when he served in the Signal Corps during WWII. Some day I'll have to get in detail his story about the time the allies moved into a new area in France after the invasion and his crew tapped into a local power source to run the phone system they were putting in. They came back a day later and discovered that the Germans had patched into their patch. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #479 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa10745; 22 Jun 91 22:49 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac29557; 22 Jun 91 21:26 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac05938; 22 Jun 91 20:20 CDT Date: Sat, 22 Jun 91 19:47:05 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #480 BCC: Message-ID: <9106221947.ab11406@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 22 Jun 91 19:47:00 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 480 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Speaking in Defense of ThriftyTel (was Fighting Hackers) [Stuart Lynne] Re: Wireless Phone Security [Bud Couch] Re: Important Change in Sprint Plus Rates [Ken Jongsma] Re: Important Change in Sprint Plus Rates [David Dodell] Is Cellular Phone Jamming Possible? [Dave Rubin] LAN Questionnaire [Peggy Mancuso] Distinctive Ringing Switches and Their Uses [David Neal] Question About ATV Modular Voice Mail Systems [Tom Talley] Six-Wire Phone Outlet Question [Joe Abernathy] Congressional Panels Okay Bills Against Caller*ID [TELECOM Moderator] Administrivia: More 'Len' Messages [TELECOM Moderator] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stuart Lynne Subject: Re: Speaking in Defense of ThriftyTel (was Fighting Hackers) Organization: Wimsey Associates Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1991 20:05:55 GMT In article drears@pica.army.mil (Dennis G. Rears (FSAC)) writes: > Kurt Guntheroth writes: > Contract, hell it is extortion. As any first year law student > could tell you the following must exist to be a contract: > o legality of object # OK > o mutual consideration # OK > o contractual capacity # OK; minors create > # a voidable contract > o manifestion of consent > (offer/acceptance) # NO > o meeting of the minds > > The hacker is not aware of the offer (tariff), there is no > manifestion of consent, and there is not meeting of the minds. > Another point, California has the Uniform Commercial Code, thus the > statue of frauds would apply. This means the contract (including > acceptance) must be in writing for amount of over $500.00. I wonder to what extent their status as a common carrier affects the normal course of forming a contract with them. All of the above would be pretty standard stuff between any two random non regulated parties, but to what extent is it altered by statute (in this case the statutes granting Thrifty common carrier status). Presumably their are both new requirements (to entering into a contract) and new restrictions (for example only tariffs filed with regulating body can be charged). Stuart Lynne Computer Signal Corporation, Canada ...!van-bc!sl 604-937-7785 604-937-7718(fax) sl@wimsey.bc.ca [Moderator's Note: In addition to ThriftyTel, I have to wonder how 'contracts' and the Uniform Commercial Code apply to 900 calls in general where minors are concerned. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Bud Couch Subject: Re: Wireless Phone Security Organization: Kentrox Industries, Inc. Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1991 16:59:45 GMT In article bill@fisher.eedsp.gatech.edu writes: > In article "It Was Written...": >> On ABC-TV's "This Week With David Brinkley" White House staffer John >> Sununu claimed he was `on the phone practically the whole time' as he >> was being chauffeur driven from Washington to New York to attend a >> rare stamp auction, among other things. One wonders how secure his >> phone was ... (those had better be all business calls, John :-)). > Although I don't know it for certain, I would assume that Sununu had a > limo which is equipped with a cellular STU-III. STU is an acronym for > Secure Telephone Unit (III indicating the third generation of such). > STU-IIIs come in landline and cellular models, the last I heard. > It is also possible that he used another form of communications > available to the White House. They've gotta stay in touch, you know! I think that the latter is the more probable. White House communications is handled by the military -- the Air Force -- to be exact. Most of the technical people for this are Air Force em's. They get to wear civilian clothes, so it isn't real obvious. The military has all sorts of comm paths that can be used from a moving vehicle (on the ground or in the air), especially a White House limo which has had all the goodies installed. Your tax dollars at work! Bud Couch - ADC/Kentrox If my employer only knew.. standard BS applies ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Important Change in Sprint Plus Rates Date: Thu, 20 Jun 91 20:03:20 EDT From: Ken Jongsma Gasp! I heard about a Sprint billing change in misc.consumers before it appeared in the Digest! What's going on here? In any case, I've just finished takling to a Sprint rep and confirmed the following information: As of June 3, the Sprint Plus plan has been changed. Sprint no longer bills evening rate calls as night calls. Instead, all evening and night calls will will be discounted at 20%. Day calls will be discounted at 10%. The $8/month minimum has been waived. It wasn't clear during the conversation, but somehow a 2.7% rate increase plays into these changes. My residential bill runs around $100/month with 99% of those calls placed in the evening. I haven't worked the numbers out yet, but I suspect this is going to cost me more than 2.7%! I told the rep that I wasn't happy with the changes and wanted to register that with Sprint. She forwarded me to her supervisor. The supervisor was very nice and aside from giving the company line, let it slip that many people had been calling about the change. She said that all calls regarding this subject were being noted and that a change back might be possible. So ... if you liked the old Sprint Plus billing plan, please call Sprint and let them know. Be nice! Ask to speak to a supervisor and tell him/her why you liked the old plan. (I said I wasn't concerned about the minor increase, I just preferred the simple day/night rate structure.) Ken Jongsma ken@wybbs.mi.org Smiths Industries ken%wybbs@sharkey.umich.edu Grand Rapids, Michigan ..sharkey.cc.umich.edu!wybbs!ken ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Jun 91 06:32:15 mst From: David Dodell Subject: Re: Important Changes in Sprint Plus Rates After reading the notice here about the changes in Sprint Plus, I called them to verify the posting. Yes, the changes went into effect June 1st, and they have done away with the evening billed at night rates. However, evening rates are now given a 20% discount, so "they" claim I should be paying around the same per minute. I've asked about Sprint Select ($7.50 first hour/$6.50 every hour afterwards) and that still kicks in at 5 pm. I told the representative that I was not very pleased about not receiving "advanced" notification of the change, and she offered to adjust my bill for the calls for the month of June. I guess it is time to re-evaluate calling plan patterns again . David St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center, Phoenix, Arizona uucp: {gatech, ames, rutgers}!ncar!asuvax!stjhmc!ddodell Bitnet: ATW1H @ ASUACAD FidoNet=> 1:114/15 Internet: ddodell@stjhmc.fidonet.org FAX: +1 (602) 451-1165 ------------------------------ From: Dave Rubin Subject: Is Cellular Phone Jamming Possible? Reply-To: drubin@prism.poly.edu (Dave Rubin) Organization: Polytechnic University, New York Date: Fri, 21 Jun 91 17:58:04 GMT I was wondering if it was possible to jam the signal of a cellular phone to prevent effective communication. The reason I ask is that a new automobile anti-theft system, called "Intercept" has recently been introduced. This system uses a cellular phone to alert a central station as to the whereabouts of the stolen automobile, and the station can also send a signal to the car to turn off its engine. It would seem that if a car thief can get his hands on a device to jam a cellular phone signal, the "Intercept" system would be useless. Any info would be appreciated ... please respond via E-mail. Dave Rubin Polytechnic University drubin@prism.poly.edu [Moderator's Note: But please copy the Digest with your replies. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Peggy Mancuso Subject: LAN Questionnaire Date: 20 Jun 91 20:28:17 GMT Organization: NEC Information Systems, Acton, MA Hello, I am a candidate for a graduate degree from Lesley College in Management. Part of the requirement for degree is completion of a research project. I would like to ask you to complete the following questionnaire on local area networks. As a novice to LANs, this is a basic study on how LANs are currently being used in business. Please email to peg@necis.nec.com. Thank you for your time. There are just ten questions. 1. How many different types of local area networks are utilized by your organization. (One, Two, Three, More than Three) 2. Approximately how many users are connected to each local area network? Lan 1 ___ Lan 2 ___ (if applicable) Lan 3 ___ ( if applicable) 3. Which topology best describes your organization's local area network? If more than one lan , please list additional topologies. (Bus, Tree, Ring, Star, Other please describe, Unknown) Lan 1 ____ Lan 2 ____ Lan 3 ____ 4. Which medium connects the components of the network? If more than one Lan, please list additional media. (Twisted pair, Thin ethernet, Ethernet coax, token ring coax, fiber, Other) Lan 1 ___ Lan 2 ___ Lan 3 ___ 5. Which access control is used. (Token bus, Token ring, CSMA, CSMA/CD Other, please describe, Unknown) Lan 1 ____ Lan 2 ____ Lan 3 ____ 6. What is the primary business the Lan is being utilized for? Administrative Support (including wordprocessing, mail, resource sharing) or online (medical etc.) Lan 1 ___ Lan 2 ___ Lan 3 ___ 7. Would the interruption of the Lan service (eg power outage) immediately effect the health or safety of the primary business operation for which the network is being used? Yes No Lan 1 ___ Lan 2 ___ Lan 3 ___ 8. Is an immediate response (60 seconds or less) to and from the file server critcal to business operation. (eg. Immediate response is required to and from automatic banking machines.) YES or NO Lan 1 ____ Lan 2 ____ Lan 3 ____ 9. Is security of data to and from the server critical to the business operation? (eg. In automatic banking applications, unauthorized users must be restricted from the network) Yes No Lan 1 ___ Lan 2 ___ Lan 3 ___ 10. Is reliabiltiy of data to and from the server critical to business operation? (eg. In banking applications data must be 100% accurate) Yes No Lan 1 ___ Lan 2 ___ Lan 3 ___ Thank you very much for your time. Results will be posted if interest. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Jun 91 11:52 CDT From: David Neal Subject: Distinctive Ringing Switches and Their Uses I'm looking for a switch that shuttles between one or more lines based on distinctive ringing patterns. Ideally the switch would send a normal ring pattern down the leg selected, thus saving me the expense of shunts/modems/faxes/answering machines that also detect DR. The point of all this is to have my otherwise idle home phone appear as a business phone, and to hopefully allow me to wire up a voicemail/fax system at home. Personal 800 number is forwarded to special ring number. Normal Ring POTS --------------------------------------Answering machine | | | Two Line Cordless (Line 1) (Line 2)---- | | | | | Modified Ring | | | |---- | | | | | fax tones detected | | | | voice detected | Ext 42 | | (or same PC w/fax board) | | | |------------| PC says: "Please dial the extension of the party blah blah blah blah" Ext 1 = My voice mail Ext 2 = Roland's voice mail ... Ext 11 = Take a # via tone detection and page me with the # Ext 12 = Take a # and page Roland with it ... Ext 42 = Ring Cordless phone on line 2 (known to few but keeps home # totally private.) Ext 911 = Take message, ring me on cellphone and playback. Any improvements, brandnames, or suggestions, are welcome. John Higdon 15 lines at home on a 64x16 PBX in your basement smart alecs need not apply :-) ... (but anything else you might have to say would be great, Mr. Higdon.) Also, if this system could be setup so that answer during the day with a secretary and multiple lines could easily be added later, that would be even better. In fact, it may be that a very small PBX would scale better? David Neal - Unix Contractor at large -- dan@chemsh.uucp - (800) 486-3972 ------------------------------ From: Tom Talley Subject: Question About ATV Modular Voice Mail Systems Date: Fri, 21 Jun 91 12:49:26 PDT I need to know about ATV, a Seattle based company that makes modular voice mail systems. The place where I work is looking at their system as a potential replacement for our current system. The problem is no one here knows anything about them. If any one knows anything about this company or about their voice mail systems I would be delighted to hear from you. I would what kinds of problems their systsems have and what kinds of advantages. Any and all information would be apreciated. Tom Talley please E-mail me at greyfire@cscihp.ecst.csuchico.edu Thank you for taking the time to read this plea for help. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 22 Jun 91 16:34:00 CDT From: Joe Abernathy Subject: Six-Wire Phone Outlet Question Would anyone be kind enough to explain how to wire a six-wire phone extension such as that needed for a speakerphone, coming from a standard four-wire box? Please respond to edtjda@chron.com. Thanks in advance. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 22 Jun 91 19:31:11 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Congressional Panels Okay Bills Against Caller*ID Acting separately, two congressional sub-committees voted Thursday that where Caller*ID is offered by telephone companies, *per-call* blocking must be made available at no charge. The House Commerce Sub-Committee on Telecommunications and the Senate Judiciary Sub-Committee on Technology and Law both voted on similar items, and differences will be ironed out later on. Both groups rejected *per-line* blocking, but said that option could be available in individual states. According to Representative Matthew Rinaldo (R-NJ) "The desire of people to have privacy in their homes and not be intruded on by unwanted calls is not as important as the right of people who wish to make calls anonymously." And Senator Herbert Kohl (D-WI) noted, "People should have a right to make phone calls anonymously and not have to say who they are." The final bill will be presented to Congress for a vote later this year. PAT ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 22 Jun 91 18:24:38 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Administrivia: More 'Len' Messages I've got a few more 'Len Rose messages' in the queue which have arrived in the past couple days, apparently from people behind in their reading. Included among these is Len's Farewell Message to the net. To insure that as many points of view as possible are presented, I'll put out *one final issue* devoted to the subject, including Len's farewell message. This issue will be in circulation late Saturday evening. I give you warning now so that if the subject is really starting to bore you, you can trash the next issue on receipt. PAT ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #480 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa12242; 22 Jun 91 23:58 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa27006; 22 Jun 91 22:32 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ae29557; 22 Jun 91 21:26 CDT Date: Sat, 22 Jun 91 20:46:02 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #481 BCC: Message-ID: <9106222046.ab08669@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 22 Jun 91 20:45:26 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 481 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Well Len, Was it Worth a Prison Term? [David Burren] Re: Len Rose Sent to Prison [Bill Martens] Re: What Len Rose and Al Capone Have in Common [Michael P. Deignan] Re: Well Len, Was it Worth a Prison Term? [Fred Heutte] Re: What Len Rose and Al Capone Have in Common [Larry Campbell] These People and Institutions Were Hurt by Len [Bill Kennedy] Farewell [Len Rose] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "David Burren [Athos]" Subject: Re: Well Len, Was it Worth a Prison Term? Date: 18 Jun 91 07:01:15 GMT Organization: Expert Solutions Australia In TELECOM Moderator wrote: > In the case at hand, I quoted the court's decision without really > agreeing with it. I'm sorry Pat, but that was NOT the impression I got from reading your original note. True, the paragraph in question did not express any opinion, but taken in context with the rest of the posting it blended with the impression of blind and unthinking condonement for what has been done to Len. I started out reading your article as if it was merely a report, but halfway though had to stop and look at it again. In you wrote: > I wonder if it was all worth it ... if Len had it to do over again if > he would do the same things he did before, or if he might consider the > consequences more carefully. Certainly it makes one wonder. The number of people with unlicensed software is staggering. I'll admit I've been guilty of that myself in the past. As someone who "grew up" in an environment of Apple ][s and PCs, the concept of using pirated software was something I was used to, even though it was clearly known amongst all the "high school hackers" that it was illegal. These days I don't tend to use commercial software (beyond the OS itself :-( so the temptation to have or use unlicensed software is reduced for me, but the thought of what's happened to someone who effectively did what I myself did years ago induces reflection, yes. So who can say they've never seen an unlicensed copy of something like Lotus 1-2-3? No, I'm not addressing here the issue of _distributing_ illegal copies of software (eg. the unpublished submission to {Phrack}) but then, people who copy software are (in my experience) likely to give copies to others. I suspect that people who can truthfully say that they've never broken a law are a rare breed. It's the realization of what governments and companies are willing and able to do to offenders that frightens people. And I think that in many cases it should. > are still those folks around who either (a) don't think it applies to > them, or (b) don't think they will get caught, or (c) don't understand > what the big fuss is all about in the first place. > If you don't think (c) is still possible, consider the recent thread > in comp.org.eff.talk -- yes, I know, *where else* !! -- on the student > who got suspended from school for two quarters after downloading and > distributing the system password file on the machine he had been > entrusted to use. The fact that the debate could go on endlessly for > message after message actually questioning what, if anything the chap > did wrong tells us plenty about the mentality and 'social respsonsi- > bility' of EFF devotees, but that is a whole new topic in itself. As others have already pointed out, your assumption that people who post in comp.org.eff.* implicitly represent the position of the EFF is abominable. It was this paragraph that made me take a step back and look at your posting again. Anyway, I think it's worth pointing out that much of the discussion has been about topics such as whether users should be allowed to run programs such as COPS. The interested reader is advised to read the newsgroup for him/herself, and not rely on the summaries of either Pat or myself. > The point is, some of us are simply getting very tired of the > break-ins, the fraudulent messages, the fact that in order to telnet > to a different site we can no longer do so direct from dialup servers > without a lot of rig-a-ma-role because computer (ab)users have stolen > all the trust which used to exist between sites, and the increasing > scarcity of 'guest' accounts on various sites because the sysadmins > are tired of being eaten alive with fraudulent and destructive usage. Excuse me, but what relevance does this have to the case of Len Rose? Your comments smack of uninformed journalism following the bandwagon of "hacker" scare-stories. That is not to say that the emergence of crackers in today's electronic society has not caused the problems that you mention, but why do you associate Len Rose with this? > Users had better wise up to one fact: the federal government is going > to continue to crack down on abusers of the net and this media. Having _responsible_ watchdogs/authorities discouraging abuse is (IMHO) a good thing. Blindly assuming that said bodies will follow the moral/ethical guidelines that we think they should is (IMHO of course) a BAD thing. > penitentiary can be, and frequently is a therapeutic experience, at > least for the people who think about what it was that caused them to > get there in the first place. I have no direct experience with prisons/penitentiaries/etc, but I hestitate to accept your recommendation that it is "a therapeutic experience". Would you care to point the interested reader to some background for your recommendation? > A US Attorney involved in prosecuting computer crime once said, "users > need an example when they log in of what to expect when they screw up > while on line ..." Indeed we do ... and Len Rose will serve as such. I think Mike Godwin's reply to this sum things up. Is the title "a US Attorney" intended to impart some level of respect for said person's opinions? > And a knowledgeable sysadmin who is quietly cooperating with the > government tells me a federal grand jury is to returning > another cycle of indictments. Need I say more? Yes please. These may be legal actions within the U.S., but the precedents and details will affect technology users the world over! In , Pat continues: > [Moderator's Note: What Len Rose was *convicted* of doing was being in > possession of AT&T computer source code illegally, and transporting > the code across state lines. And Al Capone was sent to prison for > failure to pay his income tax. You imply that Len is/was guilty of much more. Rather than throwing unsubstantiated accusations around, why not produce some explanation of why you think such accusations are justified? As the Moderator of a large and active newsgroup, I remember as a newbie regarding your postings as coming from someone who knew what they were talking about. Sadly, your recent postings have led me to rethink my former opinion of the notes sighed with "PAT". David Burren [Athos] Email: david@bacchus.esa.oz.au Software Development Engineer, Expert Solutions Australia, Hawthorn, VIC - I cut code for ESA, I don't speak for them - ------------------------------ From: Bill Martens Subject: Re: Len Rose Sent to Prison Date: 19 Jun 91 08:53:20 GMT Reply-To: Bill Martens Organization: Info Connections, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo, Japan Well, it has been my observation during my young years in the computer world that the problems originated not from the occaisional hacker but instead from the people like our moderator( PAT) who take a simple thing and blow it totally out of proportion (like the Len Rose case). I am really shocked by the way in which people like this will take every opportunity to slam (put down) some one who has done no worse of crime than anyone else (can you honestly say, Pat, that you've never done anything wrong?) has done. You know the Bible says "let he who is without sin cast the first stone". well, I guess that just about eliminates all of us .. doesn't it, PAT! ------------------------------ Reply-To: "Michael P. Deignan" Date: Wed, 19 Jun 91 11:26:14 GMT From: "Michael P. Deignan" Subject: Re: What Len Rose and Al Capone Have in Common In comp.dcom.telecom TELECOM Moderator writes: [comparison of Al Capone and Len Rose deleted] You forgot the all important one: Al Capone had lots of money for his defense. Money means good lawyers who can adequately protect the rights you are granted under the Constitution. Len Rose had no money. No money means public defenders who see a case number, not a person. No money means, very often, very less-than-adequate protection of those rights you are granted under our Constitution. Michael P. Deignan Domain: mpd@anomaly.sbs.com UUCP: ...!uunet!rayssd!anomaly!mpd Telebit: +1 401 455 0347 [Moderator's Note: What YOU seem to have forgotten is that Len Rose's defense was mostly paid for by friends. He had a private attorney most of the time ... not the Federal Defender's Office. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Fred Heutte Subject: Re: Well Len, Was it Worth a Prison Term? Date: 22 Jun 91 04:41:07 GMT Townson is entitled to his opinion, but is it really fair to keep tacking it onto the end of everyone else's postings? In my own view, the taunting, condescending tone of his remarks regarding Len Rose's situation is utterly unbecoming the position of *moderator* of a newsgroup. He assures us how "sorry" he is that this happened to Len. Well, I am "sorry" it's apparently a net tradition never to let the facts or a modicum of charity stand in the way of a good rant. Len Rose is going to jail because of some pretty severe "cop trips" in a law enforcement milieu which has just discovered that, by golly, people actually use computers. The prosecution barely understood the issues they tried Rose on; they were basically serving as the muscle for a major corporation which wants to send a message to the rest of us about their notion of property rights. To anyone with an inkling of what this was all about, the entire process and especially the sentencing are totally out of proportion. Let those who live in glass houses not cast the first stones, especially not upon Len Rose. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Jun 91 22:07:12 EDT From: Larry Campbell Subject: Re: What Len Rose and Al Capone Have in Common Organization: The Boston Software Works, Inc. Pat, you are *way* out of line. Al Capone was directly responsible for scores, possibly hundreds, of violent deaths. Len Rose was responsible for, umm, hmm, let's see ... what *actual* *harm* did he commit? Who did he injure? Whose money did he steal? Gee, that's a tough one ... Yes, white collar crime is a problem. Yes, depending on which Gucci-clad consultant you choose to believe, computer-related embezzlement results in the theft of X billion dollars a year. Okay, fine, prosecute *those* guys. HOW MUCH DID LEN ROSE STEAL? WHO DID LEN ROSE SHOOT? OK, he had an unauthorized copy of login.c (who doesn't?), but FEDERAL PRISON for THAT? Get a GRIP, folks, we're talking foam-at-the-mouth hysteria here over *really* *trivial* *transgressions*. (And please, no "but we have to nip this sort of thing in the bud" rationalizations; in a just society you punish people for the crimes they've *actually committed*, not the ones that they *might*, or that they might *encourage* ...) And the self-righteous gloating from people like Pat Townson makes me want to puke. Larry Campbell The Boston Software Works, Inc., 120 Fulton Street campbell@redsox.bsw.com Boston, Massachusetts 02109 (USA) [Moderator's Note: Who did Len hurt? Suppose we have the next message describe that in detail. As Moderator, it is far too easy for me to stack the Digest with messages which agree with me ... and to avoid any charges of favoritism I've avoided printing a lot of the stuff which has agreed with my position. But the next message was one I thought really worth sharing. Then we will conclude with a final word from Len Rose himself. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jun 91 20:26 CDT From: Bill Kennedy Subject: These People and Institutions Were Hurt by Len Organization: W.L. Kennedy Jr. and Associates, Pipe Creek, TX My concern is strictly for the damage that Len did to people and organizations who were just whooshed into his vortex. > Mr. Rose is on his way to jail for posessing unlicensed source code. > The world is now safer for humanity. The case that I want to plead has nothing whatsoever to do with the legality or lack thereof for which Len Rose is being incarcerated. I want to talk about common courtesy and respect for your fellow man. Not common courtesy or respect for Len, but rather HIS lack of it for others. > One stark bad example. Heading off to jail. Now, let us contrast the > damage done by Mr. Rose to the damage done by the SS to Steve Jackson > Games, and scale an appropriate sentence for them. Tanner makes my point with precision. Let me enumerate the damage done which could have been avoided had Len acted more responsibly: Steve Jackson games - They never would have become vulnerable to SS abuse had Len not made excursions beyond reason and the law. This wasn't Tanner's point, but it's my take on it. Usenet killer/attctc - This invaluable resource and national spoke in the Usenet wheel would not have been shut down had Len not decided to joyride beyond the bounds of propriety and common sense. Southwestern Bell - I'd use his name but I don't have his permission. He lost his job, for all intent and purposes, despite his *total* exhonoration in the matter. He was put under a microscope, intimidated, and otherwise mistreated and had to leave the company. His only "mistake"? He was honestly and innocently associated with Len Rose. AT&T employee - Ditto above. In my view these two people lost their jobs just because they had dealings with Len Rose in all good faith. Had Len Rose remained within the bounds of professionalism they would still be employed by their previous employers (in the SWBT case 22 years went down the drain). I happen to think that they are both better off in their current jobs and they probably agree, but it's not the point. Their careers with their employers were wrecked because Len Rose couldn't behave. Usenet texbell - THE major news and mail site in Texas came under scrutiny as a result of the Len Rose case. Southwestern Bell who had sponsored and underwritten it for years decided to shut it down on four days' notice and I can't be convinced that it wasn't realted to the internal investigation stimulated by the Len Rose case. Unnamed person Austin - I don't have his permission either so he'll have to stay anonymous too. His apartment was raided and all of his electronic stuff confiscated the same day as Steve Jackson Games, same city, Austin, TX. This individual is now having to file a lawsuit to get his gear back (no charges were ever filed) and it costs him money to do that. Len's stuff was returned. Here's my point. I don't care what anyone says or thinks about right or wrong with regard to Len Rose. My animosity and resentment stems from the "collateral damage" caused by a long standing collection of really bone headed things that the man did. I am just as sympathetic as everyone else for what he did to his family (I said "what he did") as I am what he did to the rest of the net at large, examples above. He caused a lot of grief. He grieved some people who could have been spared had he been able to contain himself. He didn't, they weren't spared. He's headed for the hoosegow, but I think he and we would be better served if he could get some treatment for what makes him hurt others. Yes, I'm an injured party too, but stomach acid only, he *HURT* the things I laid out above. Don't slather me with "it was the big bad feds"; had he not attracted their attention they'd have left him (and the rest of us) alone. 'Nuff said, I thought you ought to know. Bill Kennedy internet bill@ssbn.WLK.COM or ssbn!bill@attmail.COM uucp {att,cs.utexas.edu,pyramid!daver}!ssbn.wlk.com!bill ------------------------------ From: len@netsys.NETSYS.COM (Len Rose) Subject: Farewell Date: 21 Jun 91 23:27:01 GMT Just a quick note to say Goodbye to many friends and compatriots. I will be off the net for about a year I suppose. Many of you deserve more than just "Thanks" and some of you deserve utter contempt. Watch yourselves. It can happen to anyone. If you need to reach me from now until July 10th(?), call 708-527-1293. Len ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #481 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa08328; 24 Jun 91 0:09 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa07300; 23 Jun 91 22:43 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa12740; 23 Jun 91 21:35 CDT Date: Sun, 23 Jun 91 21:05:16 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #482 BCC: Message-ID: <9106232105.ab12087@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 23 Jun 91 21:04:52 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 482 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Congressional Panels Okay Bills Against Caller*ID [John Higdon] Re: Congressional Panels Okay Bills Against Caller*ID [Bill Berbenich] Re: SPECIAL REPORT: NY Tel Plans For Caller ID [Robert Jacobson] Re: Is Cellular Jamming Possable? [Patton M. Turner] Re: Billing Question [Dave Leibold] Re: Wireless Phone Security [David Lesher] Re: Dumb (Neophyte) Cellular Question [Jack Decker] Re: What The Heck is "Fiber Optic Quality" Anyway? [Dick Jackson] Re: Modem vs. Line-Powered 'In Use' Light [David Schachter] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Congressional Panels Okay Bills Against Caller*ID Date: 23 Jun 91 00:49:59 PDT (Sun) From: John Higdon On Jun 22 at 19:47, TELECOM Moderator writes: > According to Representative Matthew Rinaldo (R-NJ) "The desire of > people to have privacy in their homes and not be intruded on by > unwanted calls is not as important as the right of people who wish to > make calls anonymously." What an interesting opinion. It would be laughable coming from anyone who did not have to power to create silly laws to enforce it. So now the right to be secure in your home and enjoy peace and tranquility takes a back seat to the right of someone who wishes to annoy and upset someone with anonymous calls? The reason for the state of our country is becoming clearer and clearer... And what if the ability to make anonymous calls had not been a default aspect of current telephone technology? Would there NOW be laws on the books to make it that way? Somehow I doubt it. It is the usual knee-jerk reaction to new technology. > And Senator Herbert Kohl (D-WI) noted, "People should have a right to > make phone calls anonymously and not have to say who they are." That is an interesting statement from someone who is an elected official in a government that has methodically and steadfastly REMOVED the privacy and anonymity of its citizens with the blatant overuse of the SSN, that employs federal "crime enforcement" that ignores actual Constitutional guarantees (the right to make anonymous calls is NOT Constitutionally protected), and that has otherwise intruded and meddled in the lives of people to the point of giving lie to the greatly touted liberty of US citizens. In essence, Congress should make NO laws concerning things technical. Whatever our elected representatives have knowledge of (damned if I can tell what it is), it certainly has nothing to do with technology. For every law that Congress passes that deals with telecommunications, it later ends up passing four more to attempt to undo the damage caused by the first. John Higdon (hiding out in the desert) ------------------------------ From: bill@fisher.eedsp.gatech.edu Subject: Re: Congressional Panels Okay Bills Against Caller*ID Date: Sun, 23 Jun 91 17:22:09 EDT Reply-To: bill@eedsp.gatech.edu Pat, do you have the numbers of the subject bills? I would very much like to contact my Congress-sharks and give them my opinion on Caller*ID blocking. The Senate and House versions should each have different numbers. Bill Berbenich, School of EE, DSP Lab | Telephone: +1-404-894-3134 Georgia Tech, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 | uucp: ...!{backbones}!gatech!eedsp!bill | Group 3 fax: +1-404-894-8363 Internet: bill@eedsp.gatech.edu | or: +1-404-853-9171 [Moderartor's Note: Unfortunatly I do not. My brief article was composed from the AP wire story on Friday which was substantially longer than I used. There were quotes from ACLU'ers, and other remarks. I just now went back to review my copy, and the bill numbers are no where to be found. Maybe someone can supply them. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Robert Jacobson Subject: Re: SPECIAL REPORT: NY Tel Plans For Caller ID Organization: Human Interface Technology Lab, Univ. of Wash., Seattle Date: Sun, 23 Jun 1991 05:25:10 GMT Re the comments of Mr. Bailey M. Geeslin, Vice President-Regulatory, in his whine to the New York State Public Service Commission why the Commission should dispense with per-line blocking requirements: > We believe that this may, indeed, be one of those times when changes > in telecommunications technology may lead to changes in our customers' > privacy expectations. When haven't the telephone companies and their suppliers looked to technology to change their customers's habits and ways of thought? One thing after another, whether successful (Princess phones) or not (videophones), some telco's can't resist telling us how we should change our lives for the better. Revenue gains are always incidental, of course. > But we must interject our primary and most urgent objection to > all-call blocking -- an objection that has been joined in by emergency > response agencies across the country. In addition to diminishing the > value of Caller ID, all-call blocking compromises the ability of > police, fire, and other emergency service providers to determine the > source of the call, thus impeding responses in emergencies and > increasing false alarms. > All-call blocked callers to fire, police, or medical agencies > (non-E-911) calling in an emergency would be likely to forget to > "unblock" their telephone number. Customer focus group interviews in > New York also indicated a concern that children, currently taught to > dial 911 or the police direct dial number to summon help, would not > remember to or be able to disengage the line blocking feature in an > emergency. From a public safety point of view, per-call blocking is > clearly the best option. This has GOT to be bogus. Isn't SS7 and associated services fully reprogrammable, so that 911 calls get special treatment regardless of line-blocking for usual calling? If not, we as ratepayers are getting rooked twice over, once for an expensive service and again when it's able to be used only in conjunction with the collection of personal ID for marketing purposes. And if the emergency threat is so great, where are all the police, fire department, hospital, and insurance services to make the point? How come so many are in opposition to the proposition that the service makes things better? Company-conducted focus groups are hardly the last word on expertise. Buggers. Bob Jacobson ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 23 Jun 91 17:04:48 CDT From: "Patton M. Turner" Subject: Re: Is Cellular Jamming Possable? Dave Rubin writes: > I was wondering if it was possible to jam the signal of a cellular > phone to prevent effective communication. > The reason I ask is that a new automobile anti-theft system, called > "Intercept" has recently been introduced. This system uses a cellular > phone to alert a central station as to the whereabouts of the stolen > automobile, and the station can also send a signal to the car to turn > off its engine. > It would seem that if a car thief can get his hands on a device to jam > a cellular phone signal, the "Intercept" system would be useless. Virtually any reciever can be jammed when you are several orders of magnitude closer than the transmitter is (assuming a omnidirectional antenna or the ability to relocate the jammer). I suspect the strength of this device that it won't be expected. Several ways to defeat the device are: 1) Unplug the battery, the antenna, etc, after breaking into the car, the police probally won't respond too quickly because of false alarms. (An aside: a friend of mine who carries a lot of expensive radio equipiment in his car bought a Jeep with a factory alarm installed with sensors in the door, hood, etc., he's never had a false alarm.) 2) Burn out, overload or jam the front end of the reciever with a RF source near the cell-phone frequency fed into a high gain yagi antenna. The antenna can also be connected to the battery or a 110/220 VAC source. Bye Bye FET's! 3) If it's an external antenna, cut it. If the antenna is inside the car (ie. hidden in the trunk, or even worse under the hood), I would think parking the car inside a steel bulding would prevent reception of the signal. I think if I had one of these alarms, I would want it to page me rather than call the police. Of course, in Alabama we don't have too park to far from where we are going. Patton Turner KB4GRZ pturner@eng.auburn.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jun 91 21:38:00 PST From: Dave Leibold Subject: Re: Billing Question Reply-to: dleibold@attmail.com Leroy Donnelly writes: > Could someone give me insight on how the phone companies bill for long > distance. Is it based on a grid map or LAT/LONG points. Each exchange or "rate center" is given what's known as a V&H co-ordinate representing Latitude and Longitude. For instance, Toronto Ontario has a V of 4981 and an H of 2488. For a rate distance between two points, the difference in V's of the points and the difference in H's of the points are squared and added, much like the Pythagoreas Theorem used to calculate the hypotenuse of a triangle. If rate distance is R, then R^2 = V^2 + H^2, although the R value won't exactly come out in miles or kilometres. A bit of extra calculation is done, but the principle is there. Those in Bell Canada territory can try to find CRTC tariff 6716 for a detailed look at the calculation, or other telco long distance tariffs might explain this. There's also supposed to be an AT&T Tariff FCC #10 which i've never seen, but is referred to in Bell Canada's tariff. I also caught the V&H co-ordinates in a book entitled DDRG (Direct Dialing Rate Guide?) complete with stuff like Mexico's 52X and 8XX pseudo-NPA's listed. That document might merely be a hardcopy version of the Bellcore V&H tape spoken of frequently in the Digest. There were even things called "coin check" digits which refer to the digit of the local number just after the prefix. For instance, a coin check digit of "9" for a prefix 234 would mean that operators have to be careful about placing collect calls to numbers of the form 234-9xxx. This is not too convenient for very small exchanges like 519-526; that prefix barely contains 300 phones, thus the coin check of 526-7xxx would mean all collect calls to 526 get the third degree (unless specific payphone series or numbers are now made available to operators electronically). dleibold@attmail.com Dave Leibold - via IMEx node 89:681/1 Dave.Leibold@f135.n82.z89.onebdos.UUCP ------------------------------ From: David Lesher Subject: Re: Wireless Phone Security Date: Sat, 22 Jun 91 23:41:48 EDT Reply-To: David Lesher Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers Others said: > Sununu claimed he was `on the phone practically the whole time'. [His car has STU III's and other means, maybe?] > I think that the latter is the more probable. White House communications > |is handled by the military -- the Air Force -- to be exact. The White House Communications Agency will be very disappointed to learn they are out of work. I hope they get paid unemployment benefits. I can't speak for what John's and/or the pool cars have, but the President's transportation has, in years past, been equipped with customized KY-71's. [I'm sure it also has one or more STU-III's.] The 71 was also called a STU-II, but some users never knew that. The 71 ran full duplex, but needed either four wire, or two dialup circuits! It always had PTT for those times you could only get one path. The STU-III runs full duplex on one dial-up line, or rather it tries to. It can revert to VOX half-duplex when the line is less than perfect. One significant advantage of the 71 was you could *understand* and recognize the other party. I always figured the reason for the cute LCD display on the -III was cuz otherwise you could not be sure it wasn't Joe's Pizza Parlor that you had reached ;-} ;-} One of many advantages of the III is they are far less prone to {hard} failure. Not all the calls work, but you are far less likely to have to get it worked on twice a month. It also offers a far more flexible key control system. On the 71 system, if you wanted to call from your agency X phone to Pete at Agency Y, you had to pass through a GSA run switch that had both sets of keys, or rather you HOPED it did ;-{ BTW, Jay Leno says George has taken up jogging again -- because John has the car ;-} wb8foz@mthvax.cs.miami.edu (305) 255-RTFM ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Jun 91 10:27:00 EDT From: Jack Decker Subject: Re: Dumb (Neophyte) Cellular Question lairdb@crash.cts.com (Laird P. Broadfield) wrote: > Can you have two cellphones (I guess you can't call them "desk sets", > can you?) on the same number? I'm sure you could get ring-no-answer > and busy-forward from one to another, but I'm talking about for-real > both sets on one seven digit number. There is an advertisement that appears in _Nuts & Volts Magazine_ (_Nuts & Volts_ is sort of a "shopper" publication for amateur radio operators and electronic hobbyists, and if anyone is interested their address is P.O. Box 1111, Placentia, CA 92670, phone 1-800-783-4264 or FAX 714-632-3041) under the classification "Telephone - Fax" that reads as follows: ****BULL**** "You can't have two phones on the same phone number!!!" NOW YOU CAN. Call CELLUSOFT SYSTEMS for more information 9 AM - 3 PM EST. 616-399-6390. Disclaimer: I have no idea who this company is or what they're selling, but if anyone is interested enough to call and find out, I'd be interested to know what you come up with. From the area code and exchange, I'd guess that the company is in the Holland, Michigan area. Via D'Bridge 1:232/10 06/21 17:39 Jack Decker, via 1:120/183 (Great Lakes Internet<->Fidonet Gateway) Internet: Jack.Decker@f8.n154.z1.fidonet.org UUCP: ...!mailrus!umich!wsu-cs!royaljok!154!8!Jack.Decker ------------------------------ From: Dick Jackson Subject: Re: What The Heck is "Fiber Optic Quality" Anyway? Date: 21 Jun 91 19:29:03 GMT Organization: Citicorp/TTI, Santa Monica In article Jeff Carroll writes: and > In article ivgate!macnet!jim.redelfs@ > writes: >>> as I understand it, virtually all long distance calls are sent in a >>> digital format. > While Barry Margolin made a good point about noisy cable and > error rates, I've never *noticed* any impairments on copper-carried > digital lines, and I'd assert that you can't actually *hear* the > difference. How about this for a summary of "fiber quality"? If your call is sent over an all digital path AND IF all the facilities are working to spec, you will experience a near perfect performance whether the transmission is on fiber, wire or microwave (digital microwave of course). Older digital systems (e.g. T1) often did not perform to spec all the time and did not have automatic monitoring, therefore they could be left in service in degraded mode. I believe that PART of the development of the phone system to provide the very low error rates characteristic of fiber results from the installation of continuous quality monitoring (such as ESF). In other words fiber is no better than other MODERN digital facilities. Dick Jackson ------------------------------ From: david@llustig.palo-alto.ca.us (David Schachter) Subject: Re: Modem vs. Line-Powered 'In Use' Light Organization: Greenwire Consulting Date: Sun, 23 Jun 91 21:14:25 GMT In article nelson@sgi.com (Nelson Bolyard) writes: > This circuit draws less than 12 >microamps from the phone line when > on-hook, and even less when off hook. It should not cause any > problems on your phone line (e.g. it >won't cause any telco equipment > to flag you line as leaking/needing >repair). The tarriff requirement in Canada is one microamp on-hook current draw, I recall. David Schachter internet: david@llustig.palo-alto.ca.us uucp: ...!{decwrl,mips,sgi}!llustig!david ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #482 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa10691; 24 Jun 91 1:17 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa17103; 23 Jun 91 23:51 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab07300; 23 Jun 91 22:43 CDT Date: Sun, 23 Jun 91 22:23:31 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #483 BCC: Message-ID: <9106232223.ab14808@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 23 Jun 91 22:23:17 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 483 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Never Sleep in Room 411 [Lyle A. McGeoch] Re: Never Sleep in Room 411 [Jack Winslade] Re: Does a National Phonebook Exist? [Mark A. Emanuele] Re: Modification of Ringback Tone by Subscriber Apparatus [Bruce Perens] Re: Please Explain the Terms Hacker & Phreaker [ninjam@csd4.csd.uwm.edu] Cascading Line Switchers (was Questions About Caller*ID) [Ken Dykes] Directory Inquiries via Cellular Phone: Air + $0.25? [Seng-Poh Lee] Pac*Bell Trivia [John Higdon] ATT #5 TCC and Fiber Optics [David Lesher] Not a BSP or Even the Yellow Pages..... [David Lesher] Service Question Regarding 'Off Premises Extensions' [Jack Decker] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Lyle A. McGeoch" Subject: Re: Never Sleep in Room 411 Date: 24 Jun 91 01:26:53 GMT Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J. I had a similar experience. One summer I spent a summer living at Manhattanville College, which had an old-fashioned phone system in some of its dorms. If someone wanted to call you from off-campus, they would call some central number. The operator would make a light flash in your room, and you would call 661 (perhaps from the hall phone) to get connected to your caller. Well, I lived in one of the dorms with real phones, and as luck would have it my number was 611. We quickly learned that we had to take our phone off the hook before the 11 pm rush of calls started. Which made it hard for anyone to call us. Lyle McGeoch Amherst College ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 22 Jun 91 22:28:57 CST From: Jack Winslade Subject: Re: Never Sleep in Room 411 Reply-To: ivgate!drbbs!jsw@uunet.uu.net Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha In a message of <21 Jun 91 15:17:00>, Terry J. Wood writes: > On a recent vacation, I made the mistake of getting room 411 in a hotel. > I also made the mistake of being the one to sleep next to the telephone. > Around 3 AM the phone rings: { anecdote deleted } A year ago, perhaps as long as two, I recalled my experience working in a hotel in the 1970's and the ordeal of removing room 411 and renumbering the odd rooms of the '400' building ... 409 413 415 ... etc. for just this reason. If I remember correctly, my article was poo-poo'ed (I will not say by whom ). I forget the exact rebuttal, but it was along the line that what I had recalled was very unlikely to happen in the real world. I am glad to see that someone else confirmed this. The problem of room 411 has been known to hotel managers for several decades. I am surprised the problem still exists, since I am sure the manager of the hotel in which you stayed has received many complaints. As an aside for those wondering, yes, we had a room 611, but no complaints that I know of. No, we did not have a room 911, our highest was 858 or something like that. Dialing 9 gave the usual off-property CO dial tone. Good Day! JSW [Moderator's Note: Some hotels get around this problem by requiring a digit *before* the room number. One here in Chicago says dial 9 for local calls, dial 8 for long distance calls, dial 7 followed by the three or four digit room number (if first digit after the seven is 3 or greater then expect two more digits and if first digit after the seven is 1 or 2 then expect three more digits), and dial 1 through 6 for special functions such as room service, front desk, valet, etc. Dial 0 for emergencies, do not disturb requests, etc. PAT] ------------------------------ From: "Mark A. Emanuele" Subject: Re: Does a National Phonebook Exist? Date: 23 Jun 91 20:40:45 GMT Organization: Overleaf Systems, Inc. Fords, NJ wallyk@bicycle.wv.tek.com (Wally Kramer) writes: > Is there a ``phonebook'' which covers everywhere in the U.S.? > Electronic, CD-ROM, 900-FIND-THEM :-) or whatever (even paper). AT&T has a service called AT&T Find America which is a communications product which accesses LEC DataBases for Directory Assistance. I think you should be able to get info on this by calling your AT&T account executive. Mark A. Emanuele V.P. Engineering Overleaf, Inc. 218 Summit Ave Fords, NJ 08863 (908) 738-8486 emanuele@overlf.UUCP ------------------------------ From: bruce@pixar.com Subject: Re: Modification of Ringback Tone by Subscriber Apparatus Organization: Pixar -- Point Richmond, California Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1991 23:32:25 GMT In a PBX with DID trunks, what happens if something breaks and the PBX never does return supervision? Does a two-way audio path exist? Will the connection stay up as long as desired, or time out? Bruce Perens ------------------------------ From: ninjam@csd4.csd.uwm.edu Subject: Re: Please Explain the Terms 'Hacker' and 'Phreaker' Date: 23 Jun 91 05:08:33 GMT Organization: The Hellfire Club This is responding to the person's question about what a Hacker and a Phreaker is. By the way, this is an UNBIASED opinion, unlike the Moderator's ... A Phreak is not generally someone who rips off the phone company, although it sometimes plays a small part. A true Phreak is someone who is dedicated to learning about the phone system, including not generally accessible proprietary information. As for the "Phreak" and "c00l dudez" syndrome that the Moderator was talking about, he is talking about a very small section of self-proclaimed Phreaks. These are the new "code kids" that sit around and set up their computers to "hack" long distance carriers. These are not true Phreaks. Unfortunately, these are the people that the media usually presents to us when they talk about Phreaking. In fact they are sometimes called "hackers" (sic). As for the definiton of a Hacker, yes, I agree with Pat, but I have to strongly dissagree with his other points. A true "Hacker" is still, and always will be someone knowledgeable about computers, and finds them so interesting that they want to learn as much as possible. You people write off an entire generation of Hackers as "crackers", with out looking at everything. Most of the true Hackers out there break in to these systems in the first place because they want to learn about the particluar computer or network. They are driven on for a need to learn. I admit there are exceptions in today's generation of Hackers. Some who do try to crash systems, and just trade "this new k-rad k00l account I just got", with no intentions of trying to learn from the system. But they are frowned upon by the rest of us. And again, these are the ones that the media usually picks up on. I have to strongly say that it is not right for people to write off the entire 80's generation of Hackers, and the Phone Phreakers as dishonest scum, or as the Moderator so kindly put it "the bad guys". You can't write off a whole group of people as malicious because some who are malicious do what they do. That's very unfair categorizing and stereotyping. Thanks for your time.. ________________ |NM --- THFC| ---------------- [Moderator's Note: Thank you for clearing up my biased misconceptions on the subject. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 22 Jun 91 21:15:48 -0400 From: Ken Dykes Subject: Cascading line switchers (was Questions About Caller*ID) dave@westmark.westmark.com (Dave Levenson) wrote: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 477, Message 9 of 11 > I bought a couple of those boxes at Radio Shack that allow an > answering machine to answer two lines. Using three of these in > cascade allows up to four lines to fan in to a single ring-detecting > device, such as the Call*Identifier box. Hummm, I'm surprised this actually works. Those Radio Shack boxes tend to "absorb" 1/2 to 1 ring if it has to actually do the switch to the "other line". Since the Caller-ID is sent between the first and second ring, I would expect this information to be lost in any cascade arrangement that actually has to do more than one level of switching. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 22 Jun 91 22:15:10 MDT From: Seng-Poh Lee Subject: Directory Inquiries via Cellular Phone: Air + $0.25? Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at DU What is the general policy of Cellular carriers with respect to directory inquiries? For residential phone service, SNET in Connecticut allows you five local inquiries before hitting you with a charge. I noticed in my cellular bill that I am charged for 25 cents for EACH and EVERY information call. This is in addition to air time. This is with the A carrier (Metro Mobile). I don't believe I made any infomation calls on my B carrier (Linx) phone, so I don't know if the policy is the same. How does this compare with other carriers? Seng-Poh Lee slee@isis.cs.du.edu ------------------------------ Subject: Pac*Bell Trivia Date: 22 Jun 91 23:43:09 PDT (Sat) From: John Higdon Those of you who have been reading the Digest over the past few months are well aware of my ten lines that have individual drops, making the back of my house look like Slum Alley. Some interesting developments: I ordered five more residential lines (in hunting). The rep did not even ask what they were to be used for. I specified a due date of 6/28, to coincide with my return from a desert trip. Already I have been informed by the person watching my house that a Pac*Bell installation supervisor has made a pre-field visit. He indicated that it was his intention to replace the single drops and install a pair of 12-pair cables. He has scheduled a full day to work on the project. BTW, wanna know what the assigned lead number is (that was given to me without asking and hence there will be no "vanity charges")? 266-4400! Not bad for an "out of the box" number, eh? And all of this in spite of the way I treat Pac*Bell in the Digest. Just goes to show the right hand must not know what the left hand does! John Higdon (hiding out in the desert) ------------------------------ From: David Lesher Subject: ATT #5 TCC and Fiber Optics Date: Sun, 23 Jun 91 14:51:49 EDT Reply-To: David Lesher Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers Macy and I drove by that underground site (outside of Medina, OH) recently. That's the one for the #5 Transcontinental Coaxial Cable. Medina Underground is where calls for Cleveland (to the north) and Akron and other points south are stripped out of the main flow. In any case, Macy mentioned having heard rumors of a study Bell Labs was doing/did do. The #5 consisted of {istm} 11 coax tubes headed east, with 11 more carrying westbound traffic. Each tube is about thumb diameter, with the center conductor suspended by dielectric spacers every few inches. There are repeaters every 5000 ft or so, buried for protection. The whole mess is deep, by buried cables standards. Ma wanted to dig up each repeater, and pull the center conductor out, and fibre optic cable in. This would, of course, give them about 3E8 times the available bandwidth. While not cheap, digging one hole/mile is a far cry from a mile trench, especially thru areas that now are built up. Anyone ever hear of this, and if so, what became of it? wb8foz@mthvax.cs.miami.edu (305) 255-RTFM ------------------------------ From: David Lesher Subject: Not a BSP or Even the Yellow Pages..... Date: Sun, 23 Jun 91 13:24:57 EDT Reply-To: David Lesher Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers C.D.T readers might enjoy a Donald Westlake novel I just stumbled across. It stars Kelp and Dortmunder again. You might remember them from the book "The Hot Rock" which inspired a movie of that same title. (The book was better.) It starts out with poor Dortmunder getting Andy's new answering machine, and ends. .. well I won't spoil it. Suffice to say - telephones and telephone systems form an essential part of the story. But not to worry, Dort still likes M.D.'s cars .... It's titled "Why Me?" and is likely available at the local library. It's not a new publication, so don't bother with your local chain bookstore. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Jun 91 13:02:00 EDT From: Jack Decker Subject: Service Question Regarding 'Off Premises Extensions' I have a question that one of you telecom managers might be able to help me with. The situation is this: A radio station has offices and transmitter in a small town that is right on the edge of a LATA boundary. Naturally, the bulk of their business (and their listeners) are in a larger town that is in the adjacent LATA. What they wanted to do was get an Foreign Exchange line from an exchange that is adjacent to theirs, but across the LATA boundary, and that is a local call to most of the areas they do business with (I should mention that the exchange they are in is a GTE exchange with no Extended Area Service to ANY other exchange, while the exchanges they want to reach are in Bell areas which do have EAS to other exchanges in the area). Unfortunately, because of the LATA boundary, the local telco cannot provide an FX line. AT&T could, but the monthly charge is horrendous AND they charge for calls (both outgoing AND INCOMING) made on the FX line on a per-minute basis (no mistake, they're allowed to do that on FX lines in this state, believe it or not!). The way around this per-minute charge used to be what was called an off-premise extension. What this meant was that if you have a location in the exchange that you want the FX service from where you can physically place a phone, you have service installed there and then have an "off premise extension" placed in the adjacent exchange. But, AT&T says they don't offer off-premise extensions anymore (it's no longer in their tariffs). What they DO offer is something called off-premise service, which (according to the AT&T rep) "requires a PBX at at least ONE end of the connection." I'm wondering if anyone has actually used off-premise service and is familiar enough with it to tell me what is the bare minimum amount of equipment actually required on each end to make it work. Keep in mind that we can get few feet of space to place some equipment in the exchange that we want to get the FX-type service from. Our other thought was, since the two exchanges are indeed adjacent to each other, to find the physical exchange boundary and lease a small patch of land on each side of the boundary and then shoot very short-range microwave, light beams, or "whatever" for the hundred feet or so necessary to cross that boundary (I have an exchange map and the exchange boundary doesn't follow the road boundaries, it actually bisects sections diagonally, so conceivably one could even lease a small patch of land on each side of the boundary and run an underground cable between the two). I'm wondering if anyone has ever done anything like this to reach an adjacent exchange (or knows of someone who has). Installing two business phone lines at adjacent physical locations on opposite sides of the exchange/LATA boundary would doubtless be the cheapest solution of all in the long run, but I'm just wondering what we might run up against in trying to do this. What's really bad about this is that the Michigan Public Service Commission has ordered the phone companies of Michigan to begin offering optional calling plans for flat rate calling to adjacent exchanges. Both Michigan Bell and GTE came back with proposals for plans that were NOT flat-rated, and that in fact were more like discount toll plans (in the case of GTE, certain calls would actually have cost MORE under the optional plan!). So now the whole thing is bogged down and it may be years before the MPSC order is actually implemented (if it doesn't get derailed entirely). I wonder if there are any statistics available on the number of cities and/or exchanges which have actually increased the size of local calling areas since divestiture? Here in Michigan many areas (particularly the rural areas) have ridiculously small local calling areas (in many cases there is NO toll-free calling to ANY adjacent exchanges), and the MPSC has steadfastly refused to grant any new Extended Area Service for about the last 20 years. I wonder if that's unusual, or if other states are just as restrictive? Via D'Bridge 1:232/10 06/21 17:39 Jack Decker, via 1:120/183 (Great Lakes Internet<->Fidonet Gateway) Internet: Jack.Decker@f8.n154.z1.fidonet.org UUCP: ...!mailrus!umich!wsu-cs!royaljok!154!8!Jack.Decker ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #483 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa13111; 24 Jun 91 2:24 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa18007; 24 Jun 91 0:57 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac17103; 23 Jun 91 23:52 CDT Date: Sun, 23 Jun 91 23:27:56 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #484 BCC: Message-ID: <9106232327.ab16785@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 23 Jun 91 23:27:40 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 484 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson A Tale of Twenty-Two COCOTs (or Thereabouts) [Dave Leibold] Bell Canada Automated Billing Service (Auto Collect Calls) [Dave Leibold] AT&T Does it Again!! [Gollapudi Pramod] Similarities Between East German Phones and S.266? [John Gilmore] Where Do They Get Off? [Jordan M. Kossack] Re: Congressional Panels Okay Bills Against Caller*ID [Neil Rickert] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 22 Jun 91 20:00:00 PST From: Dave Leibold Subject: A Tale of Twenty-Two COCOTs (or Thereabouts) Reply-to: dleibold@attmail.com An update on some of the COCOT happenings in south Florida is due. Note that some of the following is a few weeks old at this point, and situations can change. With that disclaimer in hand ... 1) After contacting the Florida Public Service Commission about a COCOT, and whether or not it was supposed to allow access to carriers using 10XXX+ (although 10288 for AT&T is allowed), the PSC's response included the following: "At present, the Public Service Commission doesn't require that all long distance carriers be accessed by using the 10XXX method from non-local exchange pay phones [presumably PSC lingo for COCOTs - djcl]. Some carriers can be accessed by using the 950 or 800 method, and the proper dialing procedure can be obtained from your long distance carrier or on the back of your calling card ..." Generally, COCOTs will only allow 10288; no carriers other than AT&T get the FG D treatment, but FG B (ie. 950) is accessible on most COCOTs. For reference, PSC in Florida can be reached at 1 800 342 3552. 2) A previous posting of mine about a COCOT in front of a Booger King some time ago has some follow-up. On a return visit, I found that the COCOT got changed to a different model, one which looks like a BC Tel payphone. This time, the COCOT at least allowed access to the AT&T operator with 10288 + 0, although it didn't allow any more numbers to go through such as 10288 + 0 + NPA + NXX.XXXX. The COCOT company's name ("Phone Plus") was also hand-scrawled on an information card this time. 3a) Delray Beach's Atlantic Ave. could be re-titled COCOT Street. A number of the things can be found in Delray's downtown, of varying quality and price structure. One COCOT allowed 555.1212 service to remote area codes for the whopping sum of 35c. This is a good bargain, indeed. Try to dial up a number in area code 903 (split from 214) or 908 (split from 201) and listen as the COCOTs either reject the number with a canned invalid number message, or assign a high default rate instead. Much fun can be had when 706 and 905 are tried; it will be interesting to see what happens when the old Mexico codes are reassigned to Georgia and Ontario respectively. 3b) The worst-case Delray COCOT was in front of a restaurant called Ken and Hazel's. It seems a company called Alltek is supplying "phones" that reject access to 950 and 10ATT along with other defeciencies. I procceded to call a "211" number listed on the payphone as being the number to call for problems and that. It was answered by someone who didn't identify with a company name, just a "Hello". When I asked what number I got, she responded with "You tell me" and started getting secretive. It was apparent that 211 on this COCOT dials someone's private residence. After explaining that this was from the payphone, she seemed to understand and even knew the location as "Ken and Hazel's". The connection was also fairly spotty throughout, as the voice path was somewhat broken. A recent return visit showed that not much changed after reporting the problems to the "211" number ... the 211 number written on the phone seems to have faded out a bit, though. 4) The more reputable (or the less flawed) of the COCOTs are run by companies that state their membership in something called the Florida Pay Telephone Association. I have no further details about this group at this point. dleibold@attmail.com Dave Leibold - via IMEx node 89:681/1 Dave.Leibold@f135.n82.z89.onebdos.UUCP ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 22 Jun 91 23:55:00 PST From: Dave Leibold Subject: Bell Canada Automated Billing Service (Auto Collect Calls) Reply-to: dleibold@attmail.com Bell Canada has been phasing in its version of automated collect/third number billing in Ontario. This is called Automated Billing Service (ABS) in Bell-speak. The service started up in the 519 area code in the spring, and will work its way throughout Ontario this year. I made a few tries of the service before heading off south: 1) I called my old Toronto number, which would have been just disconnected at that time and sent off to an intercept. dial 0 416 NXX.XXXX ..... get the card Shortly after that, a canned voice comes on and describes how to proceed with the call: 0 to get the operator, 11 to do the call collect, enter the card number for card billing, or just the area code and phone number for a third number billing (apparently distinguishing between 10 digit phone numbers and 14 digit card numbers). dial '11' for auto-collect .... the service asked for my name... ...then proceeded to call the number; I heard the call go through and ring the intercept and was able to speak with the intercept operator; the system didn't attempt to ask the intercept whether or not to accept charges. Then the intercept gave a referral number -- in a completely different prefix than the one I had requested. So. ... time to report the intercept screwup to Bell Canada's Toronto office as it would not be nice for strangers in another Ontario town to be fielding my calls ... 2) I dialed 0 416 NXX.XXXX for Bell Canada Toronto office, which would accept collect calls related to Bell Canada service (Bell staff in the area I was in told me to do this) ... boing, call processing spiel, .... then '11' for collect, ringing the Bell Toronto Office ... ...then the voice path is shut off and a canned voice tells me to wait ... presumably the other end has answered and the ABS started to ask the other end if the charges are to be accepted. They apparently are, and the business goes on from there with the voice path restored and that. The features which come most to mind are 1) the voice path stays open until the call supervises, or so it would seem here; 2) the system apparently does not require the other end to use a touch tone response ... a "yes" or "no" voice response is to be used. That's the (belated) story of what gadgets are starting to show up in Ontario. I wonder how the system is working out so far ... being out of the north for so long tends to make one feel out of the picture a bit. dleibold@attmail.com Dave Leibold - via IMEx node 89:681/1 Dave.Leibold@f135.n82.z89.onebdos.UUCP ------------------------------ Reply-To: anon@usl.edu From: Gollapudi Pramod Subject: AT&T Does it Again!! Date: 23 Jun 91 15:06:59 GMT Organization: Univ. of Southwestern La., Lafayette In a grand display of their 'superior service', 'excellent' customer satisfaction and blah blah blah, AT&T has done it again!! Even before clarifying their earlier statements, insulting their intelligence, they have mailed me a third bill, yes, a THIRD bill for the month of February and March!! This bill states that the charges are for calls not billed earlier. Unfortunately, they goofed. It is a case of rebilling for the month of February and March, with calls starting at the same time to the same numbers as in the previous bill, with different usage periods, and hence different amounts!! For the entire month of March and April, exactly March 9 - April 13, all calls except two or three out of a total of over two hundred calls have been billed for one minute each!! The rate codes applied do not appear in full either. When questioned, an AT&T manager from San Antonio explained that the first bill was a computer error or downloading delay, the second a valid statement and the third 'a mistake' and that they will 'adjust' the bill. Other than making up excuses over the telephone and trying to avoid talking to me, (by offering statements such as 'that office is closed or inaccessible', 'the concerned manager is not at his/her desk'), they have avoided issuing a written statement explaining the matter. How do they determine which of their statements is 'a mistake'?? Is it convenience?? They claim they are investigating the matter but after 25 days of waiting, I have my doubts about their capabilities. Upon reciept of the most recently dated bill, I decided not to take it anymore and lodged a complaint with the Public Service Commissioners office. Is there anything more I could do to make AT&T respond?? This posting is intended to serve the purpose of being a follow up to the earlier ones on this subject and to evoke a response from any AT&T personnel and experienced netters who might be reading the same and can share their opinions. Basically, I would like to know how anyone can mess up as badly and come up with as stupid explanations as AT&T. Is it just another 'AT&T advantage'?? How do I get them to bill me correctly ?? Pramod. pg@gator.cacs.usl.edu (INTERNET) [Moderator's Note: You are aware, I assume, that your complaint to the PSC will be forwarded to the AT&T employee assigned to work in that office handling complaints (or to the person in an AT&T facility designated to respond to 'commission complaints') for ajudication. The Commission staff will NOT attempt to make sense of the billing or figure it out themselves. They will require the AT&T employee to respond to you with a copy to them within a certain amount of time. Depending on the amount of money involved, AT&T will probably at that point decide to write it off to appease you and the Commission rather than devote the same amount of money having a research/adjustment clerk pull it all together. PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: Similarities Between East German Phones and S.266? Date: Sun, 23 Jun 91 15:06:24 -0700 From: gnu@toad.com In a posting to the TELECOM Digest the other day, I noticed a surprising similarity between the current state of the East German telephone system, and the proposal put forth by the FBI for the United States telephone system: Richard Budd wrote: > There are two difficulties holding up the unification of post > office and telephone coding. > First is the state of the eastern German telephone system. It is > going to take several years and hundreds of millions of deutsch marks > to bring a telephone system with no major improvements since the 1950's > up to western German telecom standards. There is also the fact that > the East German telephone system was designed to allow the Stasi (the > secret police) easy access to conversations from any East German lucky > enough to have recived permission from the government to have a phone. Contrast this with: > It is the sense of Congress that providers of electronic communications > services and manufacturers of electronic communications service equipment > shall ensure that communications systems permit the government to obtain > the plain text of contents of voice, data, and other communications > when appropriately authorized by law. The particular reason that the FBI pushed (and is STILL PUSHING) to get this language enacted by Congress is because communications providers have been unwilling to modify their equipment to make it easy and cheap to do wiretaps. Or, as the FBI put it in a press release on April 26th that Martin Hellman dug out: "The proposed sense-of-Congress statement seeks to place on the telecommunications industry a sense of duty to design its new digital telecommunications systems so that law enforcement continues to receive ... communications ...." The text I left out in the " ... " was: "only those communications specifically authorized by court order." Note how their statement cleverly places the emphasis on "only court ordered" though the real purpose is to change the design of digital communications systems to make interception easier. A communications system design can't tell whether an interception is court-ordered or not; it can only be designed to make it easier or harder to intercept. Current systems are not particularly designed with ease or lack of ease of interception in mind. An excellent example is cellular phones. It's trivial to intercept cellular calls at random over the air, but a court-ordered interception of a single cellular phone must physically tap all the cells, because calls from that phone could go through many single physical places -- there is no central point common to all the calls, except the portable phone itself. The FBI *wants* phone system designers to start thinking about interception -- in particular, they want interception to be easier. Just like the East German secret police. John Gilmore {sun,uunet,pyramid}!hoptoad!gnu gnu@toad.com gnu@cygnus.com ------------------------------ From: Jordan M Kossack Subject: Where Do They Get Off? Date: Sun, 23 Jun 91 21:46:16 CDT Reply-To: kossack@taronga.hackercorp.com Organization: Rice University Houston Texas At the beginning of this month, I moved. Last week, I received a letter from US Sprint asking me to change long distance service, saying, in part, "now that you've changed your residence, make another smart move...to Sprint." Now, I don't mind (too much :-) if I get 'junque mail' trying to sell me one thing or another, but I do object to Southwestern Bell telling Sprint my new address, since they're _not_ my long distance carrier and have no reason to know the information. I realize that this isn't illeagal but I do think it is kind of sleazy for SWB to give out such information to Sprint, since they won't give addresses to folk who call up directory assistance. Some folk may be wondering why I think that Sprint got the information from SWB. Well, when I originally called up for service (at my last residence), the person at SWB mis-heard me and entered my name into the computer as Koffack, which was the name the letter from Sprint was addressed to and it has been the _only_ letter, other than phone bills, to come addressed to that name. OBTW, mail from my LD carrier does come addressed correctly, to Jordan Kossack. ^^^^ Why didn't I correct SWB's spelling? Well, it is the next best thing to an unlisted line ... and there's no charge. Jordan Kossack | kossack@taronga.hackercorp.com [Moderator's Note: The local telco is REQUIRED to share billing information with long distance carriers. Whether or not you have a non-pub number is irrelevant. PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Congressional Panels Okay Bills Against Caller*ID Organization: Northern Illinois University Date: Sun, 23 Jun 91 21:41:36 -0500 From: Neil Rickert In article TELECOM Moderator quotes: > According to Representative Matthew Rinaldo (R-NJ) "The desire of > people to have privacy in their homes and not be intruded on by > unwanted calls is not as important as the right of people who wish to > make calls anonymously." I sure hope the representative will be consistent. He should propose legislation to ban peepholes in doors. After all we must preserve the rights of anonymous visitors. He should also propose legislation to invalidate all state laws which require that number plates be displayed on automobiles. After all, we must preserve the rights of people who wish to drive anonymously. More seriously, if caller ID had been built into the phone system from day 1 by Alexander Bell, and someone were proposing ID blocking, these same legislators and the ACLU would be up in arms opposing the blocking and quoting the constitution in support of their case. Actually I don't mind the caller ID blocking, on one condition -- that the phone company make it possible for me to never receive any calls where the caller has selected blocking. Neil W. Rickert, Computer Science Northern Illinois Univ. DeKalb, IL 60115 +1-815-753-6940 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #484 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa14802; 25 Jun 91 0:49 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa12039; 24 Jun 91 23:11 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa25981; 24 Jun 91 22:04 CDT Date: Mon, 24 Jun 91 21:34:26 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #485 BCC: Message-ID: <9106242134.ab02445@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Mon, 24 Jun 91 21:34:03 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 485 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson More Joy from Metro Highbill [Douglas Scott Reuben] Poor Abused Phreakers [Brian D. McMahon] Fighting Telemarketers [Will Martin] Infosphere Report Update [Sue Anderson] 900 Service to Derive Owner Info From Phone Number [Rob Stampfli] Wireless Phone ? [Harri Valkama] Who Owns This 800 Number? [rs@mhuxu.att.com] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 24-JUN-1991 01:48:49.35 From: Douglas Scott Reuben Subject: More Joy from Metro Highbill For those Connecticut-based cellular customers who are lucky enough to subscribe to Metro Mobile - a small anouncement in their June bill: Marketing News Notice: Effective June 1st, 1991, Metro Mobile will be changing the peak-time and non-peak-time billing hours, The present peak- time hours of 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM will change. The NEW peak-time hours will be 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM. Air Time charges reflecting these changes will be reflected on your next statement. Hmmmm ... isn't that nice? They tell me on a bill that arrives in mid-June that I am going to pay more for using their service, starting June 1st. (A friend of mine with Metro Mobile/Rhode Island hasn't heard from them about this yet, so perhaps this only applies to CT customers.) At a time when some companies are lowering their rates (as has Cell One/ Boston), isn't it interesting to see Metro raising theirs ... I dunno why, but they must be doing awfully well! (Actually, I do know why, at least in part -- Metro Mobile can connect, via DMX, to NYC; SNET can not, and NYNEX/NYC has no Follow Me Roaming, so many customers have no choice but to use Metro Mobile if they travel to NY.) By the way, I noticed in the "RSA Report" in {Cellular Business Magazine} that Connecticut RSA#1 (357) was awarded to Pikeville Cellular Partnership, and was granted a Construction Permit in Litchfield. This is along the US-7 route that Metro Highbill wants to get its hands on. Is this what Metro is talking about when they say that someone else got the permit, and they are "negociating" to operate there? What basically happens? A partnership is set up to bid for the permit, and if the FCC issues it, (of course after the partnership proves it has the financial ability to construct the system), it can just sell out to Metro Mobile, usually for lots of $$$$? Or will the Partnership operate the system as part of Metro Mobile? I wonder what it takes to be considered for a permit ... sounds quite lucrative! (I note that SNET got both the RSAs in that area. Just luck, or do the partnerships usually go after the "A"s?) I noted about a month ago that Metro One/NYC will be converting to Ericsson (sp? sorry, forgot again!) switches on June 14th. This has been pushed back to mid-July. I'll post a frim date when I hear from Metro One. GTE Mobilnet/SF has announced that they will be converting to AT&T switches by the 1st quarter of 1992, and that they will the only company in the country to do so by then. According to them, this should help speed up FMR for roamers outside of CA and Nevada. Doug dreuben@eagle.wesleyan.edu dreuben@wesleyan.bitnet ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Jun 91 8:33:16 cdt From: "McMahon,Brian D" Subject: Poor Abused Phreakers According to ninjam@csd4.csd.uwm.edu, > A true Phreak is someone who is dedicated to learning about the phone > system, including not generally accessible proprietary information. Just what the Hell is so hard to understand here? Proprietary information is just that -- PROPRIETARY. Someone else's PROPERTY. It doesn't matter how curious you are, or how innocent your intentions, you have NO RIGHT to be screwing around with someone else's property without permission. This goes for intellectual property and electronic information every bit as much as for your TV set or toaster. Write this down. Memorize it. Nosing about where you're not permitted to be is wrong, wrong, wrong, and can land you in VERY deep kaka. There's nothing wrong with learning about systems; learning is a good thing. However, it's not a sole or overriding good. F'rinstance, I work for an educational institution. We encourage our students to learn about computers, but there have to be limits. If you decide you're curious about how the treasurer's database of financial aid info is set up, we have an obligation to prevent you from snooping, because others' rights to have confidential information protected overrides your urge to browse bits. To claim that satisfying your curiosity is more important that protecting others' rights is arrogance, pure and simple. Rights and responsibilities have to go hand in hand -- don't they TEACH that anymore? >By the way, this is an UNBIASED opinion, unlike the Moderator's ... Horse patooties. You bring your value system along as baggage just as much as Pat, I, and everyone else. Brian McMahon Grinnell College Computer Services Grinnell, Iowa 50112 USA Voice: +1 515 269 4901 Fax: +1 515 269 4936 [Moderator's Note: Not only will his snooping through the property of others eventually get him in deep trouble, it will bring him a whole hoard of defenders ready to blame the whole mess on the government or the TELECOM Moderator, or both! :) PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Jun 91 10:39:59 CDT From: Will Martin Subject: Fighting Telemarketers Telecom readers who dislike telemarketers should read the front-page article on Robert Bulmash in the 24 June 91 {Wall Street Journal}. This is the guy who founded the anti-telemarketers group that notifies telemarketing firms via legal notice that calls to their members will incur a $100 charge, and he has a history of collecting, both out of and in court. I've seen other articles on him and his organization, and I believe I've seen some television coverage also. This article is a good summary and I find it *most* interesting that the pro-business WSJ presented his aims in such a sympathetic light! The article even includes a sidebar of suggestions on the best ways to discourage telemarketers from calling or how to cause them the most inconvenience if they call. Regards, Will ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Jun 91 11:59:38 -0400 From: Sue Anderson Subject: Infosphere Report Update Reply-To: aq941@cleveland.freenet.edu Below is the final version of our "Infosphere" report summary. We wish to thank everybody who responded to our original "Save the Infosphere" posting (and apologize for not being able to respond personally to everyone). We have incorporated many of your suggestions with our own ideas to formulate general question areas to which we will attempt to respond using, whenever possible, existing data. We also expect that the report will point to many avenues for further research, particularly in areas where data is simply unobtainable. Computer networking is often heralded for its capacity to facilitate collaboration among researchers, scholars, scientists, authors, etc. We would like to capitalize on this potential... Therefore, if you have any comments on the summary below, would like to offer assistance (by making suggestions, locating/supplying information, or providing funding), or if you want more information, please feel free to contact us (addresses and phone numbers can be found at the end of the following summary). ------------------------ The National Public Telecomputing Network -- Infosphere Report In 1955 an important transition occurred in American society. In that year, for the first time, more than half of our work force became "information workers" -- people whose main activity was producing, processing, or distributing information, and producing information technology. In the 1980's, with the development of low-cost personal computers and high-powered computerized communications networks, the pace of that transition both quickened and deepened. For the first time rapid exchange of information could occur, over globe- spanning distances, within seconds, at extremely low cost. For the first time also, the average citizen had on their desktops the means to tap into those resources from their homes, schools, and workplaces. Unfortunately, as with many preceding technologies, access to these resources developed unequally. Some individuals and segments of society were able to take immediate advantage of it; others were not (and still are not). The result is a society which appears to be entering the Information Age the way a child enters an ocean for the first time--partly in, partly out, partly fearful, partly intrigued, and not really quite sure what to do next. This summer and fall, the National Public Telecomputing Network (NPTN), a nonprofit public computer network headquartered in Cleveland, Ohio, will be working on its first annual "Infosphere Report" -- a research project similar to those conducted in areas such as economics, population growth, and the environment -- which will attempt to assess the nation's capacity to effectively and equitably utilize telecomputing as a medium for meeting its information and communication needs. We are defining the "infosphere" as: Tthe technical and organizational environment in which the general public can remotely access computer-mediated communication and information resources. We expect that over-time a portrait will emerge which will describe this nation's progress, with regard to telecomputing, as it encounters the information age. The report will be cumulative, comparative, and prescriptive. It will show where we have been, where we are now, what we are doing well, and where more emphasis is needed. In general, we see the infosphere as being composed of three interactive components: People: The individuals who are (or could be) using the technology and resources. Technology: The hardware, software and network connections needed to access the resources (e.g., computers, modems, phone lines, network connections, etc.). Resources: The communication and information facilities that can (or could be) remotely accessed via computer (e.g., databases, archives, electronic mail, computer conferencing). The Infosphere Report will attempt to gauge our progress with regard to each of these areas. The first chapter will be an introduction describing the scope and limitations of the study. Chapters two through four will address each infosphere component: people, technology, and resources. Questions that will be addressed in these chapters include: People Who uses the currently available communication and information resources? What are the general public's communication/information needs and desires? Do they know what's available? How can they find out about it? Do they have the knowledge and skills to use it? Do they have access to the necessary resources to use it? Technology What technology exists for accessing communication and information resources? What is its availability and cost to the general public? What are its strengths and weaknesses? (e.g., ease of use, reliability) Resources What remotely accessible communication and information resources exist? What are their availability and cost to the general public? What are their strengths and weaknesses? (e.g., quantity, quality, appropriateness) The final chapter of the report will summarize the findings, draw conclusions, discuss implications, and make recommendations for improving our nation's ability to make use of telecomputing to effectively and equitably utilize computer-mediated communication and information resources. The principal investigator on the project will be T.M. Grundner, Ed.D. As an assistant professor at Case Western Reserve University, Dr. Grundner was an early pioneer in the development of community-based computerized information services. His "St. Silicon Project" in 1984 provided the first data on the effectiveness of using modem equipped microcomputers to deliver community health information. His Cleveland Free-Net Project in 1986 developed the nation's first free, open-access, community computer system. As a result of the success of the Free-Net, in 1989 he founded the National Public Telecomputing Network to foster the growth of community computer systems and to link them together into a common nationwide communications and information network similar to National Public Radio or PBS on television. The research coordinator is Sue Anderson, Ed.D. (Cand.). Ms. Anderson is a doctoral candidate at the University of Virginia with extensive background in electronic networking and computer conferencing. She will be supervising a staff of volunteer research associates from around the country in the development and analysis of the data for the report. Persons who are interested in assisting on this project, those seeking more information in general, and (especially) potential funding sources wishing to participate in continuing support, should contact the project at: The Infosphere Report National Public Telecomputing Network Box 1987 Cleveland, Ohio 44106 Voice: 216-368-2733 FAX: 216-368-5436 Internet: aq941@cleveland.freenet.edu (Sue Anderson) aa001@cleveland.freenet.edu (Tom Grundner) BITNET: aq941%cleveland.freenet.edu@cunyvm (Sue Anderson) aa001%cleveland.freenet.edu@cunyvm (Tom Grundner) CompuServe: 71550,2602 (Sue Anderson) 72135,1536 (Tom Grundner) ------------------------------ From: Rob Stampfli Subject: 900 Service to Derive Owner Info From Phone Number Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1991 02:59:15 GMT For your readers' information, the following was found in the June 17th issue of {U.S. News}, in an article describing "good" 900 numbers: Telename Match a phone number to its owner (900) 884-1212 $1.50 first minute, 75 cents each additional You know somebody's phone number but not the person's address or even the ZIP code. Or perhaps you pulled a phone number out of a classified ad and would like to know the name of the person or business to whom it belongs. In cases like these, Telename operators need only a few seconds to find a name and address from a database of 74 million personal and business numbers. It's like an extended form of Caller ID -- one that you use only when needed, to save money. But unlisted numbers are not included, and new numbers can take up to a year to make their way into the database. You can call on weekdays from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. (Eastern Time). Rob Stampfli, 614-864-9377, res@kd8wk.uucp (osu-cis!kd8wk!res), kd8wk@n8jyv.oh ------------------------------ From: Harri Valkama Subject: Wireless Phone Needed at Work Organization: University of Vaasa, Finland Date: Thu, 20 Jun 91 05:59:29 GMT I am in a process to buy a wireless phone for work. It doesn't have to carry more than 100 meters and two or three floors. The place that I work is an old factory building with thick brick walls and ceilings. Any possible difficulties with that? Also I want to know if it is possible to buy it from Ua companu in the US. Would it work here in Europe, Finland without a hitch? What are the good brands and places that sell these devices cheap. Harri Valkama, University of Vaasa, Finland P.O. Box 700, 65101 VAASA, Finland (tel:+358 61 248426 fax:+358 61 248465) Anon ftp garbo.uwasa.fi (128.214.12.37) & nic.funet.fi (128.214.6.100) hv@uwasa.fi hv@finfiles.bitnet /s=hv/o=uwasa/prdm=inet/amdm=fumail/c=fi ------------------------------ From: rs@mhuxu.att.com Date: Mon, 24 Jun 91 12:45 EDT Subject: Who Owns This 800 Number? I have an 800 number that I would like to find out who owns and where they are located. Standard (800)555-1212 info cannot do the reverse search. Do you know of anyway to get this info? The number in question is (800) 698-1614. Thanks, Bob Sanderman rs@mhuxu.att.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #485 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa16565; 25 Jun 91 1:45 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa29495; 25 Jun 91 0:18 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab12039; 24 Jun 91 23:11 CDT Date: Mon, 24 Jun 91 22:50:30 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #486 BCC: Message-ID: <9106242250.ab11127@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Mon, 24 Jun 91 22:50:16 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 486 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Important Change in Sprint Plus Rates [Ron Newman] Re: Important Change in Sprint Plus Rates [Carol Springs] Re: Hook Tapping [Dennis Blyth] Re: Hook Tapping [Bud Couch] Re: Operator Busy Break-In Now Costs $1.60 [Dick Rawson] Re: Is Cellular Phone Jamming Possible? [John Parsons] Re: How is a SLC-96 Powered? [Bud Couch] Re: Modification of Ringback Tone by Subscriber Apparatus [Tom Perrine] Re: Old Phone Wiring Puzzle [Jordan Hayes] Re: LAN Questionnaire [Dennis Blyth] Re: Braided Streams (The Leichter Side) [W. A. Simon] Re: Dumb (Neophyte) Cellular Question [Bob Lancelot] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ron Newman Subject: Re: Important Change in Sprint Plus Rates Date: 24 Jun 91 22:15:47 GMT Reply-To: Ron Newman Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., Cambridge MA After reading several messages on this newsgroup concerning the change, I called the Sprint Customer Service number (800-877-4646) to inquire and complain. The operator who answered told me the following: - There is no more vanilla "Sprint Dial 1" service; "Sprint Plus" is now the default calling plan for all customers. I forgot to ask whether it also applies to people who don't have Sprint as their default carrier but access it via 10333. - They didn't send out bill inserts yet. She didn't know if they are planning to. - She claimed that Sprint had advertised the change and I should have heard about it. When I asked how, she said that it had been "on TV" (in commercials? I haven't seen any) and that there had been an advertisement in major newspapers. I asked if it had run in {The Boston Globe}, but she didn't know. She did say that it was in {The Wall Street Journal}. I told her that I didn't own a television and could not find {The Wall Street Journal} anywhere in Somerville, Mass. (Not true, but I wanted to see how she would react.) - She said that there wasn't very much difference between night and evening rates. If the rates that she quoted are correct, she's right: From Somerville, MA (617-628) to Santa Monica, CA (213-394): Day rate: .249 /minute Evening rate: .1496 /minute Night rate: .1357 /minute From Somerville, MA (617-628) to Columbus, OH (614-237): Day rate: .23 /minute Evening: .1495 /minute Night: .1306 /minute Something must have changed; didn't it used to be that "Evening rate" was 30% off day rate, and "Night" was 60% off? - She said that FONcard calls are now covered by volume discounts, which didn't used to be the case. - The change went into effect on June 3rd. Ron Newman rnewman@bbn.com ------------------------------ From: Carol Springs Subject: Re: Important Change in Sprint Plus Rates Date: Mon, 24 Jun 91 8:58:59 EDT In article Ken Jongsma writes: > As of June 3, the Sprint Plus plan has been changed. Sprint no longer > bills evening rate calls as night calls. Instead, all evening and > night calls will will be discounted at 20%. Day calls will be > discounted at 10%. The $8/month minimum has been waived. This is misleading and needs clarification. The $8/month figure was the minimum amount Sprint billed its Sprint Plus customers. In return, customers had their evening calls billed at night rates. Since evening calls are now billed at standard evening rates, the $8/month minimum would no longer make much sense. The volume discounts Ken refers to are another issue entirely. Customers must now make at least $20/month worth of calls to get the 20%/10% volume discounts on interstate dial-1 calls that Ken mentions. Whereas previously a person could make, say, $10/month worth of calls and still come out a little ahead of the standard plan on evening calls, one must now have $20 worth of calls to get any real benefit out of Sprint Plus whatsoever. (The minimum bill to get the old 10% volume discounts was $25. I'm uncertain whether there are any small, token volume discounts for customers failing to meet the minimum, the way there were under Sprint Plus Classic.) Clear as mud? Good ... Carol Springs carols@world.std.com ------------------------------ From: Dennis Blyth Subject: Re: Hook Tapping Date: 24 Jun 91 15:59:15 GMT Reply-To: Dennis Blyth Organization: NCR International - Europe Group, Dayton Michigan State University, 1968 [Previous writer suggested dialing using switch hook to tap out the digits.] I would not recommend your method, because it is *likely* to generate trouble tickets at the CO. (or at least it would have 23 years ago!) I learned that the hard way. In 1968 at Michigan State University I was Program Director of our campus radio station, and we ran a contest called 'civil war week-end' wherein the object was to award 'points' to the dormitory with the *most* correct calls/answers to our questions about rock 'n roll oldies. We generated thousands of phone calls in a very short time. Our phone number was 5-6111 (Centrex), specially set up for the week-end contest. It over-flowed to 6112, 6113, and 6114. Students quickly learned that it was faster to dial the 5 and 6 normally, then 'bat the switch hook' for the last three digits. About 45 minutes into the contest, I received a ring on one of our normal business lines. I thought it strange, because we had 'busied out' the other lines by calling from one line to another, picking it up, and putting it on hold. It was the technician at our local CO, who threatened to take us off the air if we did not cease and desist with our contest. I asked him how he knew about it and he said he had a pile of trouble tickets for 56111 and that he learned it was a line just installed the day before for our station. (Since we relied on MBT to carry our signal to our transmitter, his threat was credible, and we immediately ceased the contest, citing 'technical difficulties'.) I said I had a hard time believing it was our station that was generating the volume of calls. He said they had not had so many calls since the day President Kennedy was shot. He invited me to the CO to see. When I arrived, we ran the contest for three minutes, and the noise from the equipment was deafening. He explained that one of the campus exchanges was 'electronic' and the other was not. In about 45 minutes, he had about 100 'punch card' trouble tickets, which was automatically generated by the 'electronic' equipment. He said each time somebody 'dialed' using the hook, that a ticket was created. We agreed to run the contest for only three minutes out of every ten minutes for the rest of the week-end. During the contest times, on one exchange there was a delay of 30 seconds before one could get a dial tone, and a 20 second delay on the other. The MBT technician said the equipment would normally give 20 people per second a dial tone per exchange. I quickly learned 'the power of the mass media'. BTW, the technician said that if he had not been able to locate the source of the trouble, that in the next 15 minutes he would have had to call a VP of MBT and ask permission to 'pull the plug' on all service but service set up for emergencies, doctors, civil defense, police, hospitals, etc. I know this is 'an oldie' but hopefully, it is a 'goodie' that has some relevance to your topic. Thanks for allowing me this opportunity to reminisce. ------------------------------ From: Bud Couch Subject: Re: Hook Tapping Organization: Kentrox Industries, Inc. Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1991 21:09:37 GMT In article mnc@css.itd.umich.edu (Miguel Cruz) writes: > In article Dan Shapin fullerton.edu> writes: >> How do you place a call with out dialing it using the "Hook tapping" >> method. Does it work on any phone? > This works on phones that don't have timed switchhooks. ^^^^^ Or phones that have mercury switches on the hook-switch. I've seen this on pay-phones to prevent some rather ingenious fraud schemes that I won't detail :-). Bud Couch - ADC/Kentrox If my employer only knew... standard BS applies ------------------------------ From: Dick Rawson Subject: Re: Operator Busy Break-In Now Costs $1.60 Date: 24 Jun 91 16:03:00 GMT Organization: BT North America (Tymnet) Am I really required to hang up on my current call and accept an incoming call ... just because the caller claimed to the operator that there is an emergency? I had only understood that I was required to make shared telephone facilities available to someone else who declared an emergency. Dick [Moderator's Note: But the person trying to get through to you would in effect be sharing your phone line with you. You are free to do as you please in a declared emergency, but if *you* are wrong and *they* choose to make an issue of it, then you lose. What if the person calling claimed to be a police officer, hospital clerk, etc? Would you risk it? Bear in mind if *they* are just BS'ing around, you've a perfect right and ethical reason to complain to authorities. Any declared emergency should be treated as such until proven otherwise; then if proven to be deliberatly malicious, dealt with severely. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Jun 91 12:34:44 -0600 From: John Parsons Subject: Re: Is Cellular Phone Jamming Possible? drubin@prism.poly.edu (Dave Rubin) writes.... > .... alert a central station as to the whereabouts of the stolen > automobile, and the station can also send a signal to the car to > turn off its engine. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ And suppose this results in an accident? I'll bet the lawyers are drooling over this one! Cheers, John Parsons johnp@hpgrla.gr.hp.com ------------------------------ From: Bud Couch Subject: Re: How is a SLC-96 Powered? Organization: Kentrox Industries, Inc. Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1991 18:32:50 GMT In article rees@citi.umich.edu (Jim Rees) writes: > How is an SLC-96 powered? Local AC connected at the site? DC sent > down a pair from the CO? I assume it's battery backed, but how long > is the battery good for? We had a power outage here a few years back > that lasted ten days. The CO stayed up because they have their own > diesel generators. But what about customers on an SLC-96 (or > equivalent)? It is _not_ powered from the CO, except for the standard T1 line powering that may include the LIU's, as well. It is local AC powered and may or may not have battery back-up capability, depending on what housing it is mounted in. The usual mounting is in either a mini-hut, or an (underground) CEV, which do include battery back-up. There is no integral back-up generators, but there is an external ( to the enclosure) connector which can be quickly and easily connected to a portable generator. These generators look a lot like construction site air-compressors, and are towed to the site in a similar manner. Once there, they an be connected in, and powering equipment in minutes. And yes, there is a "power-out" alarm at the serving CO to let them know that there is a problem. For an enormous amount of info on the SLC-96, see the BSTJ article in December '84. Bud Couch - ADC/Kentrox If my employer only knew... standard BS applies ------------------------------ From: Tom Perrine Subject: Re: Modification of Ringback Tone by Subscriber Apparatus Date: 24 Jun 91 17:50:23 GMT Reply-To: Tom Perrine Organization: Logicon, Inc., San Diego, California In article covert@covert.enet.dec.com (John R. Covert 05-Jun-1991 1440) writes: > Specifically, 416 392-7715 rings with double ring, but you are not > billed until someone answers. I have verified this from a trunk which > provides positive indication of answer supervision. What kind of trunk provides "positive indication of answer supervision"? Is this a test function in the CO, or can you get at this through a porperly-featured PBX? Tom Perrine (tep) |Internet: tep@tots.Logicon.COM |Voice: +1 619 597 7221 Logicon - T&TSD | UUCP: sun!suntan!tots!tep | or : +1 619 455 1330 P.O. Box 85158 |GENIE: T.PERRINE | FAX: +1 619 552 0729 San Diego CA 92138 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Jun 91 16:32:01 PDT From: Jordan Hayes Subject: Re: Old Phone Wiring Puzzle Organization: Teknekron Communications Systems, Inc., Berkeley, CA. Ok, so what do you do if "yellow" is half of your second line? :-) Don't say "use blue" becuase that's half of my *third* line :-) I have an old pay phone that has been reconditioned (not by me) that "doesn't ring" ... if I had a ground near any of my phone jacks, I could certainly try it -- but I don't. By the way, does anyone have a souce for keys to these old boxes? It's an Automatic Electric Co. model that looks like it's from the '50s or so. A plate on the top says "D-780707-A" and also "Code Number: LPB8655" Maybe "Code Number" is a serial number ... Jordan ------------------------------ From: uunet!oatseu.daytonoh.ncr.com!dblyth@lll-winken.llnl.gov Subject: Re: LAN Questionnaire Organization: NCR International - Europe Group, Dayton Date: Mon, 24 Jun 91 19:18:00 EDT Please summarize your replies to the net as it is likely to be of interest to several people, in addition to us market researchers (sorry -- most market researchers *are* people! :-)) who are always interested in any market insight (sometimes we are interested even when the sample and questioning technique are invalid and misleading! :-). Dennis (a marketeer and researcher) Dennis Blyth, Manager, Marketing Research, NCR Europe Group "NCR/AT&T is THE Dennis.Blyth@daytonOH.NCR.COM RIGHT CHOICE for open, cooperative computing" 1700 South Patterson Blvd. WHQ-2 Dayton, Ohio 45479 Fax: 1-513-445-6078 Phone: 1-513-445-6580 ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Braided Streams (The Leichter Side) Date: Sun, 23 Jun 91 23:44:49 EDT From: "W.A.Simon" This is to let interested readers know that, if they care, the thread continues in sci.crypt. Alain Home Sweet Office: (514) 934 6320 UUCP: alain@elevia.UUCP ------------------------------ From: Bob Lancelot Subject: Re: Dumb (Neophyte) Cellular Question Date: 24 Jun 91 19:25:22 GMT Organization: Motorola Inc. - Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL I gave the CELLUSOFT SYSTEMS number a call this morning regarding two cellular phones with the same ESN. Talked with Mr. Hoser (sp?). For $300 + $35 s&h he'll send you a device that allows you to program an ESN (specifically yours from another phone that you own) into a Novatel phone. You provide the Novatel phone (all models with #8320 base unit work according to Mr. Hoser) and the ESN from your current phone. The procedure involves removing the PROM from the Novatel phone, inserting the device in its socket, entering a password and your current phone's ESN, and reinstalling the PROM. Two passwords are provided: one lets you program the ESN into the Novatel phone the first time, the other lets you restore the old ESN so you can sell the Novatel phone or have it repaired if needed. He also has a dealer incentive program if you're interested. He's sending me a brochure on the whole thing. He indicated that he had gotten requests to do this for 'many' cellular operators who have customers that want to have two phones with a single number. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #486 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa18631; 25 Jun 91 2:47 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa12054; 25 Jun 91 1:24 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab29495; 25 Jun 91 0:18 CDT Date: Mon, 24 Jun 91 23:30:57 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs Subject: SPECIAL REPORT: Congress and Caller ID BCC: Message-ID: <9106242330.ab08754@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> After my report on the congressional action last week, Bill Berbenich requested specific information on pending legislation so he could contact his representatives in Congress. Mike Riddle has replied with the special report which follows. Please direct all followup on this and Caller*ID related comments in general to Telecom Privacy, a mailing list intended for the purpose. (telecom-priv@pica.army.mil>. PAT From: Mike Riddle Subject: Re: Congressional Panels Okay Bills Against Caller*ID Organization: Nebraska Inns of Court Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1991 13:18:39 GMT In bill@fisher.eedsp.gatech.edu writes: > Pat, do you have the numbers of the subject bills? I would very much > like to contact my Congress-sharks and give them my opinion on > Caller*ID blocking. > The Senate and House versions should each have different numbers. To which Patrick responds: > [Moderartor's Note: Unfortunatly I do not. My brief article was > composed from the AP wire story on Friday which was substantially > longer than I used. There were quotes from ACLU'ers, and other > remarks. I just now went back to review my copy, and the bill numbers > are no where to be found. Maybe someone can supply them. PAT] There are at least six, and maybe more, bills that I could find that have some connection with Caller*ID. Attached to the end of this post are the two "typical" ones. One class asks the FTC to study the case where commercial dial-in services compile mailing/phoning lists to resell. The second contains Caller*ID language in regards to the "phone-in" version of the gun-control legislation, the "Staggers Bill." The third class would amend either the Communications Act of 1934 or the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 to specifically allow Caller ID with per-call blocking (as the versions I found put it -- obviously subject to amendment). The bill numbers I located are H.R. 328, 1305, 1412 and 1449. The Senate ones are S. 652 and 1166. Here are the Communications Act and ECPA versions from the House: 102ND CONGRESS; 1ST SESSION IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AS INTRODUCED IN THE HOUSE H. R. 1305 1991 H.R. 1305 SYNOPSIS: A BILL To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to protect the privacy rights of telephone subscribers. DATE OF INTRODUCTION: MARCH 6, 1991 DATE OF VERSION: MARCH 11, 1991 -- VERSION: 1 SPONSOR(S): Mr. MARKEY (for himself, Mr. RICHARDSON, Mr. SLATTERY, Mr.bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce TEXT: A BILL To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to protect the privacy rights of telephone subscribers. * Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United* *States of America in Congress assembled, * SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the "Telephone Consumer Privacy Rights Act". SEC. 2. CUSTOMER PRIVACY REQUIREMENTS. (a) AMENDMENT.-Title II of the Communications Act of 1934 is further amended by adding at the end thereof the following new section: "SEC. 227. CUSTOMER PRIVACY REQUIREMENTS. "(a) DEFINITIONS.-As used in this section- "(1) The term ' caller identification service' means a service which makes use of a display device at the customer's telephone to automatically indicate the area code and local telephone number of any party calling from within the local area or from another area, except that such term does not include an automatic number identification service. "(2) The term 'automatic number identification' means a system in common use by common carriers that uses an identifying signal associated with the use of subscriber's telephone to provide billing information or other information to the local exchange carrier and to any other interconnecting carriers. "(3) The term 'aggregate information' mean collective data that relates to a group or category of services or customers, from which individual customer identities or characteristics have been removed. "(b) CALLING PARTY IDENTIFICATION.- "(1) RULEMAKING REQUIRED.-The Commission shall, within 180 days after the date of enactment of this section, prescribe regulations requiring any caller identification service offered by a common carrier, or by any other person that makes use of the facilities of a common carrier, to allow the caller to withhold, on a per-call basis, the display of the caller's telephone number from the telephone or other instrument of the individual receiving the call. "(2) CHARGES FOR WITHHOLDING NUMBERS PROHIBITED.-Such regulations shall prohibit any charges from being imposed on the caller who requests that his or her telephone number be withheld from the recipient of a call placed by the caller. "(3) NOTIFICATION TO CUSTOMERS.-Such regulations shall require every common carrier to notify its subscribers that their calls may be identified to a called party not later than- "(A) 30 days before the common carrier commences to participate in the offering of a call identification service; and "(B) 60 days after the date such regulations are prescribed, if the private or common carrier is participating in the offering of a call identification service prior to such date. "(4) EXEMPTIONS.-This subsection does not apply to any of the following: "(A) A caller identification service which is used solely in connection with calls within the same limited system, including (but not limited to) a Centrex or private branch exchange system, as the recipient telephone. "(B) A caller identification service which is used on a public agency's emergency telephone line or on the line which receives the primary emergency telephone number (911). "(C) A caller identification service provided in connection with legally authorized call tracing or trapping procedures specifically requested by a law enforcement agency. "(5) WAIVER.-The regulations prescribed by the Commission under paragraph (1) may waive the requirements of this subsection where compliance with such requirements is not technologically feasible. "(c) AUTOMATIC NUMBER IDENTIFICATION SERVICES.- "(1) CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS.-Any common carrier or affiliate of a common carrier providing automatic number identification services to any person shall provide such services under a contract or tariff containing customer information requirements that comply with this subsection. Such requirements shall- "(A) permit such person to use the telephone number and billing information provided pursuant to the automatic number identification service for billing and collection, completion of the customer's call or transaction, or for services directly related to the customer's call or transaction; "(B) prohibit such person from reusing or selling the telephone number or billing information provided pursuant to the automatic number identification service without the customer's affirmative consent; "(C) prohibit such person from disclosing, without the affirmative consent of the customer, any information derived from the automatic number identification service, or any information derived from the analysis of the characteristics of a telecommunications transmission (such as calling patterns and locations, transmission speeds, and transaction profiles), for any purpose other than- "(i) performing the services or transactions that are the subject of the customer's call, "(ii) ensuring network performance, security, and the effectiveness of call delivery, "(iii) compiling, using, and disclosing aggregate information, and "(iv) complying with applicable law or legal process. "(2) EXCEPTION FOR ESTABLISHED CUSTOMERS.-The customer information requirements imposed under paragraph (1) shall not prevent a person to which automatic number identification services are provided from using- "(A) the telephone number and billing information provided pursuant to such service, and "(B) any information derived from the automatic number identification service, or from the analysis of the characteristics of a telecommunications transmission, to offer, to any customer with which such person has established a customer relationship, a product or service that is directly related to the products or services previously acquired by that customer from such person. "(3) ENFORCEMENT.-(A) Each common carrier shall receive and transmit to the Commission customer complaints concerning violations of the customer information requirements imposed under paragraph (1). Each common carrier shall submit to the Commission, in such form as the Commission may require by regulation, periodic reports on actions taken by the carrier to obtain compliance with such requirements. "(B) The Commission may, by rule or order, direct the termination of automatic number identification services to any person who has violated the customer information requirements imposed under paragraph (1). For purposes of section 503(b)(1)(B), violations of such requirements shall be considered to be a violation of a provision of this Act. "(4) EFFECTIVE DATE.-(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), the requirements of this subsection shall apply to any automatic number identification service provided on or after one year after the date of enactment of this subsection. "(B) In the case of any automatic number identification service provided under a contract entered into, or tariff taking effect, more than 90 days after the date of enactment of this subsection, the requirements of this subsection shall apply to any automatic number identification service provided pursuant to such contract or tariff.". SEC. 3. CONFORMING AMENDMENT. Section 2(b) of the Communications Act of 1934 is amended by striking "Except as provided" and all that follows through "and subject to the provisions" and inserting "Except as provided in sections 223 through 227, inclusive, and subject to the provisions". 102ND CONGRESS; 1ST SESSION IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AS INTRODUCED IN THE HOUSE H. R. 1449 1991 H.R. 1449 SYNOPSIS: A BILL To amend title 18, United States Code, to protect the privacy of telephone users. DATE OF INTRODUCTION: MARCH 14, 1991 DATE OF VERSION: MARCH 18, 1991 -- VERSION: 1 SPONSOR(S): Mr. SYNAR (for himself and Mr. EDWARDS of California) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary TEXT: A BILL To amend title 18, United States Code, to protect the privacy of telephone users. * Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United* *States of America in Congress assembled, * SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the "Telephone Privacy Act of 1991". SEC. 2. TITLE 18 AMENDMENTS. (a) EXCEPTION TO PROHIBITION.-Section 3121 of title 18, United States Code, is amended- (1) in the heading for subsection (b), by inserting "WITH RESPECT TO USE BY PROVIDER" after "EXCEPTION"; (2) by inserting after subsection (b) the following: "(c) EXCEPTION WITH RESPECT TO USE OF CALLER IDENTIFICATION SYSTEMS.-The prohibition of subsection (a) does not apply with respect to the use of a device that allows the recipient of a telephone call to determine any individually identifying information about the caller or the originating number (other than information voluntarily given by the caller in the course of the communication) if the provider enables any telephone call originator to block receipt of the identifying information."; and (3) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (d). (b) CIVIL LIABILITY.-Section 3121 of title 18, United States Code, is further amended by adding at the end the following: "(e) CIVIL ACTION.-Any user of wire or electronic communication service may, in a civil action, obtain relief against any provider who directly or indirectly provides to recipients of telephone calls the ability to determine individually identifiable information, but fails to enable an originator to block receipt of the originating number as required under subsection (b)(3), in the same manner and to the same extent as a customer aggrieved by a violation of chapter 121 of this title may, under section 2707 of this title, obtain relief against the violator.". ----------- <<<< insert standard disclaimer here >>>> riddle@hoss.unl.edu | Nebraska Inns of Court ivgate!inns!postmaster@uunet.uu.net | +1 402 593 1192 Sysop of 1:285/27@Fidonet | 3/12/24/9600/8N1/V.32/V.42bis [Moderator's Note: My thanks to Mike Riddle for typing all this in. Please consider letting your representative know your opinion on this, and remember that replies here on the net should be directed to the group originally established just for such debate: Telecom Privacy. The moderator, Dennis Rears awaits your notes: telecom-priv@pica.army.mil (submissions) telecom-priv-request@pica.army.mil (to be added to the mailing list) PAT]   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa21386; 25 Jun 91 3:58 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa16328; 25 Jun 91 2:32 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab12054; 25 Jun 91 1:24 CDT Date: Tue, 25 Jun 91 0:36:14 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #487 BCC: Message-ID: <9106250036.ab13712@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 25 Jun 91 00:35:31 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 487 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson The Way I Built and Operated an AOS [John G. DeArmond] Re: GTE Mobile Communications - LD Ripoff [Carl Wright] Re: IDDD From a Cellular Phone [Carl Wright] Re: Operator Busy Break-in Now Costs $1.60 [Doug Fields] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "John G. DeArmond" Subject: The Way I Built and Operated an AOS Date: 24 Jun 91 05:53:37 GMT Organization: Dixie Comm, The South's First Commercial Public Access Unix jim@equi.com (Jim Allard) writes: Preface to comments: Several years ago one other engineer and myself designed and built the switching system for an AOS. The name will not be mentioned because quite frankly I can't prove everything to legal standards that I'm going to discuss. I will use this experience as the basis of my comments. Nor will I provide any further technical details, as these could be used to identify the AOS. I will also apologize in advance to those who have been cheated by the system I constructed. My 20-20 hindsight leads me to believe that we were selected to implement this system because we knew little about the practices of the long distance business. I know nothing of Jim Allard's company other than what's contained in his post. I commend him for his company's practices. The AOS I worked for is definately NOT his. However his defense of AOS systems falls on deaf ears. His is a minority of what I suspect to be one. > 1. Hasn't anyone noticed that AT&T LD rates have dropped dramatically > since divestiture? Does anyone really believe they (AT&T) would have > done that on their own? If you had a monopoly, would you? Wake up > and smell the coffee ... competition among other things have been > responsible for more realistic pricing in the LD market. There has > also been an increase in charges for local service (not necessarily > corresponding but understandable). And for which we can thank MCI and Sprint. Since most AOSes tack on many dollars in charges over and above the mileage and per-minute rate, they cannot by any stretch of the imagination be considered to have applied competative price pressure to AT&T. > 3. Every public IXC except AT&T provides 800 or 950 access to their > network as a convenience to their customers. AT&T steadfastly sticks > to 10XXX as the ONLY means for non-subscribed customer access (or > access by their customers from non-AT&T phones). If you owned 200 > switches at your hotel chain, would you give guests unrestricted fraud > potential? > Fact is, it cost us $1500 per switch to allow guests full AT&T > capability with fraud protection. We spent the money because some of > our clients' guests like AT&T ... go figure, but we believe in > service. Interestingly, only 5% of our AOS customers ask for other > carriers, a percentage of that for AT&T. We carefully provide > instructions for access to the caller's carrier of choice and various > other alternative billing methods. 95% of our callers CHOOSE to use > us. And yes, we clearly brand our service at the beginning and end of > our involvement (which we've been doing since well before it was law). > This based on two years of handling greater than 400,000 calls per > month. > 4. This business of an AOS connecting callers to the AT&T network is > a joke. While we can technologically do so, they refuse to take the > call, claiming possible fraud and high error concerns as some of their > reasoning. It would be a nice service to 'their' customers, and we > would have to pay origination charges for the entire length of the > call. Their position reminds me of the kid who takes his ball and > goes home if you don't want to play by his rules. Here is the meat of the problem. AT&T was forced to adopt these policies. While not a supporter of AT&T I do understand why they have become hardnosed. Let me outline some things we did at the AOS. And we were not alone. If a motel or other institution signed up with us, the first step was to install redirectors (devices that receive touchtone digits, store them, dial another number and regurgitate the digits) on all outgoing lines. These redirectors were programed to dial an 800 number into our switch. In most cases, we even intercepted local calls -- dialed via LD back to the local area -- in an effort to block ALL access to other carriers. Our switch received the numbers and tried to complete the call if possible by redirecting it out a channel on the T. If it failed or if operator assistance was required, the call was directed to an operator workstation. Our software interpreted the prefix digits if any (ex: 10288) and posted a message on the terminal as to what brand the operator was supposed to emulate. If 10288 was dialed, the operator was supposed to sound like an At&T operator. The women were given intensive training as to how to slur the phrase (ex: "T'N'T) so that they were not exactly being technically fraudulent. Whatever the desired carrier, the call was processed and billed by us with all the charges added on. The next issue was credit card validation. There are two levels of credit card validation. The first and most simple is algorithmic and the second is verifying that the account is good and the charges can be applied. The various credit granting companies and TPC all charge significant fees for credit card validation. Our bunch decided on a much cheaper way. All credit cards (except some now-obsolete AT&T business accounts) have checksums built into the account number. Each vendor (Visa, MC, AT&T, etc) use different algorithms but we knew them all. Most credit card vendors are identified by the first digit of the number. The AOS decided that since the profits were so high, they could forgoe most actual account validation and only perform the algorithmic check. They reasoned that they could eat the few bad accounts. There was one exception. AT&T/BOC calling cards. When our software received such a number, the switch grabbed an outgoing line, dialed an internal LD number using 10288, listened for the bong, fired off the PIN and listened for the response. If a "thank you" (digitized sound pattern matching) was heard, the credit card number was considered validated and the AT&T connection was terminated. Our switch then completed and billed the call through our trunks. If any other response was detected, the operator was given an approrpriate message. If the operator got such a message or if she wanted to not handle the call for any other reason, she could hit a function key which would put some simulated switching audio out to the caller while the call was dialed to 10288. Our software listened for the AT&T operator voice and upon the first silence thereafter, cut the caller over. The caller would likely never know he was using an AT&T operator. This was before the AT&T operators were taught to thank the customer. Even if he did, he would likely not know anything about AOS systems and would not be confused about the duplicate operators. In any event, we tried to bill the call too if possible. Thus the customer would get two bills for the same call, one from us and one from AT&T. Over 90% of the customers would pay the charge without question! What sheep we are. We were shown what I now believe to be forged documentation that indicated there was an agreement with AT&T to do this. I wondered at the time why we did not just tie directly to AT&T's system. Since our switch could churn out thousands of such "validation" calls per day, it had a huge impact on AT&T. Unfortunately AT&T made this task too easy with the nice bong and digitized voice messages that never changed. I know from discussions with people from other AOS companies that we were not the only ones doing this kind of "validation". I've observed that AT&T rarely does anything unless forced. The AOS industry forced them to revise their messages and their policies. > 5. My company DOES NOT apply any additional surcharges to calls we > handle, even though it's legal in many states and for interstate > traffic. The same stipulation is in every contract we write. Our > rates mirror AT&T's. We guarantee not to charge more than their > standard time-of-day discounted rates. In fact, our billing programs > round down (not up) to ensure compliance with the policy. Yes, we > also issue immediate credit for mis-dialed calls. I'm really glad to hear that. You are the exception. Most companies round up and some do worse. By "rounding up", I mean that if a call lasts four minutes and five seconds, it is legal to round that call to five minutes. At my AOS, I was told by the DP manager that their billing software (as opposed to my switching software) automatically added a minute to each call AFTER rounding. I think some attorney generals have had something to say about that practice. My AOS would also let the institution add any amount they wanted to as a "trade surcharge". Motels typically added $5. If a customer complained about any aspect of service, the policy was to automatically give credit. They reasoned that it was bad to attract attention plus since the profits were so high, it did not matter. > Is AT&T deliberately designing a card system which will create serious > customer dissatisfaction in an effort to pressure aggregators into > presubscribing to AT&T? I don't think the last legal shot has been > fired on this issue and I hope the public isn't that gullible. No, I think AT&T is trying to come up with a system that will not too terribly inconvenience their customers while preventing scumbag AOS and COCOT operators from abusing their billing and validation system. The tragedy is that we all lose from this experience. > I sincerely hope this does not come off sounding like a whining > step-child. We expect to be successful or fail on our own merits. If > we can provide the service at reasonable costs to the calling public, > on a level playing field, I say let the market determine the winners > and losers. Keep the politicians out of it, or we'll end up with > three LD phone companies about five years from now. That's not what I > call choice, and the playing field is far from level. You don't come across as whining but at the same time if the government shut down every agregator in the nation I'd be very happy. If someone else wants to build a physical plant and enter into the fray with AT&T, MCI and Sprint, I'd more than welcome it. The resellers are a whole 'nuther matter all together. Note to the net.nitpickers. NO I'm not a telephone professional. I knew enough about telephony to recognize a T from a local loop but I know little about long distance. Which is probably why I got the job. I got a crash course in the art while working on the system but that does not an expert make. If I use terminology incorrectly ... sue me :-) [Moderator's Note: Gee whiz ... and over on eff.talk not long ago you said ** I ** was an asshole ?? If you notice a snall difference between what you submitted and what I printed its because I removed your parenthetical gay-bashing remarks about AT&T employees. PAT] ------------------------------ From: wright@ais.org (Carl Wright) Subject: Re: GTE Mobile Communications - LD Ripoff Date: Tue, 25 Jun 91 03:25:24 GMT Organization: UMCC c_bstratton@hns.com (Bob Stratton) writes: > Last weekend, I discovered that my phone will not dial 700 and 900 > numbers, but gives me the fast, high-pitched, "no service" reorder > when I dial them, with or without a leading "1". In GTE's defense, I would like to point out that is very difficult for the celluar provider to determine the cost of calls to 700 or 900 numbers without waiting for billing to come from the carriers supplying the services of the 700 or 900 number. Rather than try to solve this problem, they must be blocking these calls. Can anyone out there call these kinds of numbers with their cellular phone? Carl Wright | Lynn-Arthur Associates, Inc. Internet: wright@ais.org | 2350 Green Rd., #160 Voice: 1 313 995 5590 EST | Ann Arbor, MI 48105 ------------------------------ From: wright@ais.org (Carl Wright) Subject: Re: IDDD From a Cellular Phone Date: Tue, 25 Jun 91 03:36:15 GMT Organization: UMCC john@mojave.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: > Call GTE Mobilnet back and explain that you have the need to call > Japan (or wherever). Explain that you do not wish to add to the > already high cost of the call by using a credit card. Tell the person > that you do not feel it right that you be penalized because of GTE's > own internal problems. Then say that you might have to switch to > Cellular One, since they allow IDDD. > I can almost guarantee that you will have IDDD enabled henceforth from > your telephone. The cellular cancellation rate is such that carriers > are more than hungry right now and I can assure you that GTE does not > want to lose your business. John is right. The rate of change of the subscriber enrollment is so high that carriers are creating customer service hit teams to stop the turnover. They even have coined a name for it. They call it "CHURN". In the cellular companies all the marketing and administration types are concerned about this more than anything else. The engineers are probably worrying about running out of capacity. Carl Wright | Lynn-Arthur Associates, Inc. Internet: wright@ais.org | 2350 Green Rd., #160 Voice: 1 313 995 5590 EST | Ann Arbor, MI 48105 ------------------------------ From: Doug Fields Subject: Re: Operator Busy Break-in Now Costs $1.60 Organization: The Admiral's Unix System & The Grid BBS Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1991 18:09:03 GMT > [Moderator's Note: But you should be aware that the called party has > the option to NOT break the connection if he so chooses, and you will > still pay the $1.60. The Operator did her work by notifying the party. > Also, if you claim an emergency exists as the reason for the busy > party to break the connection when in fact there is no emergency, then > you are probably guilty of a misdeamenor crime. Likewise if an > energency *does* exist and the called party refuses to yield the line > then he is guilty of a misdemeanor crime. PAT] Say what? I don't quite understand. I've always {thought,assumed} that using the "Emergency Break-In" for a non-emergency was a crime of some sort, but how could you possibly consider not releasing the phone line a crime? I pay good money for my phone lines, and if I don't want to listen to an operator claiming there's an emergency, regardless if there is one or not, then it is my right- after all, I pay for the line for my use -- not for someone claiming an emergency. Unfortunately I have been the "butt end" of many prank calls of people claiming "emergencies." Sometimes it is just someone who wishes to speak to another member of the family, but I have never enocountered a ligimate emergency. I consider it an invasion of privacy also. Every time this happens I query the operator for information, such as "what number is the person calling from" and "who is it" (a "John" or "Jane" answer does NOT suffice). The operator generally refuses to answer or simply says "talk to the person and find out." I'm not likely to break a conversation for someone I don't know. If someone wants to interrupt my phone call, they'd better be ready to answer any question I might ask. Well, enough of my ranting. Doug Fields -- 100 Midwood Road, Greenwich, CT 06830 --- (FAX) +1 203 661 2996 uucp: uunet!areyes!admiral!doug ------- Thank you areyes/mail and wizkid/news! Internet: fields-doug@cs.yale.edu --------------- (Voice@Home) +1 203 661 2967 BBS: (HST/V32) +1 203 661 1279; (MNP6) -2967; (PEP/V32) -2873; (V32/V42) -0450 [Moderator's Note: What you pay for is the right to use your telephone in accordance with published tariffs, one or more of which address the scenario of emergency requests for the use of the line, etc. And if someone plays games and abuses you in this way, you are perfectly within your rights to tear them apart when you answer their call. It has happened to me, and that is exactly what I do. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #487 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa23510; 25 Jun 91 5:08 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa11989; 25 Jun 91 3:42 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab16328; 25 Jun 91 2:33 CDT Date: Tue, 25 Jun 91 1:30:08 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #488 BCC: Message-ID: <9106250130.ab07805@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 25 Jun 91 01:30:00 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 488 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Disarmingly Friendly and Curteous US West [Bud Couch] Information Wanted on Panasonic DBS Phone System [Dr. Leonard Kleinrock] Re: These People and Institutions Were Hurt by Len [Mike Godwin] Emergency Calls (was Operator Busy Break-In) [Gordon Burditt] Re: Speaking in Defense of ThriftyTel [John G. DeArmond] Re: Where Do They Get Off? [root@surya.uucp] Re: Operator Busy Break-In Now Costs $1.60 [Bud Couch] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bud Couch Subject: Re: Disarmingly Friendly and Curteous US West Organization: Kentrox Industries, Inc. Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1991 21:42:39 GMT In article Guy Helmer writes: > I called USWest about a second line into my apartment about eight > months ago, and I spoke with a person who was very pleasant. After I > asked about the second line, though, her immediate question was, "Oh, > is that for a fax or modem?" Not wanting to leave myself open to any > possibility of being charged business rates for a residential line, I > mumbled something about just needing a second line for voice. This division (the former PNB) of US West was running a second line promotion a few years back with no business conotation whatever. The literature that I got emphasised "teenager" phones. I'm not sure whether they actually knew that I was "afflicted" with them (teenagers) or it was just a broad marketing ploy -- after all, they are "The Phone Company" :-). Just tell them that it's for your teenager -- and list it under your computer's name: "Foo W. Smith". > More recently, I tried to find out if ISDN service would be available > here in Madison, SD. A new switch was installed here about 20 months > ago, and I've heard rumblings in the rags about USWest offering ISDN > in a few locations real soon now. The residential customer service > rep I spoke with had no idea what ISDN was, so I talked with a > business rep and ended up talking with a guy who wanted to know what I > wanted it for and then told me he'd have to look up some things and > call me back (he never did, of course). Being a telecom newbie, I > haven't pursued this any further :-) It would be great, though, to > have high-speed switched service from home into LANs I manage in town > and in Sioux Falls. ISDN comes in a number of flavors, but the two most developed are called "Basic Rate" and "Primary Rate". Basic Rate is the one you are probably thinking of: 160 kB on the pair (the "U" interface) with two 64 kB data channels ("B" channels) and one 16 kB control, etc. channel (the "D" channel). What the telcos are mostly flogging at this point is Primary Rate. Here the "U" interface is a T1 (1.544 Mb) line with 23 64 kb "B" channels and one 64 kb "D" channel. Since a lot of businesses already have the T1 line in place, this gives them more "bucks for the bang". All they have to do is upgrade the software in their digital switch. For Basic Rate, they not only have a software upgrade (probabably the same one), but have to install new line termination equipment, as well. Bud Couch - ADC/Kentrox If my employer only knew. standard BS applies ------------------------------ From: Dr Leonard Kleinrock Subject: Information Wanted on Panasonic DBS Phone System Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department Date: Tue, 25 Jun 91 00:32:50 GMT Can anyone tell me how good the Panasonic DBS phone system is? I am considering their 616 system for home use with four lines and lots of extensions. In particular, do I get adequate conferencing capability; is it a reliable system; is it overkill for a hitech house; is it competitive? ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Jun 91 21:24:56 -0400 From: Mike Godwin Subject: Re: These People and Institutions Were Hurt by Len Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation In article Bill Kennedy writes: > My concern is strictly for the damage that Len did to people and > organizations who were just whooshed into his vortex. This entire posting is driven by an immense ignorance of the timetable of events that led to Len Rose's prosecution. > Not common courtesy or respect for Len, but rather HIS lack of it for > others. It is not a violation of common courtesy to be investigated because one sent a file to Craig Neidorf. This is why Len was investigated. > Steve Jackson games - They never would have become vulnerable to SS > abuse had Len not made excursions beyond reason and the law. This > wasn't Tanner's point, but it's my take on it. This is false. Steve Jackson Games was investigated because of the alleged "theft" of the E911 document. Len never possessed that document. He never had any link with the events at Steve Jackson Games. If Len's reputation had not already been damaged for other reasons, he would be able to sue William Kennedy for this statement alone and win. It is sloppy, reckless, malicious, and ignorant. > Usenet killer/attctc - This invaluable resource and national spoke in > the Usenet wheel would not have been shut down had Len not decided to > joyride beyond the bounds of propriety and common sense. Please explain how Len caused AT&T to shut down Charlie Boykin's system. It is unclear how Len has the power to push AT&T around. > Southwestern Bell - I'd use his name but I don't have his permission. > He lost his job, for all intent and purposes, despite his *total* > exhonoration in the matter. He was put under a microscope, > intimidated, and otherwise mistreated and had to leave the company. > His only "mistake"? He was honestly and innocently associated with > Len Rose. Then the abuse was Southwestern Bell's, not Len's. Nobody forced SW Bell to act unethically. > AT&T employee - Ditto above. In my view these two people lost their > jobs just because they had dealings with Len Rose in all good faith. If they did nothing wrong, and their employers nevertheless fired them, it doesn't not take a moral philosopher to figure out that the responsibility for the firing should not be laid at Len's door. > Southwestern Bell who had > sponsored and underwritten it for years decided to shut it down on > four days' notice and I can't be convinced that it wasn't realted to > the internal investigation stimulated by the Len Rose case. Of course you "can't be convinced" of this. It would require weighing the facts and going beyond mere speculation. It would require risking being proved wrong. It might require a public apology to Len. (You already owe him one for your statement about SJGames.) > Unnamed person Austin - I don't have his permission either so he'll > have to stay anonymous too. His apartment was raided and all of his > electronic stuff confiscated the same day as Steve Jackson Games, same > city, Austin, TX. This individual is now having to file a lawsuit to > get his gear back (no charges were ever filed) and it costs him money > to do that. Len's stuff was returned. Of the people searched in Austin, two had no association with Len's investigation at all, and the third does not blame Len for the abuses inflicted upon him by the federal government. Or, at least, not the last time I spoke with him about Len. > He caused a lot of grief. He grieved some people who could have been > spared had he been able to contain himself. He didn't, they weren't > spared. This is simply raving. Len never forced the government or private companies to fire or harass anyone. Most of the investigations followed from massive mistakes on the part of government investigators and private security agents. Len can't be held responsible for the stupidity of the government. > He's headed for the hoosegow, but I think he and we would be better > served if he could get some treatment for what makes him hurt others. I think you should get treatment for the condition that makes you ignore facts that don't fit your theories. > Don't slather me with "it was the big bad > feds"; had he not attracted their attention they'd have left him (and > the rest of us) alone. The government is not a natural event like a rockslide or hurricane; government agents bear moral responsibility for their actions. The same goes for private employers. Holding Len responsible for what the government and private employers chose stupidly to do is to assume that only Len is capable of making moral judgments. Even the defendants in the Steve Jackson Games case deserve a higher estimation of moral responsibility than that. Mike Godwin, mnemonic@eff.org (617) 864-1550 EFF, Cambridge, MA ------------------------------ From: Gordon Burditt Subject: Emergency Calls (was Operator Busy Break-In) Date: 23 Jun 91 20:52:34 GMT Organization: Gordon Burditt > Also, if you claim an emergency exists as the reason for the busy > party to break the connection when in fact there is no emergency, then > you are probably guilty of a misdeamenor crime. Likewise if an > energency *does* exist and the called party refuses to yield the line > then he is guilty of a misdemeanor crime. PAT] It's a misdemeanor for me to refuse to get off the line so I can receive a call which someone calls an emergency? (How about if I get off the line and re-establish the call, or just hang up on the "emergency"? What if my modem is using the line? Is the operator expected to speak PEP?) What is the legal definition of "emergency" when the person being called is not the police, fire department, medical personnel, repair crews for various utilities, the military, nor does this person support them in their work? My phone book says an emergency is "a situation in which property or human life is in jeopardy and the prompt summoning of aid is essential". It also talks about emergency calls being to "a fire department or police department or for medical aid or ambulance service". I had at least one relative who genuinely considered a birth announcement or acknowledgement of receipt of a package to be an emergency. A former manager considered a 5% probability that I might be needed by others working on Sunday sometime during that day to be an emergency requiring my presence immediately (a phone call if/when I'm actually needed would take too long). I'm not talking about a party line, or someone on an extension, where someone needs to call the police, fire department, or an ambulance. Nor am I objecting to a break-in on my conversation when I am talking to the police, fire department, or medical personnel, unless my call was a greater emergency. Nor will I object if the trunk I was using is needed to reach emergency services. I can't think of a reason why emergency services would need to reach me. I can't think of a single situation where a call directed to me would be an emergency. (The class of "relative hit by truck or arrested" reasons don't apply because all my relatives are out-of-state. Even then I'm not sure they qualify as emergencies. I'm not a doctor or lawyer). Gordon L. Burditt sneaky.lonestar.org!gordon [Moderator's Note: Your telephone book pretty accurately describes an 'emergency'. Examples perhaps you could understand: Your neighbor's phone is out of order; they knock on your door and ask you to call the Fire Department. You refuse, because your single line is engaged on another call. You are at work using the phone and your landlord or neighbor calls to say YOUR house caught fire. You are using a pay phone on the street corner. There is an autombile accident and one of the victoims asks you to get off the phone so they can call the police or ambulance. Good enough examples for you? PAT] ------------------------------ From: "John G. DeArmond" Subject: Re: Speaking in Defense of ThriftyTel Date: 24 Jun 91 06:16:53 GMT Organization: Dixie Comm, The South's First Commercial Public Access Unix john@mojave.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: > In a five-day period, Thrifty Tel whisked a "Hacker Tariff" through > the CPUC without comment, showing, documentation, or any justification > WHATSOEVER. This tariff, which provides for "charges" that are around > three hundred times the company's going rate for services, is then > used in civil suits to claim damages. I consider that tariff a stroke of genius. I think that is the way to handle most similiar problems. > Concerning point two, let me give you an analogy. Let us suppose that > I have decided to go into the banking business, but find that the cost > of constructing a vault is prohibitively expensive. So I leave all the > cash sitting around in the tellers' drawers. Word gets around that my > bank is an easy mark, and consequently I find that frequently the cash > has been cleaned out by thieves the night before. To combat this, I > install a very sophisticated intrusion detection system with cameras > and the like. I am now able to identify the theives and I manage to > get a law passed that allows my bank to claim damages against the > burglars at about three hundred times the value of the cash stolen. > Obviously, a bank vault would solve the lion's share of my problem, > but why should I have to pay for a vault when it is "criminals and > thugs" that are at the root of my "losses"? This is precisely the > argument that TT uses when it is suggested that it upgrade its > equipment and use FGD instead of FGB. > Of course, FGD would not allow it to skim intraLATA traffic from You analogy of a bank vault is a good one but it makes the case more forcefully for ThriftyTell. Assuming that all bank robbers had the net worth to permit such a system to work, consider what positive effects there would be for the regular legitimate customers. I as a legitimate customer could simply walk in and get my money without having to hassle with a teller. I would find that to be much more convenient. Yet if a scumbag grabbed money that was not his or even if a customer accidently took too much, the bank could recover it and in the case of the scumbag, could punish him. In other words, the scumbags get punished and the regular customers get less hassles. What a refreshing concept! In the case of ThriftyTell, if you never hack their system, you'll never encounter that tariff. A perfect solution, all the blather about attractive nuisance notwithstanding. To me the concept of an attractive nuisance really means "I can't manage my {life, kids} so I want the law to do it for me." If you don't do the hack, you don't catch the flak :-) I don't see the problem. John ------------------------------ From: The unknown Florentine Subject: Re: Where Do They Get Off? Date: Thu, 20 Jun 91 19:03:18 PDT kossackj@marsh.rice.edu (Jordan M Kossack) writes: > [Moderator's Note: The local telco is REQUIRED to share billing > information with long distance carriers. Whether or not you have a > non-pub number is irrelevant. PAT] But are they required to share this information if you don't recieve service from them. ? [Moderator's Note:L I think if they provide it to one carrier (i.e. your default carrier under your old service is given the change of address order to your new location) then I think if they strictly follow the 'arms-length' philosophy they have to supply the same change of address information, etc to the others on request. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Bud Couch Subject: Re: Operator Busy Break-in Now Costs $1.60 Organization: Kentrox Industries, Inc. Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1991 21:57:10 GMT In a responce to an articicle by colnet!res@cis.ohio-state.edu (Rob Stampfli) our Moderator Notes: > [Moderator's Note: When the operator is asked to 'verify busy' or > interupt a call, they will first listen on the line only for a second > or two to detirmine the status. A single word or two of conversation > is sufficient. Even that brief intrusion might cause the modem to > receive garbage, but the operator DOES NOT 'drop the call'. In these days of digital switches, digital xmission, and concentrated operator services, operator monitoring of a call is extremely unlikely to place any discernible noise on the line. The ones and zeros representing that VF is simply switched into two gate inputs, instead of one. Monitoring a PCM signal degrades it not at all. Bud Couch - ADC/Kentrox If my employer only knew. standard BS applies ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #488 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa12238; 26 Jun 91 0:35 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa04833; 25 Jun 91 23:05 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa00672; 25 Jun 91 21:57 CDT Date: Tue, 25 Jun 91 21:36:06 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #489 BCC: Message-ID: <9106252136.ab27009@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 25 Jun 91 21:35:57 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 489 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Operator Busy Break-In [Phydeaux] Re: Emergency Calls (was Operator Busy Break-In) [John R. Covert] Re: Operator Busy Break-In Now Costs $1.60 [Mike Riddle] Re: Emergency Calls (was Operator Busy Break-In) [Stan M. Krieger] Re: Operator Busy Break-In Now Costs $1.60 [Gordon D. Woods] Re: Emergency Calls (was Operator Busy Break-In) [Ed Greenberg] Re: What The Heck is "Fiber Optic Quality" Anyway? [Fred R. Goldstein] Re: Important Changes in Sprint Plus Rates [Tad Cook] Re: Wireless Phone Security [Howard C. Berkowitz] Re: Old Phone Wiring Puzzle [Tony Harminc] Re: 900 Service to Derive Owner Info From Phone Number [Kath Mullholand] Real ISDN [Bob Frankston] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 24 Jun 91 13:17:05 PDT From: Phydeaux Subject: Re: Operator Busy Break-In It used to be that if you asked an operator to make an 'emergency breakthrough' call to a number that was handling modem traffic, they would tell you that the number was busy because of some technical problem. They probably heard strange tones, didn't know what they were and thought something was wrong. Hopefully they know more nowadays... reb *-=#= Phydeaux =#=-* reb@ingres.com or reb%ingres.com@lll-winken.llnl.GOV ICBM: 41.55N 87.40W h:558 West Wellington #3R Chicago, IL 60657 312-549-8365 w:reb ASK/Ingres 10255 West Higgins Suite 500 Rosemont, IL 60018 708-803-9500 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Jun 91 04:31:29 PDT From: "John R. Covert 25-Jun-1991 0727" Subject: Re: Emergency Calls (was Operator Busy Break-In) I think Patrick is making laws up again. My phone book says: "State law requires you to yield a party line immediately when told the line is needed for an emergency." Here Massachusetts is referred to. A phone book from neighboring New Hampshire says: "Whoever shall willfully refuse to yield the use of a telephone party line for giving of a fire alarm or emergency call ..." My recollection in every other state is that this only applies to party lines. If the Moderator can provide an example where this applies to single-party service, I would like to see it. john Moderator's Note: IBT phone books used to use the phrase 'party-line' in discussing yeilding of the line in the event of an emergency. Then for a couple years the phrase was 'telephone facilities you share with others', which I assume could mean party lines or extension phones in your home, or I presume a pay phone on the corner you 'share' with others who need to use it. Then they discontinued saying anything about it except to note in the section on 'how and when to use 911' where they noted it was a crime to lodge a phalse report and that 'the sense of the Illinois legislature is that public policy dictates yeilding telephone lines when requested to do so in the event of an emergency communication.' Now the past couple years, nothing is said either way. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Mike Riddle Subject: Re: Operator Busy Break-In Now Costs $1.60 Organization: Nebraska Inns of Court Date: Tue, 25 Jun 1991 12:14:36 GMT In drawson@sagehen.tymnet.com (Dick Rawson) writes: > Am I really required to hang up on my current call and accept an > incoming call ... just because the caller claimed to the operator that > there is an emergency? and the Moderator Notes: > [Moderator's Note: But the person trying to get through to you would > in effect be sharing your phone line with you. You are free to do as > you please in a declared emergency, but if *you* are wrong and *they* > choose to make an issue of it, then you lose. There have been a few other discussions along this line. Patrick is correct when he asserts that one must, under the tariffs and/or laws in every state I'm aware of, surrender the line when someone claims "emergency." What has been missing so far from the discussion is the flip side of the same coin. The same or worse penalties attach for the false declaration of emergency merely to get access to the telephone. The utility of this approach was a policy decision by the state legislators or PUCs involved. The admitted inconvenience of having to interrupt your call was viewed as less onerous than the inability to communicate in an emergency. Personal observation: I personally have never heard of any litigation on this. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but rather that it is rare because most people understand and "go along to get along." <<<< insert standard disclaimer here >>>> riddle@hoss.unl.edu | Nebraska Inns of Court ivgate!inns!postmaster@uunet.uu.net | +1 402 593 1192 Sysop of 1:285/27@Fidonet | 3/12/24/9600/8N1/V.32/V.42bis [Moderator's Note: But the key here, according to Mr. Covert and a couple others is if this pertains *only* to party lines, *any* instance of a 'shared telephone facility', or what. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Jun 91 10:54:19 EDT From: S M Krieger Subject: Re: Emergency Calls (was Operator Busy Break-In) Organization: Summit NJ > [Moderator's Note: Your telephone book pretty accurately describes an > 'emergency'. Examples perhaps you could understand: Your neighbor's > phone is out of order; they knock on your door and ask you to call the > Fire Department. You refuse, because your single line is engaged on > another call. You are at work using the phone and your landlord or > neighbor calls to say YOUR house caught fire. You are using a pay > phone on the street corner. There is an autombile accident and one of > the victims asks you to get off the phone so they can call the police > or ambulance. Good enough examples for you? PAT] Is this stretching the point a bit? As I used to read the "emergency" rule, it seemed to be intended for party-line service. When/how was it extended to single line service or public phones? Stan Krieger All opinions, advice, or suggestions, even AT&T UNIX System Laboratories if related to my employment, are my own and Summit, NJ do not represent any public or private smk@usl.com policies of my employer. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Jun 91 11:47:24 EDT From: Gordon D Woods Subject: Re: Operator Busy Break-In Now Costs $1.60 Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories From article , by drawson@sagehen. tymnet.com (Dick Rawson): > Am I really required to hang up on my current call and accept an > incoming call ... just because the caller claimed to the operator that > there is an emergency? I had only understood that I was required to > make shared telephone facilities available to someone else who ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > declared an emergency. From my personal experience, you can complain all you want but Dick Rawson is right: your connection gets cut off, plain and simple. I was on a long distance call interrupted for an "emergency". It was a wrong number! The guy had been calling me for weeks. Now he breaks into my calls! I called the business office: "Nothing we can do; use Call Trace if he calls again. Good bye." You really have no choice, either you refuse all "emergencies" or accept them sight unseen. ------------------------------ From: Ed_Greenberg@3mail.3com.com Date: Tue, 25 Jun 91 11:33 PDT Subject: Re: Emergency Calls (was Operator Busy Break-In) Patrick states that you are required to relinquish your private non- party telephone in an emergency. He cites the example of a neighbor knocking on your door and demanding that you call the fire department on his behalf. Let's leave aside the callousness required to refuse. I find nothing in the San Jose/Santa Clara white pages backing this up, at least for California. What I do find is this: WARNING -- Give Up Your Party Line in an Emergency California Penal Code section 384 makes it a misdemeanor for any person to willfully refuse to immediately relinquish a telephone party line when informed that such line is needed for an emergency call to a fire department or police department or for medical aid or ambulance service. Also, any person who shall secure the use of a telephone party line by falsely stating that such line is needed for an emergency call, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. "Emergency" means "a situation in which property or human life is in jeopardy and the prompt summoning of aid is essential." I don't see where, under THIS statute, I am required to involve myself in a neighbor's fire or medical emergency. Not that I'm such a nasty person that I would refuse. Further, I can't see where I am required by THIS statute to give up my line when an operator breaks in, although, again, I can't imagine refusing. ------------------------------ From: "Fred R. Goldstein" Subject: Re: What The Heck is "Fiber Optic Quality" Anyway? Date: 24 Jun 91 17:01:08 GMT Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA In article , riacs!rutgers!ttidca.tti. com!jackson@decwrl.dec.com (Dick Jackson) writes... > In other words fiber is no better than other MODERN digital facilities. Yes and no. For ordinary voice users, that's probably true: A copper or radio digital transmission facility is usually tagged as in trouble when its bit error rate is anywhere near the level needed to make PCM audio audibly degraded. And that's not common. But it can occur: Radio links (including satellites) are subject to rain fade. That raises the raw BER a bit. Minor fade, however, is usually compensated for by trellis coding, a form of forward error correction. Severe fade can lead to real errors, though. Microwaves are not happy when it rains _very_ hard. System designers generally account for some probability of this, but you can never say never. Copper links (like T1) are subject to electrical impulse noise. If lightning strikes nearby, a pole line can pick up a hit. Again this is unusual, but it can occur. It also matters how marginal the link is in the first place. Motors and other such devices can impair some marginal copper links. The nature of these bursts varies with the cause and with the type of transmission system. Fiber optic is usually transmitted in raw NRZ format, perhaps scrambled, where each bit is represented by an on or off. (It is not group coded like most radio and some copper systems, where a transmission symbol represents several bits.) It is immune to electrical noise or rain fade. (Backhoe fade, of course, is harder to avoid :-(. ) When it works well, the BER is often on the order of 10^-12, versus 10^-8 or so on many copper systems. That's the difference between very good and very, very, very good. Because it's not group coded, most errors only affect a single bit at a time, rather than a cluster of bits as might be hit on a modem or digital radio link. It's gaussian noise, and the S/N-ratio to BER curve can be taken from a simple graph in Mischa Schwartz's textbook on noise, whose title escapes me now (I've got the new edition at home). This all can be significant when designing error detecting and correcting techniques. What works best for a _pure fiber optic_ network may not be ideal for a mixed-media digital network. Fred R. Goldstein Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA goldstein@delni.enet.dec.com voice: +1 508 952 3274 Do you think anyone else on the planet would share my opinions, let alone a multi-billion dollar corporation? ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Important Changes in Sprint Plus Rates Date: Sun, 23 Jun 91 3:00:02 PDT From: Tad.Cook@ssc.uucp I was alarmed at first when I read on TELECOM Digest about the change in Sprint Plus rates. But then I did some checking. Currently I am paying about 11 cents a minute for night rate to call anywhere in the USA on Sprint. By going to Sprint Plus, I agreed to $7.50/month minimum billing (not $7.50 extra, just MINIMUM ... so if I make only $1 worth of calls, I still pay $7.50) and the big bonus was that I can get the night rate during the evening after 5pm. I understand from several postings on TELECOM Digest that the new rate gives a straight 20% off the night and evening rates, with night and evening no longer being equal. I checked with the Sprint operator, and to call anywhere in the USA the night rate is 13 cents, and the evening rate is 14 cents. So with 20% off that, I will pay 11.2 cents per minute during the evening, and only 10.4 cents at night. Not bad. How does this compare with similar plans from other carriers? Tad Cook Seattle, WA Packet: KT7H @ N7DUO.WA.USA.NA Phone: 206/527-4089 MCI Mail: 3288544 Telex: 6503288544 MCI UW USENET:...uw-beaver!sumax!amc-gw!ssc!tad or, tad@ssc.UUCP or, kt7h@polari.uucp or, 3288544@mcimail.com ------------------------------ From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" Subject: Re: Wireless Phone Security Date: 25 Jun 91 17:36:52 GMT Reply-To: "Howard C. Berkowitz" Organization: Corporation for Open Systems, McLean, VA In article kentrox!bud@uunet.uu.net (Bud Couch) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 480, Message 2 of 11 > In article bill@fisher.eedsp.gatech.edu > writes: > is handled by the military -- the Air Force -- to be exact. Most of > the technical people for this are Air Force em's. Actually, White House communications is the responsibility of a Defense Communications Agency subunit called the White House Communications Agency. WHCA does have operational control of some USAF people, but the overall WH communications support mission is handled by DoD, not the Air Force. Would a former Naval Aviator trust HIS communications to the Air Force? :-) howard@cos.com OR {uunet, decuac, sun!sundc}!cos!howard (703) 883-2812 [W] (703) 998-5017 [H] DISCLAIMER: Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the Corporation for Open Systems, its members, or any standards body. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Jun 91 12:20:30 EDT From: Tony Harminc Subject: Re: Old Phone Wiring Puzzle Lynn Goodhue writes: [description of problem with phone that won't ring] > For the moment, this mystery has actually *solved* the original > problem, which was to have the phone available for Mum, without it > ringing in her room. (It's one of those old, reliable desk sets that > will never die, and you couldn't turn the ringer off, just down a > bit.) If your mum's phone is an old 500-type set, there is a neat trick you can do with the ringer. This is very easy to understand if you are looking at the phone, but harder to describe. The ringer volume control rotates one of the two gongs so that it is closer to the clapper (low volume) or farther (high volume). There is a small, springy piece of metal that stops the gong being rotated beyond the lowest volume position. This piece of metal can be bent out of the way. Then the volume control has an "off" position. Note that this is not a happy accident -- it is a design feature. There is an extra piece of metal on the armature which is clamped tight when the volume control is moved to the "off" position, and this prevents any residual chatter of the armature or tinkling of the bells. In field documentation this was called something like "enabling customer usage of the ringing disablement feature". Tony H. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Jun 1991 16:20:36 EDT From: KATH MULLHOLAND Subject: Re: 900 Service to Derive Owner Info From Phone Number AHA! The first of many services derived from the phone directories that are now not subject to copyright! Kath Mullholand U NH, Durham, NH ------------------------------ From: frankston!Bob_Frankston@world.std.com Subject: Real ISDN Date: June 25, 1991 11:04 am EDT Now that ISDN is supposedly being tariffed in some places, I'm interested in hearing about experience with residential service including rates. Are there any such users following this discussion group? ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #489 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa16970; 26 Jun 91 2:42 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa22067; 26 Jun 91 1:14 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa28380; 26 Jun 91 0:06 CDT Date: Tue, 25 Jun 91 23:11:23 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #490 BCC: Message-ID: <9106252311.ab08000@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 25 Jun 91 23:10:49 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 490 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Is Cellular Phone Jamming Possible? [John R. Levine] Re: Is Cellular Phone Jamming Possible? [Allen Gwinn] Two Cellular Phones With the Same ESN (was Dumb Question) [John R. Covert] Re: Reusing Numbers After Just One Day [David Gast] Re: Speaking in Defense of ThriftyTel [John Higdon] Re: Speaking in Defense of ThriftyTel [Macy Hallock] Brooklyn Section of Baltimore City [Carl Moore] Corvallis, Oregon Exchanges [Carl Moore] Re: These People and Institutions Were Hurt By Len [David Gast] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Is Cellular Phone Jamming Possible? Organization: I.E.C.C. Date: 23 Jun 91 09:05:45 EDT (Sun) From: "John R. Levine" I'd think a straightforward way to inactivate a system that uses a car's cellular phone to call the cops would be to use a pair of bolt cutters to remove the antenna. A new antenna, particularly a glass-mount one, is cheap and easy to install should the thief be so inclined. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnl ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Jun 91 19:03 CDT From: Allen Gwinn Subject: Re: Is Cellular Phone Jamming Possible? Organization: sulaco In article rubin@prism.poly.edu (Dave Rubin) writes: >> .... alert a central station as to the whereabouts of the stolen >> automobile, and the station can also send a signal to the car to >> turn off its engine. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > And suppose this results in an accident? I'll bet the lawyers are > drooling over this one! I don't know about other parts of the country, but in Texas, the only thing that you owe someone involved in this type of activity is not to *intentionally* injure them. I would argue that shutting off the engine of my car was to prevent a thief from driving it any further than he/she already had. If the person couldn't coast it over to the side of the road, well, thats what insurance is for :-) Allen Gwinn (allen@sulaco.lonestar.org) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Jun 91 05:07:45 PDT From: "John R. Covert 25-Jun-1991 0737" Subject: Two Cellular Phones With the Same ESN (was Dumb Question) Bob Lancelot at Motorola writes: > I gave the CELLUSOFT SYSTEMS number a call this morning regarding > two cellular phones with the same ESN. > Talked with Mr. Hoser (sp?). For $300 + $35 s&h he'll send you a > device that allows you to program an ESN (specifically yours from > another phone that you own) into a Novatel phone. Yikes! From EIA/TIA-553, the standard that defines the AMPS protocol and devices (and to which all manufacturers, service providers, repair technicians, and cellular phone operators must comply or risk a visit from the FCC): 2.3 Security and Identification 2.3.2. Serial Number The serial number is a 32-bit binary number that uniquely identifies a mobile station to any cellular system. It must be factory-set and not readily alterable in the field. The circuitry that provides the serial number must be isolated from fraudulent contact and tampering. Attempts to change the serial number circuitry should render the mobile station inoperative. I'm really surprised that an employee of Motorola's Cellular Division would publish information that would help people modify their electronic serial numbers. Supposedly the device sold by these guys will only make the number the same as the number in some other phone that you own, but even this is a violation of the standard -- and who is going to make sure that dealers who market the device are going to be honest. It is specifically the fact that there are phones which apparently don't break permanently when you try to do this and that there are dealers out there selling devices to take advantage of poor phone design that PREVENT ME FROM BEING ABLE TO DIRECT DIAL LONG DISTANCE CALLS WHEN TRAVELLING. Yes, I'm shouting, because I'm angry. If you were to use this device, and were to accidentally leave both phones powered on, believe me, your cellular carrier will be interested in talking to you about why you are operating equipment in violation of approved standards. john ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Jun 91 17:21:42 -0700 From: David Gast Subject: Re: Reusing Numbers After Just One Day After reading my mail and the messages in the Digest, I think I should explain the phone system in the dorms at UCLA. I guess I should have explained earlier some of the features. Unlike the most of the other schools I know about, the dorms are not part of a centrex system. In addition, they do not have a PBX. The particular number I was calling, was in 213-209-XXXX. The University uses 231-825 (825 = UCL as in UCLA) and 213-206. It is not possible to reach any of the dorm rooms from University phones without dialing 9 (and getting an outside line) or depositing twenty cents (from a payphone). People who wish to get phone service contact GTE; they do not contact UCLA. In addition, they must pay standard rates. (Actually, I have seen GTE personnel take advantage of students and charge them *more* than they should be charged -- for example, by requiring rental of telephones -- but that is another story, which has already been reported to the Digest). Now it does turn out that GTE and UCLA have some sort of agreement whereby a given phone number is always connected to a given room. At least GTE claims this; the telecommunications office at UCLA said that the university was not involved. I am not surprised that GTE and UCLA would conspire to give students inferior service. I would also not be surprised if UCLA does not know what it is doing or if this agreement is only a vapor-contract. The person at GTE told me that UCLA handles the interior wires in the dorms. How much do you want to bet that they sell the interior wiring plan to students even though GTE would never have to come out? The person at GTE said that because the phone numbers are reassigned to the same room numbers, then it is not necessary to come out to the dorm and move wires around to set up service. I pointed out that there is a digital switch and that to set up service, GTE merely has to type a few commands at the computer and everything is set up. She agreed. (Note: Initiation of service charges are not reduced). I still believe that not providing an interrupt is substandard service. The students pay the same fee to hook up service even though less work is required. The students pay the same fee for telephone service -- they do not get a discount. Therefore they should be entitled to an interrupt. Someone mentioned that telephone numbers are running out. True, but 200 numbers would not make a big difference. (I am estimating that there are 200 rooms in the dorms). Anyway, it would be better to reduce the telemarketers phone numbers :-) (There are lots of telemarketers in the area). Also, if person X lives in an apartment, s/he gets an intercept when s/he moves out. Why should person Y living in a dorm, pay the same amount and not get an intercept? One reason may be that if you call a number and get an intercept, you don't have to pay for the call; if you call a number that has been reassigned immediately, you have to pay for the call. Thus, the phone company gets some additional revenue while providing substandard service. I was able to determine from GTE that the previous tenants did have their phone service turned off. BTW, Linc Madison wrote about his experiences his senior year. I had similar troubles my senior year at the same university. David Gast ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Speaking in Defense of ThriftyTel Date: 25 Jun 91 11:17:42 PDT (Tue) From: John Higdon "John G. DeArmond" writes: > john@mojave.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: >> In a five-day period, Thrifty Tel whisked a "Hacker Tariff" through >> the CPUC without comment, showing, documentation, or any justification >> WHATSOEVER. > I consider that tariff a stroke of genius. I think that is the way to > handle most similiar problems. A little consistency, please. I just read an article of yours decrying AOS and sleazy practices that came from lack of regulatory attention. Now you seem to advocate that any sleazebag reseller should be able to, without justification or documentation such as that required of all legitimate telcos, make up any fantasy charges it wants and then use that fantasy in a court of law to "prove" damages. Your attitude of justice seems somewhat whimsical. > If you don't do the hack, you don't catch the flak :-) No, make that Neandrathal. How about forty years for petty theft? Hey, man, if you don't do the crime then you won't do the time, right? John Higdon (hiding out in the desert) [Moderator's Note: While it is true Thrifty Tel's tactics are extreme, and of questionable legality by USA standards, we should note that in countries with 'neandrathal' schedules of punishment (i.e. Saudi Arabia, where public floggings, beheadings, and amputation of body parts appropriate to the crime committed -- shoplifting, sexual assault, etc -- are routine events), the crime rate is *extremely* low. If Thrifty Tel doesn't break Some People of their Bad Habits, I don't know what will. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 23 Jun 91 12:44 EDT From: Macy Hallock Subject: Re: Speaking in Defense of ThriftyTel (was Fighting Hackers) Organization: Hallock Engineering and Sales Medina, Ohio USA +1 216 722 3053 Regarding the thread on CA's Thrifty Tel and its hacker oriented tarriffs: While not a utility lawyer myself, I have paid for the services of a couple, and been taught some expensive lessons by others ... So let me advance a few of points in this discussion: The granting of common carrier status and filing of tariffs which have been approved by the PUC make the utility a slightly different contractual entity in the eyes of the courts. Generally speaking, the PUC acts as an agent for the public in structuring the contract with the utility. This means that use of the utility's service in a voluntary (or sometimes involuntary) fashion binds you to payment of the under the terms of contract. (Which is contained in the utility's tariff structure.) Now, gross negligence, fraud, or malicious acts are never permissable under any contract in any state I know of. Other than that, the utility is afforded protections that most normal businesses do not enjoy. (Try suing a phone company sometime, you will receive an education concerning their special status under regulatory and utility laws.) If the tariff was filed in a manner which deceived the PUC, then the tariff and its protections can be invalidated. If the PUC acted in a manner contrary to their authority under the law, then the tariff can be invalid, also. This also means that many parts of the UCC are not directly applicable to a regulated utility acting under their filed tariffs. Speaking in general terms, that would seem to mean Thrifty Tel has a basis to enforce their tariffs. Remember, part of the status of common carrier requires that the tariffs be published and available to the public for inspection, and in fact these are often published in newspapers of record at some point. The fact is: the use of Thrifty Tel's FGB access code constitues voluntary use of their services under their currently published tariff structure. Analogy: just because you do not agree with MCI's rate does not mean you do not have to pay for the call when you dial 10222+ (a rather simple, widely distributed code) and make a call. As for the posting of TT's codes in local bulletin boards ... sounds like unpaid advertising or word-of-mouth. The public posting or even paid advertising of a common carriers service availability has never been illegal. Would you ask for a rebate if you neighbor said dial 900-RIP-OFFF and you then got a bill? I doubt the PUC would agree ... I know of many people who have been bound to pay for their own and their children's activities using telephones that ran up large long distance bills out of their own ignorance. The PUC holds that the bills are still valid and the courts seem inclined to agree. Once in a while, a telco or carrier will grant a billing adjustment in a case such as this, but there is usually a provision in their tariff that allows them to do this under certain circumstances, and at their sole discression. They are specifically not bound to do this in all similar cases. The only trend that counters this concerns telco billing of services provided by others (such as 900, AOS's and OCC's). In those cases, the telco's have found it expidient to limit their tariffs to allowing themselves to act only as billing agents, and now do not want to act as collection agents. This is primarily due to political pressure from consumer groups and the newspapers. As a result, its very unlikely that you will have your local telephone service cut off due to an unpaid 900 bill. The phone company will return the billing uncollected to the provider, who must then pursue its own collection against you. From the descriptions provided by the readers of the Digest, it appears that this is exactly what Thrifty Tel is doing. Based on my past experiences, Thrify Tel is working on the fringe of regulatory law, but within it. My prediction: either the PUC or legislature will amend PUC regulations to make Thrifty Tel change their tariff when the political or consumer pressure increases. It has happened before! Common sense has nothing to do with this process. Personal opinion: Thrifty Tel has found an interesting approach to making long distance resale profitable. I am always wary when an industry has to use lawyers and lawsuits to conduct business, though. TT will do wonders to increase the public's awareness of the potential cost of phone hacking. I wish the newspapers would take same tone of voice they use when reporting drug related activity when reporting hacking, though. Guess I was just not innnovative enough when I tried to put together a long distance reseller in the early 80's .... Macy M Hallock Jr N8OBG 216.725.4764 macy@fmsystm.uucp macy@fmsystm.ncoast.org [No disclaimer, but I have no real idea what I'm saying or why I'm telling you] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Jun 91 15:33:39 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Brooklyn Section of Baltimore City In the {Baltimore (Md.) Sun} some months ago, I saw a proposed secession from Baltimore city of the Brooklyn area, which would then join Anne Arundel county, from which it was annexed early in this century. I don't know what became of the secession idea, but I know the Baltimore area well enough to say that: 1. It distinguishes between city and suburban exchange. 2. The proposed secession would change 354 and 355 from city to suburban. (The area code is not affected; it is currently 301 and will become 410.) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Jun 91 13:23:02 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Corvallis, Oregon Exchanges In a recent Digest message I saw: > Corvallis, Oregon CO (503 75x, x=2,4,7) As of 1982, the Corvallis exchanges were 745,752,753,754,757,758. No information available as to what if any separate geographic areas they serve. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Jun 91 19:28:41 -0700 From: David Gast Subject: Re: These People and Institutions Were Hurt by Len > Steve Jackson games ... Usenet killer/attctc ... Southwestern Bell ... > AT&T employee ... Usenet texbell ... Unnamed person Austi ... What we have are bunch of people and organizations harmed because of their associations, not because they did anything wrong. We should be condemning the people who have judged people on the basis of association, rather than condemning the associated person for harm caused to those he has associated with. This country is not supposed to be Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia. For example, saying that the troubles of Steve Jackson's Games is due to Len Rose rather than to the Secret Service is hogwash. David Gast ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #490 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa18830; 26 Jun 91 3:47 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa22375; 26 Jun 91 2:21 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab22067; 26 Jun 91 1:14 CDT Date: Wed, 26 Jun 91 0:37:28 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #491 BCC: Message-ID: <9106260037.ab29961@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 26 Jun 91 00:37:14 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 491 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Whatever Happened to Rich Andrews? [Ron Bean] Simple Connection Between Fax and Fax Modem [Joseph Chan] Explain This Scam [Spencer W. Thomas] Memories of Vashon Island Phone Service [Joshua Putnam] AT&T New Technology Reported in 25 June WSJ [Will Martin] Stupid Payphone Tricks [Jim Rees] Re: Service Question Regarding 'Off Premises Extensions' [Bill Cerny] Re: The Way I Built and Operated an AOS [Mark R. Jenkins] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Whatever Happened to Rich Andrews? Date: Fri Jun 21 06:38:22 1991 From: Ron Bean Well, now I've heard updates on Craig Niedorf, Steve Jackson Games, and Len Rose. Has anyone heard from Rich Andrews? Did he ever get his 3B2 back? If so, was it in working condition? If not, who has it and why? Did David Tamkin get to read his email, and is anyone following up on that thread? Also, similar questions regarding any others who had equipment siezed but weren't charged with anything? >The EFF: I think they *mean well*, a lot like the ACLU. But they fail >to realize the huge number of freeloaders going along for the ride, ^^^^^^^^^^^ >for whom social responsibility in computing is a big laugh. On the contrary, I'm sure they're well aware of it. They just don't think it justifies abandoning their goals. It's no different from people in the law enforcement community who don't mind harrassing innocent citizens who "fit the profile", and occasionally sending them to jail by mistake. BTW, how do you know it's a "huge number", and not a vociferous few? zaphod@madnix.UUCP (Ron Bean) {harvard|rutgers|ucbvax}!uwvax!astroatc!nicmad!madnix!zaphod [Moderator's Note: The way it has been told to me, Rich Andrews cooperated completely with the government from the beginning ... maybe even from *before* the beginning, if you get my drift. When I talked to him just after the Phrack/911 story came out, he did not seem too terribly concerned about the 'raid' on his home, the welfare of his equipment, etc. He did say to me in a phone call back then 'there was a lot he was not permitted to say at the time ...' nor has he said anything since. Perhaps he would like to respond publicly now; or perhaps Mssrs. Godwin and Jim Thomas have some background they'll share with the Digest. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Joseph Chan Subject: Simple Connection Between Fax and Fax Modem Organization: University of Washington, Seattle Date: Tue, 25 Jun 1991 21:20:41 GMT I have a standalone fax machine and a fax modem (send/receive at 9600 baud) installed on my 286 machine. There is no RS232 port on the fax machine. I have one phone line at home. Here is what I am trying to accomplish (i.e. use the fax machine as a scanner): 1. Connect the fax machine to the fax modem thru a regular telephone cable. 2. Send image from the fax machine to the fax modem over the telephone cable. (since I have one phone line at home, I can not send the fax image over the telephone system). 3. Edit and manipulate the image. One other thing I would like to try (i.e. use the fax machine as a printer to print image received by the fax modem): 1. Let the fax modem receive the incoming fax message. Screen the message by viewing the fax message bitcom software. 2. Send the fax image to the fax machine for printer. (The reason for this: the Epson 24 header printer is very slow to print out a fax image, the fax machine can print at less than 30sec per page). Has any one done some similar thing to this? Thank you for any pointers. Joseph Chan Internet: joseph@nsr.bioeng.washington.edu Center for Bioengineering Bitnet: chanj@uwarita.bitnet University of Washington WD-12 UUCP: uw-beaver!uw-nsr!joseph Seattle, Washington 98195 Dial: (206) 543-5418 ------------------------------ From: spencer@med.umich.edu (Spencer W. Thomas) Subject: Explain This Scam Date: Tue, 25 Jun 91 14:14:50 GMT Organization: University of Michigan Health Sciences, Ann Arbor Our paper, a few days ago, ran an article titled "Prisoners cheat phone company on costly calls." It attempts to explain a scam that some "guests" of the state are using to make free LD phone calls. I don't understand the purported explanation. Maybe one of you can explain it for me. LANSING -- Some Michigan prison inmates are making unlimited free long-distance calls thanks to a nearly foolproof scam. The practice ultimately could cost consumers thousands of dollars when future phone rates are set by regulators, officials said. Word of the ease with which inmates can make free phone calls has spread quickly. The result? Long waiting lines at some prison pay phones. "It's really a big problem," said Connie Henslee, telecommunications coordinator for the Corrections Department. "It's driving the phone company nuts because it's costing them a lot of money." Although the phone company doesn't know exactly how much the fraud costs, officials estimate one-third of the tool calls that go uncollected in the state can be traced back to prison inmates. Here's how inmates and corrections officials describe the scam: An inmate makes a collect call to a friend whose phone has a three-way calling feature. The friend then pushes a button on the phone and dials the phone company, with the prisoner still on the line. When the phone company comes on the line, the customer is slient as the inmate orders a new phone under a phony name. "We have no way of knowing it's an inmate who has called collect," Michigan Bell spokesman Dean Hovey said. Dan Bolden, deputy corrections director, said he doesn't know how big the problem is, but said even state officials in Lansing offices get calls from inmates using the scam. "It's a constant battle to keep up with those folks," Bolden said. "I've seen a prisoner run up $1,000 phone bills." Spencer W. Thomas HSITN, U of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109 spencer@med.umich.edu 313-747-2778 (8-6 E[SD]T M-F) [Moderator's Note: I suspect they are ordering new service at the address of a confederate on the outside. Then they call collect to 'their' new number; the confederate okays the charges and dials out calls for them to wherever they really want to call. Then when the service gets cut for non-payment, so be it ... order new service! But whatever happened to requiring a deposit and pulling a credit bureau file on the subscriber-applicant? Any other theories? PAT] ------------------------------ From: Joshua_Putnam Subject: Memories of Vashon Island Phone Service Date: 25 Jun 91 19:13:19 GMT Organization: Happy Man Corp., Vashon Island, WA In john@mojave.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: > On Jun 22 at 19:47, TELECOM Moderator Notes: >> According to Representative Matthew Rinaldo (R-NJ) "The desire of >> people to have privacy in their homes and not be intruded on by >> unwanted calls is not as important as the right of people who wish to >> make calls anonymously." > What an interesting opinion. It would be laughable coming from anyone > who did not have to power to create silly laws to enforce it. > And what if the ability to make anonymous calls had not been a default > aspect of current telephone technology? Would there NOW be laws on the > books to make it that way? Somehow I doubt it. It is the usual > knee-jerk reaction to new technology. The "anonymity as default" argument against Caller-ID always reminds me of the earlier days of telephony (before I was born, but still in living memory) when such a concept of privacy would have been laughed at. A story my grandfather tells may help explain: Vashon Island was (is?) slower than most of Puget Sound in moving into the modern age. Long after telephone calls were completely automated in Seattle, my grandparents had some guests come to dinner from Seattle. Having picked them up at the ferry dock, my grandparents drove back to the house, only to hear the telephone ringing. Of course, the caller had given up by the time they got to the phone. "Too bad," the guests commented, "I suppose they'll call back if it was important." Showing off the advantages of rural life, my grandfather picked up the phone, flashed the switchhook to get the operator's attention, and said, "Hi, it's the Putnams. We just got in the door -- can you get whoever was calling?" "Certainly," the operator replied, and put the call through. Where is the privacy default in that system? (Just in case you wondered: I support Caller-ID, per-line and per-call blocking, and the ability to reject all blocked-ID calls. Businesses should not be able to use Caller-ID info for compiling mailing lists, etc., unless (a) they paid for the call, or (b) they ask and receive permission from the caller. Also, the phone companies should make it very clear that the ID provided is the name/number of the person who owns the phone, not necessarily the person using the phone.) Joshua_Putnam@happym.wa.com Happy Man Corp. 206/463-9399 x102 4410 SW Pt. Robinson Rd., Vashon Island, WA 98070-7399 fax x108 [Moderator's Note: Ah, wonderful Vashon Island. A well-known resident of the island from the same era as your grandfather was Betty McDonald, author of a couple cute books, "The Egg and I", and "The Plague and I". I wonder if your grandfather knew the family? PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Jun 91 9:45:12 CDT From: Will Martin Subject: AT&T New Technology Reported in 25 June WSJ Two articles in the {Wall Street Journal} for June 25, '91, will be of interest to Telecom readers. One is a front-page story on new "soliton" technology being developed at Bell Labs for faster fiber-optic transmissions for undersea cables. There's some interesting info that gives outsiders an idea as to how things are done at Bell Labs, what sort of salaries researchers there earn, what the management style is like, etc. The other is on the first page of the "B" section and discusses AT&T's plans to test new six GigaHertz pocket phones; first some technical tests and then user tests in Atlanta, Boston, and Los Angeles in the '92-'93 timeframe. The article states that success in these tests would give AT&T new uses for its existing microwave network of over 3000 towers nationwide, but it doesn't make it clear how this would apply. I thought these "mini-cellular" pocket phones would use tiny cell sites inside buildings or on some sort of streetcorner base-site boxes. I don't understand how this would use the big microwave towers out in the country. Or maybe this is something different than the pocket phones we've heard about in past months/years? An interesting side comment is that AT&T has been gradually taking its microwave network out of service since 1988 when it switched its network to fiber optics & digital switches (that latter recently mentioned in the Digest). Now less than 10% of AT&T traffic travels via microwave or coax cable, but there are still over 3000 microwave towers across the US. The initial user tests appear to involve AT&T employees, but there seem to be plans for a test distribution of 3000 phones to other users in the three cities mentioned later on, described as "giving prototypes". If this really means "giving", as in "free", this might be something Telecom-ers in those cities may want to get in on. There's no info on how the 3000 will be selected; it might help to ask around, make friends with AT&T employees, or get your interest in participating known to the right people ... maybe these will be distributed via the old-boy network to friends and friends of friends. Any AT&T types out there free to comment? Regards, Will ------------------------------ From: rees@pisa.citi.umich.edu (Jim Rees) Subject: Stupid Payphone Tricks Reply-To: rees@citi.umich.edu (Jim Rees) Organization: University of Michigan IFS Project Date: Tue, 25 Jun 91 20:58:51 GMT I thought COCOTs were bad until I ran into a GTE payphone the other day in a bar in Mount Pleasant, Michigan. The info card originally said that long distance service was provided by AT&T, but this had been crossed out and "MCI" had been written above it. 700 numbers were not accepted but I found that the default carrier was neither AT&T nor MCI, but Sprint. The funny part came when I tried to place a call with my calling card to Clare, Michigan. I got a recording saying that my card number was invalid. So why did I get a recording saying my card number was no good, even though I know that it is? Turns out the problem was that Clare is a local call, not long distance. Depositing two dimes solved the problem. ------------------------------ From: bill@toto.info.com (Bill Cerny) Subject: Re: Service Question Regarding 'Off Premises Extensions' Organization: Crash TimeSharing, El Cajon, CA Date: Tue, 25 Jun 1991 12:47:05 GMT In article Jack Decker writes: > Unfortunately, because of the LATA boundary, the local telco cannot > provide an FX line. AT&T could, but the monthly charge is horrendous > AND they charge for calls (both outgoing AND INCOMING) made on the FX > line on a per-minute basis AT&T stopped offering FX service a while back; what they quoted you were the rates for a FG A line (they don't want to facilitate resale). Metromedia, Williams Telecom, et. al., offer interLATA FX service. I'd recommend you find out which carrier has the nearest POP to your station, and ask them for a quote. Ask them to waive installation charges, too. > I'm wondering if anyone has actually used off-premise service and is > familiar enough with it to tell me what is the bare minimum amount of > equipment actually required on each end to make it work. "Virtual" equipment is fine, from my experience. ;-) S uggest to your carrier's technician that the dial tone on the far end is coming from "your" switch. To minimize curiousity, schedule the OPX local loop and local phone service installations on different dates. Bill Cerny | ATTMail: !denwa!bill ------------------------------ From: "Mark R. Jenkins 619-458-2794" Subject: Re: The Way I Built and Operated an AOS Date: 25 Jun 91 08:50:06 PST Organization: Science Applications Int'l Corp./San Diego In article , emory!Dixie.Com!jgd@gatech. edu (John G. DeArmond) writes: > jim@equi.com (Jim Allard) writes: > Preface to comments: > Several years ago one other engineer and myself designed and built the > switching system for an AOS. The name will not be mentioned because > quite frankly I can't prove everything to legal standards that I'm > going to discuss. I will use this experience as the basis of my > comments. Nor will I provide any further technical details, as these > could be used to identify the AOS. Hmmm. I wonder if the rest of Mr. DeArmond's description (trapping access to LD carrier, faking operators) explains what happened to me on a trip across the US last September. I stopped in a hotel near Little Rock, Arkansas, and made a long distance call from my room. There was no way to get to AT&T by dialing (I know, I tried) so I called the hotel operator and asked for an AT&T operator. After some pauses, I got an operator which I "assumed" was AT&T and gave her my AT&T credit card number and completed the call. Upon checkout the next day I was given my room bill which included a charge for the long distance call I had made at some pretty exhorbitant rates. I explained to the person at the front desk that I had made the call through AT&T using my own credit card and that I wouldn't pay them (the motel) for the call as well. I assumed that they had just timed the call and had billed me a flat per-minute rate automatically assuming that I used their long distance carrier. They took the charge off the bill without too much arguing. However, I never received a bill from AT&T for that call. Mark Jenkins | My views do not necessarily match yours. Science Applications International Corporation ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #491 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa07726; 27 Jun 91 3:49 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa10615; 27 Jun 91 2:00 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa30083; 27 Jun 91 0:46 CDT Date: Thu, 27 Jun 91 0:18:23 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #492 BCC: Message-ID: <9106270018.ab29402@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 27 Jun 91 00:18:08 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 492 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Major Outage in MD/DC/VA [Lloyd W. Taylor] C&P Not Having a Good Day [Timothy G. Smith] Big Outage in Bell Atlantic Area Wednesday [Bob Langford] Problems in C&P-Land [Bill Berbenich] Washington DC Area Phone Problems [Bruce Oneel] PacBell Problems in Southern California Also [Gary L. Crum] C&P Telephone Outage Affects Millions [Sean Williams] C&P Phone Service Interupption Wednesday - Questions [Andrew R. D'Uva] C&P Outage: What's the Story? [Charlie Mingo] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Lloyd W. Taylor" Subject: Major Outage in MD/DC/VA Reply-To: "Lloyd W. Taylor" Organization: Johns Hopkins University Date: Wed, 26 Jun 91 17:34:44 GMT A major outage has occurred in the MD/DC/VA area, apparently due to a software malfunction. No calls can be originated from telephones in this area, but calls coming from outside are properly handled. More info will be forthcoming as it becomes available. Lloyd Taylor Telecomm/Networking Manger Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Lab Laurel, MD [Moderator's Note: Actually, reports have been coming in here all day today, and this issue of the Digest is devoted entirely to the episode, along with mention of a coincidental (?) problem in California. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Jun 91 14:20:50 EDT From: "Timothy G. Smith - Special Projects" Subject: C&P Not Having a Good Day I suspect that you have already heard about this but in case you haven't ... C&P is having major problems today. It is an interesting failure mode. Local calls that don't originate and terminate on the same switch for the most part fail -- they result in a fast busy. Long distance calls seem to work fine. E911 is working. 411 and 611 seem to be OK also. Our leased lines (T1s and 56k circuits) in our Vienna (Northern VA) and Columbia (MD) office all seem to be unaffected. I can send email, read news, and make LD calls. However I can't pick up the phone and call my customers who are ten miles away. My handheld cellular can talk to the cell and complete LD and toll free calls but can't complete local calls. The radio says that as many as seven states are affected (I know of MD, VA, and Washington DC). The radio also says that C&P thinks it is some sort of major computer failure. No kidding! It will be interesting to see what happens. tim ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Jun 91 17:05 EDT From: Bob Langford Subject: Big Outage in Bell Atlantic Area Wednesday This just came to me via E-mail here at VCU in Richmond, VA: FROM: [our internal telecomunications department] DATE: June 26, 1991 SUBJECT: Telephone System Difficulties REF: Bell Atlantic System Bell Atlantic, the parent company of C&P Telephone, is experiencing difficulty with a computer system, Signalling System Seven (SS7), in the Washington area. As a result, telephone company SS7 supported central offices can not communicate throughout Bell Atlantic areas (New Jersey to Virginia). This means that state Centrex users can not dial outside and reach a telephone number supported by a SS7 central office. The problem appears to be limited to the dialing of most, but not all, local calls. Intra-Centrex, calls to non-SS7 central offices, long distance (dial 9 +) and "on-network" SCATS calls are not being affected in most cases. Telecommunications remains in touch with C&P, however local Richmond C&P officials do not know when this problem will be resolved. A similar problem occurred in January, 1990, impacting the entire AT&T network for many hours. Do not call Telecommunications, TRMC, or C&P to report this problem. It has been well reported and is now being broadcast by the media. [The SCATS network is a state government network that is at least partly independent of the regular phone network, and covers most of the state offices around the state.] [Forwarded by Bob Langford, MCV/VCU Academic Computing, langford@ruby.vcu.edu] ------------------------------ From: bill@fisher.eedsp.gatech.edu Subject: Problems in C&P-Land Date: Wed, 26 Jun 91 19:20:00 EDT Reply-To: bill@eedsp.gatech.edu The following is presented verbatim from an AP dispatch. APn 06/26 1838 Phone Outage WASHINGTON (AP) -- Costly and frustrating telephone service disruptions plagued millions of homes and offices in the nation's capital and three nearby states Wednesday and officials blamed computer malfunction. Government agencies appeared to be faring better than private homes and businesses. The White House said it felt no major impact and added that in a pinch President Bush could get through to any telephone in the country on special high-priority lines. But Bell Atlantic said 6.7 million telephone lines in Washington, Maryland, Virginia and parts of West Virginia were hit with service disruptions. Jay Grossman, a spokesman for Bell Atlantic, said the problem affected most local calls and left outbound long-distance service sporadic. He said inbound calls appeared to be functioning normally. The disruption occurred about 11:40 a.m. EDT while workers for Bell Atlantic's Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Co. in Baltimore were working on a computer that controlled the distribution of traffic in the calling network. Backup systems that were supposed to reroute calls in the event of a breakdown also malfunctioned. C&P is a subsidiary of Philadelphia-based Bell Atlantic, one of seven regional phone companies created by the 1984 breakup of the Bell System. A disruption in the C&P system would not extend outside the mid-Atlantic states that Bell Atlantic serves. At early evening, officials said they were still not certain when service would be restored. "The network has come back up temporarily and then collapsed in places," said Michel Daley, a C&P spokesman. The disruption forced people to improvise. When office telephones malfunctioned, some workers tried the pay phones on the street. "This is just terrible," said Dee Sibley, who works for a Washington legal firm. "We rely so heavily on the telephone to do our business. Right now I'm standing here at a pay phone returning calls from clients, some of whom we're working on important business for." Joseph Deoudes, vice president and owner of District Courier Services Inc. in Washington, said telephone problems "paralyzed" his business. "It's really rough," he said. "I'm not making any money today." He said the business normally gets 500 to 600 calls for courier services daily but had received only about 30 on Wednesday. He said he had issued walkie-talkies owned by his company to several of his busiest customers but added that more troubles on Thursday would lead to layoffs. "I have 15 couriers sitting here now and if it's like this at ten o'clock tomorrow I'm sending most of them home," he said. He said two weeks of troubles could put him out of business. Communication by fax, which has become a mainstay of Washington life, slowed to a crawl. Eric Birn of the public relations firm David Apter & Associates found that he had to resort to the ways of the past. "Because of today's phone fiasco through D.C., we're sending you this the old fashion way -- by foot," he wrote in a message accompanying an announcement of a news conference. Many businesses that rely on the telephone were hurting. Leighton Johnson, who works at a downtown branch of Domino's Pizza, said that "business is definitely slower than it usually is this time of the day." Calls between the White House, Pentagon and other agencies were not affected by the outage. Nor were calls to the emergency 911 lines. At the White House, a few difficulties were encountered. But overall, officials said, there was little impact. "We never had a problem with our phone system," said White House spokesman Gary Foster. He said that the White House also had the capability of making a phone call to a specific phone in the affected areas "in an emergency." State Department officials also said they were having no problem. They said they were relying on the department's internal five-digit dialing system for local calls and that long-distance seemed unimpaired. But two State Department officials caught on Capitol Hill with an urgent message for their office tried in vain to break through, first on congressional phones, then on a cellular phone. Finally, they had to hail a cab for the 20-block ride to Foggy Bottom to deliver the message in person. The computer system that malfunctioned had been in place for about two years. Ironically, the company's older equipment continued to operate properly, officials said. "The system is almost entirely computerized," Grossman said. Asked whether sabotage was suspected, Daley said, "I would think not ... that would surprise us all if it was." ------------ Ironically or perhaps coincidentally, PacTel had some similar problems in the San Diego area, also on Wednesday. A buggy generic? Anyone know the real story? Bill Berbenich, School of EE, DSP Lab | Telephone: +1-404-894-3134 Georgia Tech, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 | uucp: ...!{backbones}!gatech!eedsp!bill | Group 3 fax: +1-404-894-8363 Internet: bill@eedsp.gatech.edu | or: +1-404-853-9171 [Moderator's Note: A message later in this issue discusses the problems going on at the same time in California. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Jun 91 16:44:16 EDT From: Bruce Oneel Subject: Washington DC Area Phone Problems This is from a WTOP 1500 News report at 16:30 EDT. Not an exact quote. The Washington DC area phone switching system is out with over six million callers affected. Please don't call 411 because they are swamped with calls. Local C&P officials have no idea what the problem is and nothing can be done about it until the problem is determined. Repair people are currently sorting through a telephone switch which is basically a large computer in North West DC but still no problem has been determined nor is it known when repairs will start. Customers over a seven state area are affected. A bit later they talked to a representive from Cellular One, the local cellular phone carrier, who said that C1 to C1 calls would work, but that was it. The only two other data points is our local (Goddard/NASA) phone people call it a computer crash and my ITT/Metromedia 950 number continues to work for (local only was tested) calls. When I use 950 the calls go through just fine and people have no problem recieving them, just making them. My first knowledge of the problem came around 13:00 EDT. More as I find out more. bruce ------------------------------ From: "Gary L. Crum" Subject: PacBell Problems in Southern California Also Date: 26 Jun 91 20:22:11 GMT Organization: University of Southern California For several hours there has been no dial tone at one location, area code 213 (southern California), and calls to the operator from another location where I can get a dial tone are routed to a "capacity exceeded" recording. Is anyone else having problems like this today (26-Jun-1991)? I didn't hear anything about it on television news when I checked. Gary ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Jun 91 03:41 GMT From: Sean Williams <0004715238@mcimail.com> Subject: C&P Telephone Outage Affects Millions Off the newswire... CHESAPEAKE AND POTOMAC TELEPHONE REPORTS SERVICE DISRUPTION IN MIDATLANTIC PHILADELPHIA (15:29 Wed JUNE 26) PR NEWSWIRE - Local telephone service provided by the Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Companies in Washington, D.C., Maryland, Virginia, and parts of West Virginia have been disrupted. A service failure in Baltimore, apparently during modifications to the signal control system, is the apparent cause. Local service has been disrupted since 11:40 a.m. today. Inbound long-distance calling to these areas does not appear to be affected. Outbound long-distance calling from these areas is partially affected. 911 Emergency service may be affected in some areas. Bell Atlantic cellular service is also partially affected. Restoration of service is underway. It is requested that calls in and out of affected areas be restricted to emergency calls only. ---------- [Note: I was just watching TV 45's news at 10, and they reported that service has been mostly restored. They also noted that seven million customers were affected during the outage. TV 45 said that calls within one exchange were able to be completed, but calls between two exchanges could not be. (They showed a reporter dialing a number serviced by a different exchange via a speakerphone, and he received a reorder tone.) Technicians will be working throughout the night to get service back to normal.] Sean E. Williams | seanwilliams@mcimail.com Spectrum Telecommunications | Have a nice day! PO Box 227 | <> Duncannon, PA 17020-0227 | voicemail: +1 717 957 8127 ------------------------------ From: "Andrew R. D'Uva" Date: Wed, 26 Jun 91 21:28:05 EDT Subject: C&P Phone Service Interruption Wednesday - Questions I'm sure that a few of the telecom readers are familiar with the service outage which affected C&P telephone customers in (at least) Washington, D.C. and Virginia on Wednesday. I have a few questions concerning what happened, and I hoped some of you telecom experts could fill me in on why the network behaved as it did. First of all, my exchange is 703/525. I have no idea what kind of switch this is (anyone?) but when connections are established, there is a definite "click" when the call starts ringing. Call waiting and forward-on-busy/no answer are both available here. During the outage calls could be placed to other phones in the 703/525 exchange without problem, and calls originating on long distance carriers could be made and received. Dial tone took from 20-60 seconds. Before the dial tone, it sounded as though the phone had been taken off-hook for an extended period of time (warbling noise, the same as when I receive a call and the calling party has disconnected). Calls to other exchanges were met with: a) A new dial tone, which could be dialed on. b) A fast busy signal c) A switch to the "warbling" hang-up noise, followed by b. But here's the question. Before the fast busy signal, there was a break, as if the circuit was switched out, waiting for a connection. In fact, making long distance or 800 calls resulted in a one or two second of "disconnect" before connecting with the LD carrier. Just what was going on here? It seemed as if the network was able to connect to LD carriers, but very "slowly", if that makes sense. Also interesting was the fact that calls to the operator, which rarely completed , would result in the operator being able to place ANY call. How come the operator could complete the calls? Were the trunking arrangements different for the operator? Finally, calling 1 + Access Code + 202 + [normally local number] resulting in the call completing to Washington, D.C. over the LDC's circuits. I can't wait to get the bill for these! Shouldn't these calls have been disallowed? After all, they are local calls. Well, enough questions. I await the answers! Andrew D'Uva ard@ctcg.COM {well-connected}!uupsi!ctcg!ard ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Jun 91 00:02:43 -0400 From: Charlie Mingo Subject: C&P Outage: What's the Story? I presume that by the time you read this, everyone will have heard of the service outage in Bell Atlantic territory which caused six million subscribers in seven states to lose local service for the afternoon of June 26th. (Supposedly some new software in a Baltimore switch caused the CCN7 signalling between local CO's to misbehave.) In spite of the local service outage, people could still place (and receive) long-distance calls, and the local TV station was advising viewers to use MCI's access code (10222) to call local numbers via "long distance". I tried it and it worked, but I wondered if it was legal for MCI to carry intra-LATA calls. Didn't John Higdon mention that all IXC's (other than ThriftyTel) should reject intra-LATA calls, or does this restriction apply only to AT&T? Note that MCI would reject local calls within my own area code (202), but would connect me to local numbers in 703 and 301. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #492 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa09708; 27 Jun 91 4:55 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab08327; 27 Jun 91 3:12 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab10615; 27 Jun 91 2:00 CDT Date: Thu, 27 Jun 91 1:37:27 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #493 BCC: Message-ID: <9106270137.ab03781@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 27 Jun 91 01:37:19 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 493 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Kidnapped by Goons from the Mob! (DeArmond Builds AOS) [Larry Lippman] Clarification to Earlier Message About Len Rose [Bill Kennedy] Problems With Meridian 1 and 2400 Baud Modems [Paul Lutt] Highly Remote "Extensions" on Mitel [Jim Hickstein] Wanted: TELEXPAND Manuals [David C. Troup] Ayn Rand on Privacy [Donald E. Kimberlin] Emergency Calls in Iowa [Brian D. McMahon] Yet More Telecom in WSJ [Will Martin] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Kidnapped by Goons from the Mob! (DeArmond Builds AOS) Date: 26 Jun 91 23:25:43 EDT (Wed) From: Larry Lippman In a recent article John G. DeArmond (emory!Dixie.Com!jgd@gatech.edu) spins an amusing yarn about his alleged involvement with an AOS operation. Unfortunately, Mr. DeArmond left out some of the *best* parts of his alleged adventure -- which he told in a somewhat different fashion to readers of misc.jobs.contract about a year ago. So as to not deprive Telecom readers of this additional entertainment, I have reproduced this previous article below. I'll add a few comments at the end. $$> >From sunybcs!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!emory! rsiatl!jgd Thu Jul 19 22:14:43 EDT 1990 $$> Path: sunybcs!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!emory! rsiatl!jgd $$> >From: jgd@rsiatl.UUCP (John G. DeArmond) $$> Newsgroups: misc.jobs.contract $$> Subject: Re: Timebombs (was Sueing your client for collection) $$> Message-ID: <3204@rsiatl.UUCP> $$> Date: 15 Jul 90 07:55:15 GMT $$> References: <25191@bellcore.bellcore.com> <3150@rsiatl.UUCP> <23411@boulder.Colorado.EDU> <1990Jul13.193639.22253@ecn.purdue.edu> $$> Distribution: misc $$> Organization: Radiation Systems, Inc. (a thinktank, motorcycle, car and gun works facility) $$> Lines: 66 $$> [some non-relevant text deleted] $$> $$> We had a client for which we were implementing an operator-assisted $$> long distance switch. We were subbing through a prime contractor $$> who had a contract with the client that would pay us a royality based $$> on the generated revenue from the system. It was a sweetheart deal $$> for all involved and relations could not have been better. We $$> were paid at the end of every week with checks that never bounced. $$> We were working in office space subleased from the client - a $$> necessity in order to be close to the switch and trunks. $$> $$> Just as we were turning up the first system, the founders of this $$> startup phone company sold the company. The new owner was, shall $$> we say, unsavory. He decided that he did not want to pay royalities $$> or allow us to own the program -which we had the right to. So he $$> addressed the problem in the usual mob manner - he sent some goons over $$> to kidnap us while they stole our equipment and software. $$> $$> Sure we sued them and pressed criminal charges. But in America today, $$> money is justice (and don't ever forget that.) He managed to have the $$> criminal charges quietly dropped and the civil case, though still $$> technically on the docket now 5 years later, is effectively dead. $$> He simply out-moneyed us. We got nothing and he got to use our $$> system. We kept our source code encrypted so he did not get that, though $$> at one point, he almost had a judge convinced to issue an injuction $$> to force us to reveal the password. Think of the intellectual property $$> implications of that move. $$> $$> What he got was a system that worked and would carry the load for $$> a sufficient period of time to have his programmers reverse-engineer $$> it. If we had included a timebomb in the system from the very $$> first, he would have been denied the use of the stolen system and $$> would have had to bargan with us instead of blungeoning us with $$> lawyers. $$> $$> It is unfortunate that human nature makes people like you take the $$> moral high ground without having ever experienced the other side. $$> Until you actually do have to face a lose-lose situation, $$> you really can't predict all outcomes or appreciate how something $$> like a timebomb, which you might not like, is vastly better than $$> the alternative. $$> $$> John $$> $$> -- $$> John De Armond, WD4OQC | We can no more blame our loss of freedom on congress $$> Radiation Systems, Inc. | than we can prostitution on pimps. Both simply $$> Atlanta, Ga | provide broker services for their customers. $$> {emory,uunet}!rsiatl!jgd| - Dr. W Williams | **I am the NRA** ------------- By golly, what a tale! Mr. DeArmond was "kidnapped by goons from the mob"! It is also amusing to note that in the previous telling of this tale Mr. DeArmond relates it as a "sweetheart deal" because he would allegedly stand to receive a percentage of the revenue. Not exactly the same condemnation of AOS fraud in the earlier version of the tale, is there? > Several years ago one other engineer and myself designed and built the > switching system for an AOS. The name will not be mentioned because > quite frankly I can't prove everything to legal standards that I'm > going to discuss. I will use this experience as the basis of my > comments. Nor will I provide any further technical details, as these > could be used to identify the AOS. Why the secrecy? If the story is true, then the alleged criminal court proccedings and alleged civil court proceedings are a matter of public record. Surely it would bolster Mr. DeArmond's credibility if he were to furnish a few more identifying details -- after all this could be THE AOS ADVENTURE STORY OF THE DECADE! Wanna bet there are no further details, because, well, there just may not have been any ... Larry Lippman @ Recognition Research Corp. VOICE: 716/688-1231 {boulder, rutgers, watmath}!ub!kitty!larry FAX: 716/741-9635 [note: ub=acsu.buffalo.edu] uunet!/ \aerion!larry [Moderator's Note: I was amused by the several notes I received saying I was wrong for calling him a Naughty Word, and I'll admit that was sort of out of place here ... but it really was a wild story a year ago, and the most recent incantation was pretty hysterical also. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Bill Kennedy Subject: Clarification to Earlier Article on Len Rose Date: Tue, 25 Jun 91 22:11:09 CDT Patrick, I wanted to let this sit until the temperature got back to normal but I might be able to capture the attention of the rational people with this. It's short and to the point. There have been a lot of pyrotechnics in this and other groups about the Len Rose situation. I started a vigorous exchange of articles with my dcom.telcom contribution late last week. Let me clarify a couple of points, maybe it will comb down some hackles. My remarks about Len's role in the Steve Jackson Games raid were bogus, unfortunate, and spoken from ignorance. They were a violation of my own rule, i.e. don't mix what you know to be true with what you believe to be true. What a dummy to lead off with what I believed to be true followed by what I know to be true. I'm being barbequed for it, I did it, I was wrong. In such an emotionally charged issue as this it's easy to become confused about what one is and is not angry or upset about. After some off-line discussions with people who feel as strongly (and differently) as I do about this, let me share what we could agree on; me with them, them with me. Please don't try to mix one point with the other, they are mutually exclusive and everyone might not agree with one, the other or both. I do think that it's a fair summary: 1) Ignoring any legal, criminal, or civil rights implications, Len Rose did some things that resulted in people being hurt. Some people think that he isn't a nice person. 2) Ignoring whether or not anyone thinks that Len Rose is a nice person or believes that he did anything that resulted in people being hurt, he was trampled, roughshod, by federal agencies and their employees, and his civil rights were probably violated. Please look at those two issues separately and don't try to mix the immiscible. Some of us believe one, others believe the other, as long as they are kept separate, I believe both. My dcom.telcom contribution (aside from the SJG gaffe) intended to say #1, but a lot of people got it mixed with #2. The mixture is explosive. Bill Kennedy internet bill@ssbn.WLK.COM or ssbn!bill@attmail.COM uucp {att,cs.utexas.edu,pyramid!daver}!ssbn.wlk.com!bill ------------------------------ From: Paul Lutt Subject: Problems with Meridian 1 and 2400 Baud Modems Organization: John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc., Everett, WA Date: Tue, 25 Jun 91 16:56:35 GMT We upgraded our Northern Telecom PBX last August and have experienced problems with 2400 baud modem communication ever since. Our current configuration is: Northern Telecom, Meridian 1 Option 71, DC Model Software 1211, Release 15.57 The main problem is that 2400 baud is almost unusable. Lots of suprious characters and noise. Our users have pretty much given up on 2400 baud and have either retreated back to 1200 baud or gotten Telebit modems to use with our in-bound Telebit lines. Note that even Telebit modems in PEP mode are affected. There are times when the connection seems to die for 30 seconds or so. It appears that the Telebits are retraining during this period. Has anyone else experienced similar problems? We are working with the folks that installed and maintain the equipment (GTE), but we don't seem to be making any progress in solving the problem. Thanks in advance. Paul Lutt Domain: pwl@tc.fluke.COM Voice: +1 206 356 5059 UUCP: uunet!fluke!pwl Snail: John Fluke Mfg. Co. / P.O. Box 9090 / Everett, WA 98206-9090 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Jun 91 17:57:13 PDT From: Jim Hickstein Subject: Highly Remote "Extensions" on Mitel I have a Mitel Superswitch, and I want to get it to do something special, and I haven't been able to figure out how to ask it. Teradyne has a few people at this facility (San Jose), and we make many calls per day to the home office in Boston, which recently went to DID (or its modern equivalent). Finally, I can program my Superset 4 with the fully-qualified phone numbers of the handful of people I talk to routinely, without having to dial the "main" number and wait (and pray) and dial an extension. Now that this is possible, I want to set things up so that I can dial an "extension" (2xxx or 3xxx) on my phone, and have it somehow prepend the area code and exchange and hand it to a CO loop. (It already buffers the entire number and outdials it, so this should be possible.) No way, say the few people I have asked who ought to know. But I think they probably have a vested interest in not having to take the trouble to figure it out. I have no knowledge of the switch itself, or any apparent access to its features: I have to pay some moron $100/hour to come and do adds&changes (which I have managed to avoid doing so far). Note that this is the INVERSE of the usual "off-premises extension". Is this possible without spending a lot of money? Is it possible at all? Jim Hickstein, Teradyne/Attain, San Jose CA, (408) 434-0822 FAX -0252 jxh@attain.teradyne.com ...!{decwrl!teda,apple}!attain!jxh ------------------------------ From: "David C. Troup" Subject: Wanted : TELEXPAND Manuals Date: 25 Jun 91 20:42:35 GMT Organization: Visual Technology I'm looking for a manual for the Telexpand "System 1" phone system. It's a small, modem sized box with led's on the front panel. If anyone has one that I can get photocopied, or can borrow, I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks. David C. Troup dtroup@carroll1.cc.edu 414.524.6811 Visual-><-Technology ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Jun 91 11:43 GMT From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <0004133373@mcimail.com> Subject: Ayn Rand on Privacy Although I'm not typically an Ayn Rand syncophant, she did have something concise and cogent to say about the Digest's several threads on matters of privacy: "Civilization is the progress toward a scoiety of privacy." Depending on how you read those several threads, we're either working like the dickens on building a civilization, or we're busy destroying the one we had. [Moderator's Note: I am ambivilent toward Ms. Rand's philosophy, known as 'objectivism'. When I was in high school in 1957, her (then) new book 'Atlas Shrugged' was just being published and she was on a tour promoting the book. As captain of the debate team, I convinced the debate teacher Arthur Erickson to convince the principal to invite her to speak at a school assembly. Afterward, Arthur took Ms. Rand and I to dinner on the way to getting her back to Ohare Airport for a trip to wherever she was going next. I remember very little from that night 34 years ago except that after dinner we sat there smoking cigarettes; Ms. Rand with her cigarette holder which she waved about from time to time to emphasize something, Arthur with a Viceroy hanging out of his lips, and me with a Pall Mall to show I was just as sophisticated and glamorous as my adult friends. One of her comments sticks in my mind: staring intently at me, she said, "You are such a smart, intelligent boy! You are too intelligent to believe in Gott! Why do you believe in Gott?" And she got a tremendous laugh when Arthur replied that even confirmed athiests like himself enjoyed reading the {Christian Science Monitor} every day. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Jun 91 8:30:16 cdt From: "McMahon,Brian D" Subject: Emergency Calls in Iowa In the fair state of Ioway, the laws according to my GTE Grinnell/ Malcom directory (0.25 inches thick, including yellow pages 8-) are: 727.5 Obstructing Emergency Telephone Calls An emergency call is any call to a fire department or police department for aid, or a call for medical aid or ambulance service, when human life or property is in jeopardy and the prompt summoning of aid is essential. Any person who fails to relinquish any telephone or telephone line which the person is using when informed that such phone or line is needed for an emergency call commits a simple misdemeanor. 727.6 Falsely Claiming Emergency Any person who secures the use of a telephone or telephone line by falsely stating that such telephone or line is needed for an emergency call commits a simple misdemeanor. Simple, understandable, and generally applicable. I wonder what got into our legislators? 8-) Brian McMahon Grinnell College Computer Services Grinnell, Iowa 50112 USA Voice: +1 515 269 4901 Fax: +1 515 269 4936 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Jun 91 10:03:03 CDT From: Will Martin Subject: Yet More Telecom in WSJ [I wish these people would put all the telecom stuff in one issue per week instead of dribbling it out some each day... :-)] On the front page of the "B" section of the 26 June '91 {Wall Street Journal} are two related articles on cellular fraud, countermeasures against it, and the encryption issue. I doubt if most Telecomers would be surprised by any of the info in the first, except maybe about the phreaked cell-phones with the plastic explosive inside to thwart investigators. .. (Might make you a bit wary when you get out the screwdriver to look inside that cell-phone you picked up at the flea market ... :-) More common was a spring-loaded magnet which was set to automatically erase the hacked chip when the case was opened. [I thought EPROMS needed UV to be erased; are some magnetism-wipable?] The cell-phone-security article on eavesdropping and encryption to counteract it was refreshing in that it dwelt on the technical issues, and did not make the common and false assumption that legislation was a valid anti-eavesdropping approach. Regards, Will wmartin@stl-06sima.army.mil OR wmartin@st-louis-emh2.army.mil ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #493 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa02677; 28 Jun 91 3:17 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa03625; 28 Jun 91 1:45 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa23346; 28 Jun 91 0:37 CDT Date: Fri, 28 Jun 91 0:22:41 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #494 BCC: Message-ID: <9106280022.ab11080@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 28 Jun 91 00:22:29 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 494 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Telephone Service With Non-Correspondent Nations [Donald E. Kimberlin] Official Phone Tapping in UK - 35,000 Last Year [Pat Cain] Telescam: Be Careful Who You Send Checks to [Patricia A. Dunkin] Executive TeleCard for International Calls [Carol Springs] Esoteric Telephone Stuff For Sale [mka] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Donald E. Kimberlin <0004133373@mcimail.com> Subject: Telephone Service With Non-Correspondent Nations Date: 26 Jun 91 A while back, we had some thread here about how international phone liaisons are carried on; in particular with nations not friendly to the U.S. One case in point was how, some 25 years ago, Cuba was cut off until they came to terms that made all calls paid for on the U.S. end. Some correspondents queried me personally if the "Cuban deal" still existed, freezing funds in the U.S. while conducting international business directly with non-diplomatically recognized nations. AT&T seems to indeed, have been maintaining the "Cuban Deal" for the past 25 years, and wants to expand such a relation to Vietnam, as indicated in the press release following: "FOR RELEASE: TUESDAY, JUNE 25, 1991 " WASHINGTON -- An AT&T executive, citing a "black market" in high-cost, low-quality telephone service between the United States and Vietnam, today urged the government to lift its l6-year-old ban on direct communications service between the two countries. "Dwight Jasmann, president and managing director of AT&T Communications Pacific, Inc., Hong Kong, told a hearing of joint House Foreign Affairs Subcommittees that unlicensed operators are circumventiwg the U. S. governmYnt's economic embargo against Vietnam by providing telephone and facsimile services through third countries. These include Canada, Japan, France, Soutt Korea, Hong Kong and Australia. "Jasmann said the unlicensed operators are providing inferior service and charging as much as $80 for a 10-minute call, more than double the normal cost of calling to other countries in the region. "He said lifting the ban on telephone service could be accomplished immediately under current government regulations and that doing so would provide economical and high quality service for 700,000 Vietnamese Americans as well as others wanting to communicate with Vietnam. "Jasmann said AT&T has discussed with Vietnamese telephone authorities an arrangement whereby money due Vietnam from reopening direct phone links "would be deposited by AT&T into a blocked account under U. S. jurisdiction, in accordance with U. S. law." He said the account would be remain blocked "until the United States government institutes policy changes toward more normal relations with Vietnam, and decides to allow such funds to be released." "Jasmann said the arrangement would be similar to one under which the government since 1968 has allowed AT&T to provide legal direct telephone service to Cuba despite a long-standing U. S. economic embargo against that country. "`No funds flow to Fidel Castro, but millions of Cuban-Americans can do what Vietnamese-Americans cannot -- place a simple telephone call to their relatives back home at a fair and reasonable price,' Jasmann said. "He added: `In short, the ban on telephone service is not accomplishing the intended effect of the U. S. sanctions against Vietnam. The ban creates a black market which is technologically impossible to stop and expensive to police. If direct telephone service between the United States and Vietnam were established, families could call home directly, profiteering at the expense of the Vietnamese-American community would end, and the U.S. would succeed in bringing under its jurisdiction a major source of hard currency currently flowing into Vietnam.' " Jasmann cited recent experience in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe as demonstrating `the positive political impact of international telecommunications connections which provide vital information about the outside world.' He noted that the United States has sanctioned direct communications with close allies, adversaries and even countries with which it `has the deepest philosophical and political differences.' "Lifting the ban on direct telephone service to and from Vietnam, Jasmann said, `can only strengthen the policy of the United States to make Vietnam a free and reliable partner in the international community.' "Vietnam is only one of three countries in the world that United States residents cannot call. The others are Cambodia and North Korea. AT&T provides service to 271 countries and areas, 177 of which can be reached without the assistance of a telephone operator." ------------------------------ Subject: Official Phone Tapping in UK - 35,000 Last Year From: Pat Cain Date: Wed, 26 Jun 91 20:20:35 Organization: Sideways Bulletin Board, Lower Hutt, New Zealand. While in the local library recently, I noticed this article in {The Guardian Weekly} newspaper of 23 June, 1991 about phone tapping in the UK and France by authorities. I'm not sure if the ethics of telephone tapping are appropriate for comp.dcom.telecom, but this is an interesting article nevertheless. Maybe I'm just paranoid, but computers make tapping and tracing phone calls a somewhat easier. I think more controls are needed to ensure that tappings are being done for the right reasons. (In New Zealand only two warrants were issued to the Security Intelligence Service for tapping lines last year). ------------------- PHONE TAPPING HITS RECORD 35,000 A YEAR TELEPHONE tapping in Britain has reached record levels with an estimated 35,000 lines being tapped in a year and increasing numbers of engineers engaged in tapping. The revelations have led to calls for a select committee on telephone surveillance and for the security services to be made accountable. Ten years ago the 464 warrants authorised by the Home Secretary, the Foreign Secretary, and the Northern Ireland and Scottish Secretaries were serviced by 40 engineers. Last year 539 tapping warrants were executed for the Home Secretary and the Scottish Secretary by 70 engineers. However, the number of warrants bears no direct relation to the number of taps, because many lines can be tapped to target one person. The Government gives no figures for Northern Ireland and has stopped disclosing taps authorised by the Foreign Secretary. A new high-security installation at Oswestry, Shropshire, which will be operational by the mid-1990s, will make tapping by computer much easier. At present, BT tappers, known internally as "secret squirrels", make connections at telephone exchanges late at night. It is believed that three out of four taps are security related. Calls on target lines are relayed to a secure reception centre at BT's Gresham Street headquarters, London, which can handle thousands of calls. John McWilliam, MP for Blaydon, and a former telephone planning engineer, said last week that a House of Commons select committee should be set up with people who understnd the system to monitor the growth of tapping. "In a democracy, people are entitled to privacy as long as they are not threatening that democracy," he said. "There's too much complacency about the granting of warrants." Andrew Puddephatt, general secretary of Liberty (formerly the National Council for Civil Liberties), deplored the increase in surveillance, saying the system was "wide open to abuse". "We have long been concerned with the escalating surveillance of members of the British public engaging in perfectly lawful activities," he said. "We are also concerned that there is no effective accountability." The French Prime Minister, Edith Cresson, last week proposed a legal code to regulate state telephone tapping, saying the practice was wreathed in mystery. Police unions estimate between 10,000 and 50,000 "administrative" and "wild", or unofficial, taps are carried out each year. Television cameras and members of parliament were given rare access this week to the state's listening centre, a bunker under a Paris boulevard. "Judicial" phone taps ordered by French courts under an established procedure are not at issue. But civil rights organisations and the European Court of Human Rights have condemned "administrative" taps ordered by the primeminister and kept secret. ------------------ {Guardian Weekly} is a weekly compilation of articles from {The Guardian}, {The Washington Post} and {Le Monde}. [Any typos are mine.] Pat Cain PO Box 2060, Wellington, NZ. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Jun 91 20:15:04 EDT From: Patricia A Dunkin Subject: Telescam: Be Careful Who You Send Checks To The guy in AT&T Corporate Security to whom I reported the following said that it sounds like a variant on a recent popular sort of fraud, where the nasties get your checking account number and put through a bank draft for more of your money than you planned to give them. Yesterday at work I got a call from a computer that claimed to be "The Award Notification Center" (no other identification) and telling me to call 312-733-7000 between 9AM and 9PM Eastern within 24 hours to claim my "award." The recording also gave me a claim number, B44. Knowing it *had* to be bogus, I decided to check it out. (Good for laughs, anyway.) A human answered and gave me her first name (still no identification of the company) and then started to ask me for my name. When I tried to get her to tell me what company she was working for, she began to sound defensive, repeating *identical* words several times -- she must have been reading from the script for handling-callers- who-ask-too-many-questions -- then put me on hold, came back, (obviously) read off another script describing the trip for two to Hawaii that was my "award," told me to call 312-988-8191 to claim it, said "Aloha," and hung up before I could say another word. The second number was answered by a recording that told me roughly the same thing the human did concerning the trip I had "won" to Hawaii, instructed me to send a self-addressed stamped envelope and a check for $12.95 to a Chicago address, and assured me that the travel office fees would not exceed one Y-class fare to Hawaii. That must have been the punch line. It seemed likely that AT&T Security would be interested -- after all, I did get the call at work, and sleazy telemarketers don't make carriers look good. The security person I spoke with was friendly and helpful, and explained as mentioned above that getting hold of checking account numbers for unauthorized purpo$e$ might be the real goal of all this. He also said that the IRS and other legal authorities are interested in this sort of nonsense and promised to pass the information on to them. Oh, and they never did ask for the claim number -- if someone else wants to use it, I wouldn't object. :-) Pat Dunkin (pad@groucho.att.com) [Moderator's Note: Well here we go again, dear readers! This organization pops up from time to time, as readers of the 'Randy message' will recall. This time around, no further investigation is needed. We know *all about* this bunch, don't we! :) In case you are interested, I've heard nothig further from Randy in recent weeks. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Carol Springs Subject: Executive TeleCard for International Calls Date: Wed, 26 Jun 91 23:16:00 EDT The July issue of {Consumer Reports Travel Letter} contains an article called "New International Calling Card: Ducking Hotels' Long-Distance Gouge." The card, Executive TeleCard, can be used to call anywhere in the world from the following countries: Australia, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Hong Kong, Ireland, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Singapore, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom. It's also good for calling long distance *within* most of the countries named. The Executive Telecard folks provide toll-free and local numbers to access the service -- they try to maintain some sort of local number that isn't commonly blocked by hotels in a given area. A PIN entered from a touch-tone phone can cue the system to what language it needs to use to prompt you through the rest of the dialing process; operators are also available. Calls are billed to a regular charge card. The article doesn't say much about what the rates are like compared to, say, USA Direct, just that calls on Executive TeleCard are generally substantially cheaper than hotel-billed calls. Brief mention is made of the fact that Executive TeleCard works in the U.S. also, "in case you need to bypass the switchboard of a greedy domestic hotel that blocks access to your usual long-distance carrier." (Or maybe when your long distance carrier is blocking phone card calls to certain countries from certain numbers?) Some sort of message services are available, presumably similar to those AT&T is pushing (not very hard) these days. "Services such as Executive TeleCard and AT&T's USA Direct have grown up because overseas hotels commonly slap outrageous surcharges -- up to 500% -- on long-distance calls billed to guests' room phones." The article mentions the fact that the major long distance carriers in the U.S. all provide some ability to connect to U.S. operators from overseas, for no sign-up cost. In contrast, Executive TeleCard charges a $50/year fee to those who sign up directly. However, the ability to call between and within countries not one's own, at reasonable rates, might be worth that much to some travelers. And some charge cards provide Executive TeleCard as part of their regular benefits -- as do "some US calling cards" (which?). In the U.S., the enrollment number for Executive TeleCard is 800-950-3800. Carol Springs carols@world.std.com ------------------------------ From: mka Subject: Esoteric Telephone Stuff For Sale Date: 27 Jun 91 03:48:20 GMT Organization: Intelligent Systems Associates, Oklahoma City I have a bunch of strange telephone stuff for sale, much of which came from a boiler-room (the jerks who call to sell you stuff at dinner time) auction and a alarm company auction a few years ago. Also some flea-market stuff. I believe that all of it still works OK. Basically, I'll take any offer (best offer) on any of the items, as long as the price exceeds the value of my time to pack and send it. You must pay shipping for the method of your choice. Anything not sold will be given-away to whoever shows up to get it. These are odd things, and I suspect that most will end up in the dumpster, but what the heck ... 1 - 304 A/C antique desk telephone. this is the old, heavy, bakelite sort of phone. 1 - 2870 A1 30 number Touch-a-Matic auto-dialer for key, or 4A systems, or for a regular phone. will come with some instructions and wiring diagrams. 1 - phone speaker with volume control. 5 - "ding dong" ringers. these are the ringers that make that pleasant ding dong sound instead of a ring. 5 - single-number programmable dialers. these automatically dial a set number when the phone is taken off-hook. these are used in "ring-down" circuits, burglar alarms, after-hours phones, etc. 3 - Melco intercom modules or panels - for adding intercom capabilities to key systems. one module handles 9 stations, and the others handle 19 stations each. 1 - Code-a-Phone 976 call diverter. Kind of a call-forwarding system. 1 - Code-a-Phone 333 answering machine with remote playback. 2 - Teltone M106 telephone line security units. These go between the line and the modem (or whatever) and require that the caller enter a security code (programmable) from a touch-tone pad before connecting to the equipment. with instructions. 1 - Plantronics operator's headset with two jacks. 1 - 4A phone system. 4 line key system plus intercom, with two private lines, and all the options and features. includes manuals. Comes with four good phones, and two spares of unknown condition (got them at Goodwill). This should bring at least $100.00 + shipping, to be worth my trouble. 1 - complete set of Data Services References Handbooks (from 1983) and a nearly complete set of telephone systems handbooks. 15 manuals total. 1 - set of pole-climbing hooks and waist belt. for those closet linemen (or women) out there. 3 - "dumbbell" linesets - the telephones with clips and dials that phone installers hang from their belts. 1000 feet of 75 ohm coaxial cable (for TV/VCR use), new, on two spools. Mike Anderson uunet!sean!mka (405) 943-3123 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #494 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa25907; 29 Jun 91 3:48 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa12913; 29 Jun 91 2:12 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa20914; 29 Jun 91 1:01 CDT Date: Sat, 29 Jun 91 0:09:08 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #495 BCC: Message-ID: <9106290009.ab23901@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 29 Jun 91 00:08:41 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 495 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Important Changes in Sprint Plus Rates [Tony Davis] Re: Important Changes in Sprint Plus Rates [Steve Forrette] Re: Important Changes in Sprint Plus Rates [Sean Williams] Re: Important Changes in Sprint Plus Rates [Jiro Nakamura] Re: Pac*Bell Trivia [Jim Redelfs] Re: Fighting Telemarketers [Michael Schuster] Re: Speaking in Defense of ThriftyTel [Nick Sayer] Re: Is Cellular Phone Jamming Possible? [Ihor J Kinal] Re: Please Explain the Terms 'Hacker' and 'Phreaker' [Andy Sherman] Re: Where is the SLC-96 Power Supply? [Brian Daly] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tony Davis Subject: Re: Important Changes in Sprint Plus Rates Date: 26 Jun 91 03:38:05 GMT Reply-To: Tony Davis Organization: Brown University Department of Computer Science Another change that I haven't seen mentioned: Calling card calls no longer get the normal per minute rates. Now in addition to the calling card surcharge, the per minute rate is higher. Tony Davis ted@cs.brown.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Jun 91 02:07:00 -0700 From: Steve Forrette Subject: Re: Important Change in Sprint Plus Rates For all of you who are upset as I am about Sprint's recent change, and in particular how they didn't tell anyone beforehand, here's a number for someone at the Executive Offices who has been able to do things in the past. They told me last time that if I ever have a problem with Customer Service, to give them a call and they'll deal with it. This included things like getting the standard BS answers that we're all too familiar with. You can call them at (800) 347-8988. I spoke with Debbie Hardy last time, and she was able to help me just fine. Steve Forrette, forrette@cory.berkeley.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Jun 91 16:16 GMT From: Sean Williams <0004715238@mcimail.com> Subject: Re: Important Changes in Sprint Plus Rates Tad.Cook@ssc.uucp writes: > I checked with the Sprint operator, and to call anywhere in the USA > the night rate is 13 cents, and the evening rate is 14 cents. So with > 20% off that, I will pay 11.2 cents per minute during the evening, and > only 10.4 cents at night. Not bad. > How does this compare with similar plans from other carriers? MCI's PrimeTime Plan (sm) would be the competition to the Sprint service you have just described. PrimeTime is designed for people who make most of their long-distance calls in the evening or on the weekends. PrimeTime savings are in effect from 5pm to 8am on weekdays, all day Saturday and all day Sunday until 5pm, and then from 11pm Sunday until 8am Monday morning. The plan costs a minimum of $7.50 per month, which includes one free hour of calls during the plan hours (defined above). You also receive a 10% discount on calls outside the plan hours, which will be billed at MCI's normal "mileage- sensitive" rates. After the first free hour, you are billed only for the time you actually use. Additional hours are billed at $6.50 (about $0.1083 per minute). And you still receive the 10% discount outside of plan hours. Sean E. Williams | seanwilliams@mcimail.com Spectrum Telecommunications | Have a good day! PO Box 227 | <> Duncannon, PA 17020-0227 | voicemail +1 717 957 8127 ------------------------------ From: Jiro Nakamura Subject: Re: Important Changes in Sprint Plus Rates Organization: Shaman Consulting Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1991 01:10:02 GMT In article Tad.Cook@ssc.uucp writes: > I checked with the Sprint operator, and to call anywhere in the USA > the night rate is 13 cents, and the evening rate is 14 cents. So with > 20% off that, I will pay 11.2 cents per minute during the evening, and > only 10.4 cents at night. Not bad. With Reach Out America, the night/weekend rate is a steady $6.60 per hour. The ROA evening rate is 15% off the standard day rate. If you use ROA's 24hour plan, you get 25% off the standard day rate. For example: From Ithaca NY (607-277) to Palo Alto California (415-326) (AT&T does not have a set rate, it varies with "mileage", ut this is the most *expensive* it gets, domestic, I think). Time Period Standard (/min) Standard ROA Basic 24hr Wkd 8am-5pm 24c + 25c $14.99/hr $13.49 (22c) Wkd 5pm-11pm 14c +15c $8.99 $7.64 (12.7c) $6.74 (11.2c) Wkd 11pm-8am 13c +14c $8.39 $6.60 (11.0c) $6.60 (11.0c) Wknd 13c +14c $8.39 $6.60 (11.0c) $6.60 (11.0c) The cent figures in () are estimated over an hour. The monthly charge for ROA is $6.80. With that, you get one hour of night/weekend calls "free." The monthly charge for ROA-24 is $7.80 with an hour free. I am currently using ROA-24. It makes a lot of sense for me. I'm surprised to see that with it, AT&T is almost equal to Sprint+, witn a small difference of .2 cents. I personally like AT&T a lot. Jiro Nakamura jiro@shaman.com Shaman Consulting +1 607 277-1440 Voice/Fax/Data ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Jun 91 07:11:53 CST From: Jim Redelfs Subject: Re: Pac*Bell Trivia Reply-To: ivgate!macnet!jim.redelfs@uunet.uu.net Organization: Macnet Omaha John Higdon wrote: > [I have] ten lines that have individual drops, making the back of my > house look like Slum Alley. > I ordered five more residential lines... ...a Pac*Bell installation > supervisor has made a pre-field visit. [They intend to] install a > pair of 12-pair cables [and have] scheduled a full day to work on the > project. > [I was assigned] 266-4400! Not bad for an "out of the box" number, > eh? > And all of this in spite of the way I treat Pac*Bell in the Digest. > Just goes to show the right hand must not know what the left hand > does! Congratulations, John! It occurred to me that perhaps they DO know how you feel about them. They've tried poor (lousy?) service and it got them no where, so they are trying GOOD service for a change! If they successfully pull it off (do the job right) will it improve your opinion of them? Why don't they just BURY the whole mess? I believe that (if feasible) that wouldn't be much more expensive that replacing the existing rats nest with more aerial. As I recall, you've said there is, currently, a wide assortment of individual protectors. Have you requested an RJ21X interface w/amphenol connector? JR Tabby 2.2 MacNetOmaha(402)289-2899 Multitasking w/MacOrphans (1:285/14) ------------------------------ From: Michael Schuster Subject: Re: Fighting Telemarketers Date: Tue, 25 Jun 91 22:04:11 GMT Organization: PANIX - Public Access Unix Systems of NY In article wmartin@stl-06sima.army.mil (Will Martin) writes: > Telecom readers who dislike telemarketers should read the front-page > article on Robert Bulmash in the 24 June 91 {Wall Street Journal}. > The article even includes a sidebar of suggestions on the best > ways to discourage telemarketers from calling or how to cause > them the most inconvenience if they call. Could you post a summary? (within copyright guidelines, of course) Mike Schuster | -CIS: 70346,1745 -NY Public Access UNIX: schuster@panix.com | -MCI Mail, GENIE: -The Portal (R) System: schuster@cup.portal.com | MSCHUSTER ------------------------------ From: Nick Sayer Subject: Re: Speaking in Defense of ThriftyTel Date: 26 Jun 91 07:09:40 GMT Organization: The Duck Pond, Stockton, CA Our esteemed [Moderator's Note: While it is true Thrifty Tel's tactics are extreme, > and of questionable legality by USA standards, we should note that in > countries with 'neandrathal' schedules of punishment (i.e. Saudi > Arabia, where public floggings, beheadings, and amputation of body > parts appropriate to the crime committed -- shoplifting, sexual > assault, etc -- are routine events), the crime rate is *extremely* > low. So if there was a death penalty for parking violations people would be less likely to park in front of hydrants. Very good, comerade. You understand the Soviet legal system perfectly. By combining outlandish penalties for small crimes with secret police organizations without restrictions of law we can achieve a perfect social order regardless of what the constitution says. > If Thrifty Tel doesn't break Some People of their Bad Habits, I > don't know what will. PAT] Nothing will. They will simply (A) get better at it and (B) phreack from phone booths. No, I don't condone phreacking. No, I don't normally come to their defense. Nevertheless, ThriftyTel's tactics smack of entrapment. Like puting a "Rob me" sign on the front lawn, then shooting tresspassers. Nick Sayer mrapple@quack.sac.ca.us N6QQQ 209-952-5347 (Telebit) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Jun 91 12:20:01 EDT From: Ihor J Kinal Subject: Re: Is Cellular Phone Jamming Possible? Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories In article , johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us (John R. Levine) writes: > I'd think a straightforward way to inactivate a system that uses a > car's cellular phone to call the cops would be to use a pair of bolt > cutters to remove the antenna. I thought the same thing -- but in today's [6/26] {NY Times} Business section, there's a review of the device. [I assume it's the same thing we've been actually discussing, although the details appear to be different]. Point 1: It's not actually cellular, but some spread-spectrum technology which is much-more difficult to jam [assuming that the thief even knows that the need exists to perform jamming]. I doubt a typical scanner would notice. Point 2: It's not clear what the antenna requirements were -- supposedly the unit could be placed anywhere in the car, although I'm puzzled as to the strength outside that nice Faraday cage [unless, of course, you're driving a Vette]. Point 3: Given a choice, I might still prefer a Lo-Jack system -- this way, if the police don't repsond in time, we can still recover the car, as well as nab the gang in question. Hope this helps, [standard disclaimers, plus I'm a software person, now]. Ihor Kinal att!cbnewsh!ijk or att!trumpet!ijk ------------------------------ From: Andy Sherman Subject: Re: Please Explain the Terms 'Hacker' and 'Phreaker' Date: 26 Jun 91 16:25:03 GMT Reply-To: Andy Sherman Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, NJ In article , ninjam@csd4.csd.uwm.edu writes: > By the way, this is an UNBIASED opinion, unlike the Moderator's ... One person's bias is another person's objectivity. Yours shows every bit as much Pat's. He, I think, would acknowledge his. > A Phreak is not generally someone who rips off the phone company, > although it sometimes plays a small part. A true Phreak is someone > who is dedicated to learning about the phone system, including not > generally accessible proprietary information. This isn't ripping somebody off? Proprietary information is intellecutal property owned by the companies that paid to invent or discover it. Using a computer to steal it is no different morally than breaking down my door and rifling my filing cabinet. Would your pursuit of knowledge justify *that* as well? > As for the definition of a Hacker, yes, I agree with Pat, but I have to > strongly dissagree with his other points. A true "Hacker" is still, > and always will be someone knowledgeable about computers, and finds > them so interesting that they want to learn as much as possible. > You people write off an entire generation of Hackers as "crackers", > with out looking at everything. Most of the true Hackers out there > break in to these systems in the first place because they want to > learn about the particluar computer or network. They are driven on > for a need to learn. The original use of term "hacker" had nothing to do with breaking into systems, it had to do with a do or die style of programming. While I have many disagreements in philosophy with the "last of the true hackers", Richard Stallman, to my knowledge he has *never* advocted liberating intellectual property by stealing it, either by cat burgling or computer cracking. I suspect that the recent changes in guest policy on the gnu.ai.mit.edu machines was a personal defeat for RMS, not because he believes in cracking but because he honestly believed that he could run his systems on the basis of trust. That he was so sadly mistaken, to the extent that the GNU project could not function for all the interference on their systems, is strong testimony to how wrong you are. You want an example of a true hacker, in the positive sense of the word, go look at Stallman's work. If you are hacking at a security hole on a system that you are authorized to use for the purpose of demonstrating the problem, that may be valid, *PROVIDED* you inform the administrator (using your real name and address) before, during, and after, and you don't use the illicitly gained privileges. That is true hacking. Anonymously breaking in and using the privleges is *THEFT*. What other crimes does your "need to learn" justify. Can you break into my house and go through my stuff out of a need to learn what's there? Can your need to learn about how the human body works justify murder and human experimentation? (Mengele comes to mind. He needed to learn.) Yes, I put extreme cases to make the point. But it's hard to turn a matter of degree into a moral distinction. George Bernard Shaw once asked a prominent society woman if she would consider sleeping with him for a million pounds. She said yes. He then asked if she would sleep with him that night for 25 pounds. She replied, rather huffily, "Of course not! What do you think I am?" Shaw replied, "Well madam, we've already established that. Now we're merely haggling over the price." > I have to strongly say that it is not right for people to write off > the entire 80's generation of Hackers, and the Phone Phreakers as > dishonest scum, or as the Moderator so kindly put it "the bad guys". > You can't write off a whole group of people as malicious because some > who are malicious do what they do. That's very unfair categorizing > and stereotyping. I don't care how pure you say your intent is. Theft is theft. If you can't do the time, don't to the crime. Whine elsewhere, please. > [Moderator's Note: Thank you for clearing up my biased misconceptions > on the subject. PAT] Snicker, snicker. Andy Sherman/AT&T Bell Laboratories/Murray Hill, NJ AUDIBLE: (908) 582-5928 READABLE: andys@ulysses.att.com or att!ulysses!andys What? Me speak for AT&T? You must be joking! ------------------------------ From: Brian Daly Subject: Re: Where is the SLC-96 Power Supply? Organization: gte Date: Tue, 25 Jun 1991 21:25:01 GMT In article , rees@pisa.citi.umich.edu (Jim Rees) writes: > How is an SLC-96 powered? Local AC connected at the site? DC sent > down a pair from the CO? I assume it's battery backed, but how long A SLC-96 is powered by commercial 117V AC, fed into a battery charger/rectifier. This battery charger continuously charges internal batteries used in the event of power failures, and rectifies the 117V AC to the -48Vdc required for the frame. If multiple SLC-96s are in the same location, then other types of power plants may be used (to power many SLC96s). In some applications, no battery backup is used. As far as the rating on the batteries, I really don't know. I would guess on the order of 8 hours emergency backup. Brian K. Daly WB7OML @ AG Communication Systems, Phoenix, Arizona UUCP: {...!ames!ncar!noao!asuvax | uunet!zardoz!hrc | att}!gtephx!dalyb Phone: (602) 582-7644 FAX: (602) 582-7111 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #495 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa26170; 29 Jun 91 3:57 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab12913; 29 Jun 91 2:19 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab20914; 29 Jun 91 1:01 CDT Date: Sat, 29 Jun 91 1:00:45 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #496 BCC: Message-ID: <9106290100.ab30545@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 29 Jun 91 01:00:10 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 496 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Whatever Happened to Rich Andrews? [David W. Tamkin] Re: These People and Institutions Were Hurt by Len [Allen Gwinn] Re: These People and Institutions Were Hurt by Len [Colin Plumb] Re: Emergency Calls (was Operator Busy Break-In) [Gordon Burditt] Re: Emergency Calls (was Operator Busy Break-In) [Jeff Carroll] Re: Emergency Calls (was Operator Busy Break-In) [Carl Moore] Re: Operator Busy Break-In Now Costs $1.60 [Guy R. Berentsen] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "David W. Tamkin" Subject: Re: Whatever Happened to Rich Andrews? Date: Wed, 26 Jun 91 14:10:58 CDT Ron Bean wondered in volume 11, issue 491: > Well, now I've heard updates on Craig Niedorf, Steve Jackson Games, > and Len Rose. Has anyone heard from Rich Andrews? Did he ever get his > 3B2 back? If so, was it in working condition? If not, who has it and > why? Did David Tamkin get to read his email, and is anyone following > up on that thread? Also, similar questions regarding any others who > had equipment siezed but weren't charged with anything? I've not heard from Rich since his telephone conversation with Pat and I. He did have accounts on some other public sites around metropolitan Chicago, but he didn't make much use of them; I remember only one posting from him after jolnet shut down. Gagme had been getting its netnews from jolnet; its sysadmin found another feed and life went on here. No, I never did get to read the mail, but I had cleared my mailbox before starting to read news, and given what was going on at Rich's place that afternoon, I'm sure that there was no off-site mail ar- riving and that the new mail indicator was for a letter from Rich (I always had mesg set to N there because his children and their friends were such pests) telling me to log off. Why he didn't send me some sort of root-privileged broadcast I'll never know. David W. Tamkin Box 7002 Des Plaines IL 60018-7002 dattier@gagme.chi.il.us 708 518 6769 312 693 0591 GEnie:D.W.TAMKIN CIS:73720,1570 MCIMail:426-1818 [Moderator's Note: Now I am hearing from usually reliable sources that Rich had been involved in some other (non-computer-related) malfeasance, and the feds had no touble whatsoever getting him to work along on the computer investigation in exchange for making life easier for him on the other charges. I'm told he is completely out of the computer scene at this time and happily intends to stay that way. He does not wish to correspond with us. So be it. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Jun 91 08:24 CDT From: Allen Gwinn Subject: Re: These People and Institutions Were Hurt by Len Organization: sulaco In article Mike Godwin writes: > This entire posting is driven by an immense ignorance of the timetable > of events that led to Len Rose's prosecution. Perhaps, then, you would share with us exactly what that timetable was since you seem to have information that those of us right here in the middle of it don't have. > This is false. Steve Jackson Games was investigated because of the > alleged "theft" of the E911 document. Len never possessed that > document. I had information that Len had, in his possession, (at least) the maintenance section of the E911 manual, and uucp'd it across to at least one system that I know of. Is this information incorrect? >> Southwestern Bell - I'd use his name but I don't have his permission. >> He lost his job, for all intent and purposes, despite his *total* >> exhonoration in the matter. He was put under a microscope, >> intimidated, and otherwise mistreated and had to leave the company. >> His only "mistake"? He was honestly and innocently associated with >> Len Rose. [responding to comment about an SWBT employee who had been treated unfairly to the point that he had to leave the company because of his honest association with Len Rose.] > Then the abuse was Southwestern Bell's, not Len's. Nobody forced SW > Bell to act unethically. > If they did nothing wrong, and their employers nevertheless fired > them, it doesn't not take a moral philosopher to figure out that the > responsibility for the firing should not be laid at Len's door. An example: you're staying in a hotel. Your room (or the room across the hall) is burglarized. When the police investigate, they find out that it was a friend of one of the maids ... the one that cleans your room. Question: would the authorities be justified in questioning the maid at all? Would you be concerned about their relationship as a guest of the hotel? If, upon questioning, the maid said that she had no involvement with this "friend's" activities, would you simply drop the matter with no further questions asked? The way I see your claims is that if you even questioned the maid, you would be guilty of unethical practices? My apologies in advance if I am wrong. >> Southwestern Bell who had >> sponsored and underwritten it for years decided to shut it down on >> four days' notice and I can't be convinced that it wasn't realted to >> the internal investigation stimulated by the Len Rose case. > Of course you "can't be convinced" of this. It would require weighing > the facts and going beyond mere speculation. Perhaps you can provide us with the "facts" to "weigh" and show Bill how he can see the light without "speculation". >> He's headed for the hoosegow, but I think he and we would be better >> served if he could get some treatment for what makes him hurt others. > I think you should get treatment for the condition that makes you > ignore facts that don't fit your theories. Look, before we go any further, would you mind answering some questions? If any of these accusations are unfounded, please tell me so, and I'll apologize in advance: Was Len Rose arrested at a California airport for "receiving stolen merchandise"? Did Len Rose have stolen source code in his possession at the time of his arrest during a search? Was Len observed "cracking" his way into at least one system on several occasions, and didn't long-distance records provide evidence linking his phone number to several other "cracked" systems modem lines? If any of these allegations (and others that I may not have mentioned) are true, doesn't this qualify Len as a common criminal? Isn't prison an appropriate place for a common criminal? > The government is not a natural event like a rockslide or hurricane; > government agents bear moral responsibility for their actions. The > same goes for private employers. Holding Len responsible for what the > government and private employers chose stupidly to do is to assume > that only Len is capable of making moral judgments. Even the > defendants in the Steve Jackson Games case deserve a higher estimation > of moral responsibility than that. Look, Mike, I'm not implying that the Government conducted its business squeakily clean. Quite the contrary. They botched several things that they attempted to do, and even openly admitted at one point that they were unprepared for investigating this type of criminal activity. But it looks to me like the fact of the matter remains that Len Rose, almost singlehandedly started all of this. If I am wrong, please correct me, but please provide material to back up the claims that you make rather than just telling me that I don't know what I'm talking about. Allen Gwinn (allen@sulaco.lonestar.org) ------------------------------ From: Colin Plumb Subject: Re: These People and Institutions Were Hurt by Len Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1991 02:48:26 -0400 Organization: Array Systems Computing, Inc., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA In article bill@ssbn.wlk.com (Bill Kennedy) writes: > My concern is strictly for the damage that Len did to people and > organizations who were just whooshed into his vortex. [Many Bad Things described happening to people who Len had contact with.] I still can't blame Len for all that. I can blame the spirit of inquisitions, purges, denunciations, and the U.S. House Un-American Activities Committee everywhere, but I'm not going to blame Marc Lepine's acquaintances for the deaths of the 14 people he shot, nor will I blame feminists in general for attracting his psychosis, nor will I blame Len for guilty-by-association witch hunts his actions sparked. I'll blame the hunters, especially since Len had reason to believe such trivia as the first, fourth and fifth amendments to the U.S. constitution protected his friends. There are similar applicable sections in the U.N.'s Universal Declaration of Human Rights (particualrly Articles 12, 19 and 20), the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen (Articles 5 and 7), and the British Magna Carta (Articles 20, 38, and 39). They all say either, I can talk with whoever I like, or, I shall not be persecuted without lawful judgement, and not to a greater degree than the offense warrants. You'd think that after 776 years of nominal allegiance to due process of law, it would have sunk in a little ... on the other hand, the fact that people kept putting it on revolutionary documents is some indication that they felt it needed reinforcing. > Tanner makes my point with precision. Let me enumerate the damage > done which could have been avoided had Len acted more responsibly: This same damage could have been avoided if the more direct agents, namely various law-enforcement and telco authorities, had reacted less hysterically. I hold them immediately responsible. > Don't slather me with "it was the big bad feds"; had he not attracted > their attention they'd have left him (and the rest of us) alone. You think you live in a police state. I wonder if it's true. Colin ------------------------------ From: Gordon Burditt Subject: Re: Emergency Calls (was Operator Busy Break-In) Date: 26 Jun 91 05:30:06 GMT Organization: Gordon Burditt The original start of this thread involved a charge for an operator break-in on an ongoing call, so one party could receive another emergency or non-emergency call. The Moderator noted that it was illegal to refuse to yield the line to RECEIVE an emergency call (or let someone make one). I claim that an 'emergency call' directed TO ME, a person who does not work for emergency services, can never happen because an emergency call is directed to emergency services, by both legal definition and common sense. (When was the last time someone was in an automobile accident and needed an emergency port of UNIX to a new platform? How about the last time a building was on fire and the fire department needed the root password to put out the fire?) The only people a law against the CALLED party failing to release the line for an emergency call would affect would be the police, fire department, ambulance services, etc. If they are not the (intended) called party, IT'S NOT AN EMERGENCY. > [Moderator's Note: Your telephone book pretty accurately describes an > 'emergency'. Examples perhaps you could understand: Your neighbor's > phone is out of order; they knock on your door and ask you to call the > Fire Department. You refuse, because your single line is engaged on > another call. This does not involve a call TO ME. Nor does it involve an operator break-in. (And if I refused in these circumstances, I deserve punishment). > You are at work using the phone and your landlord or > neighbor calls to say YOUR house caught fire. This is not an emergency (unless I'm working at the fire department). An emergency is a situation where human life or property is in danger and prompt summoning of aid is essential. Not 'prompt notification of the owner'. Not 'prompt notification of the next of kin'. Not 'prompt claim processing from the injured's insurance company'. Not 'prompt identification of the injured/dead bodies'. Not 'prompt payment for medical services'. Not 'prompt signing of legal forms'. > You are using a pay > phone on the street corner. There is an autombile accident and one of > the victoims asks you to get off the phone so they can call the police > or ambulance. This does not involve a call TO ME. Nor does it involve an operator break-in. The situation I am trying to address involves a break-in for a call directed TO ME, not to emergency services. Gordon L. Burditt sneaky.lonestar.org!gordon ------------------------------ From: Jeff Carroll Subject: Re: Emergency Calls (was Operator Busy Break-In) Date: 26 Jun 91 19:38:34 GMT Reply-To: Jeff Carroll Organization: Boeing Aerospace & Electronics In article covert@covert.enet.dec.com (John R. Covert 25-Jun-1991 0727) writes: > I think Patrick is making laws up again. I would agree that from time to time Pat cites Illinois law as if we all lived in Illinois. It's important, especially with respect to such a field as telecom in the United States, to differentiate between those areas governed by federal law and those controlled (or perhaps not controlled) by the individual states. That said, I'll admit that I would not want to be called on to handle the questions that he does a pretty good job with, and that he has a much better command of Illinois law than I was able to acquire during the four years I was there. I never did figure out why I would need one of those bail bond cards, or why it was so easy to get a fake drivers' license. > My phone book says: "State law requires you to yield a party line > immediately when told the line is needed for an emergency." Here > Massachusetts is referred to. A phone book from neighboring New > Hampshire says: "Whoever shall willfully refuse to yield the use of a > telephone party line for giving of a fire alarm or emergency call ..." > My recollection in every other state is that this only applies to > party lines. This was the case in Indiana too. I'm not sure that such a law exists in Washington State. Jeff Carroll carroll@ssc-vax.boeing.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Jun 91 10:17:55 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: Emergency Calls (was Operator Busy Break-In) (Yes, I notice the example of "neighbor knocking on your door and demanding that you call the fire department on his behalf".) Do not admit people who ask to use your phone, especially if you do not know them, because this can be used as an excuse by a criminal to get into your premises. Instead, offer to make the call yourself. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Jun 91 15:49:53 EDT From: Guy R Berentsen Subject: Re: Operator Busy Break-In Now Costs $1.60 Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories In article , colnet!res@cis.ohio-state. edu (Rob Stampfli) writes: > Suppose the line is being used by a modem. I wonder what the operator > has been instructed to do in this case. Does the operator "listen" > first so as not to disturb the modem, or do they arbitrarily drop the > call? If they don't drop the call, what do they tell the intended > caller? (Mentioning that a modem is in use is, in my mind, giving > away details about the call in progress.) > [Moderator's Note: When the operator is asked to 'verify busy' or > interupt a call, they will first listen on the line only for a second > or two to detirmine the status. A single word or two of conversation Pat, you correctly described what should happen, but in practice I have had at least two data calls terminated when an operator attempted to "busy line verify" my home phone. (I know this is what happened because in both of the confirmed cases my sister-in-law called from New York minutes after the call was disconnected. She told us that she had called the operator to have the line checked.) ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #496 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa00367; 29 Jun 91 20:06 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa15297; 29 Jun 91 18:29 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa18228; 29 Jun 91 17:23 CDT Date: Sat, 29 Jun 91 17:23:06 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #497 BCC: Message-ID: <9106291723.ab18070@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 29 Jun 91 17:23:00 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 497 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Highly Remote Extensions [Jim Langridge] Re: Explain This Scam [Colin Plumb] Re: Explain This Scam [Donald E. Kimberlin] Re: Reusing Numbers After Just One Day [Andy Jacobson] Re: Telescam: Be Careful Who You Send Checks To [David Schanen] Re: Official Phone Tapping in UK [Tony Harminc] Re: "Kidnapped by Goons from the Mob!" [Hugh Pritchard] Re: The Way I Built and Operated an AOS [Nick Sayer] Re: Two Cellular Phones With the Same ESN [Bob Lancelot] Re: Ayn Rand on Privacy [Mike Van Pelt] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 27 Jun 91 15:33:54 edt From: jlangri@relay.nswc.navy.mil Subject: Re: Highly Remote Extensions In Vol 11 Issue 493 Jim Hickstein writes: > I have a Mitel Superswitch, and I want to get it to do something > special, and I haven't been able to figure out how to ask it. > Now that this is possible, I want to set things up so that I can dial > an "extension" (2xxx or 3xxx) on my phone, and have it somehow prepend > the area code and exchange and hand it to a CO loop. (It already > buffers the entire number and outdials it, so this should be > possible.) No way, say the few people I have asked who ought to know. > But I think they probably have a vested interest in not having to take > the trouble to figure it out. I have no knowledge of the switch > itself, or any apparent access to its features: I have to pay some > moron $100/hour to come and do adds&changes (which I have managed to > avoid doing so far). > Note that this is the INVERSE of the usual "off-premises extension". > Is this possible without spending a lot of money? Is it possible at > all? FLAME ON. Take the advice of a "MORON" (I assume you mean someone who has trained and worked hard to learn and be proficient at their skills) ... If you have no knowledge of the switch, leave it alone! I've had to correct *doit yourself and save* mistakes before. Most of the techs I know are compelled to charge double for this kind of work. FLAME OFF. As for your question ... it sounds as though you want to update speed call tables? If you insist on trying, call the Mitel helpdesk at 1 800 648 3587. Jim Langridge | jlangri@relay.nswc.navy.mil | NICCS OA Synetics Corp. | (703) 663 2137 | jlangri 24 Danube Dr. | (703) 663 3050 (FAX) | King George, VA.| 22485-5000 | ------------------------------ From: Colin Plumb Subject: Re: Explain This Scam Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1991 17:06:48 -0400 Organization: Array Systems Computing, Inc., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA In article spencer@med.umich.edu (Spencer W. Thomas) writes: > An inmate makes a collect call to a friend whose phone has a three-way > calling feature. The friend then pushes a button on the phone and > dials the phone company, with the prisoner still on the line. > When the phone company comes on the line, the customer is slient as > the inmate orders a new phone under a phony name. > "We have no way of knowing it's an inmate who has called collect," > Michigan Bell spokesman Dean Hovey said. I think that what's happening is that the business office is saying "yes, we'll pay" to the operator asking who'll accept the charges, and somehow the call gets charged to them. The prisoner makes a phony business transaction (ordering service to a bogus name), and the business office hangs up. They are now talking to their friend, and the business office is paying. Colin ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Jun 91 11:13 GMT From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <0004133373@mcimail.com> Subject: Re: Explain This Scam In Digest v11,iss490, spencer@med.umich.edu (Spencer Thomas) reports a scam conducted by Michican prisoners ordering a new account with the aid of an acomplice who connects them to the common carrier's business office via three-way-calling: > When the phone company comes on the line, the customer is slient as > the inmate orders a new phone under a phony name. Our Moderator opines: > [Moderator's Note: I suspect they are ordering new service at the > address of a confederate on the outside. Tten they call collect > to 'their' new number; the confederate okays the charges and dials out > calls for them to wherever they really want to call. Then when the > service gets cut for non-payment, so be it ... That sounds too elegant and complex to Certainly, the LEC would soon tag any local address that has had several bad accounts! Rather, I suspect the "new service" is more likely to me a calling card account opened with some of those fine, upstanding telemarketers we so often hear about peddling long distance accounts. After all, there's a fertile field of several hundred of them to work, and they are so anxious for accounts their credit checking is minimal, if at all for most of them. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Jun 91 00:10 PDT From: Andy Jacobson Subject: Re: Reusing Numbers After Just One Day In TELECOM Digest V11 #490, David Gast writes: > The particular number I was calling, was in 213-209-XXXX. The > University uses 231-825 (825 = UCL as in UCLA) and 213-206. It is not > possible to reach any of the dorm rooms from University phones without > dialing 9 (and getting an outside line) or depositing twenty cents > (from a payphone). Now you might note that for some reason the 209 prefix is reserved for UCLA residence halls, and some few offices in the Westwood Federal Building. The two prefixes in the local CO in Westwood that are assigned to residential and businesses in the area are 824 and 208. (Another prefix 443 has just recently shown up but only on new payphones on the UCLA campus.) While space on the 208 and 824 prefixes is certainly at a premium, I think the usage of the 209 prefix is almost entirely static. > Someone mentioned that telephone numbers are running out. True, but > 200 numbers would not make a big difference. (I am estimating that > there are 200 rooms in the dorms). I think you're way off. I don't have an exact number but there are well over 200 rooms in each of the buildings. I would think the total number is probably more than ten times that. > People who wish to get phone service contact GTE; they do not contact > UCLA. In addition, they must pay standard rates. > Now it does turn out that GTE and UCLA have some sort of agreement > whereby a given phone number is always connected to a given room. At > least GTE claims this; the telecommunications office at UCLA said that > the university was not involved. I am not surprised that GTE and UCLA > would conspire to give students inferior service. I would also not be > surprised if UCLA does not know what it is doing or if this agreement > is only a vapor-contract. > The person at GTE said that because the phone numbers are reassigned to > the same room numbers, then it is not necessary to come out to the > dorm and move wires around to set up service. I pointed out that > there is a digital switch and that to set up service, GTE merely has > to type a few commands at the computer and everything is set up. She > agreed. (Note: Initiation of service charges are not reduced). I think you will find this to be one of several standard arrangements that phone companies have set up at educational institutions. I've seen it done several different ways, but at the many schools I have seen, this one is quite prevalent.I have come in direct contact with this system when I was once an undergraduate at Lake Forest College (in Illinois). Illinois Bell had the exact same arrangement there with sequential numbers permanently assigned to rooms, etc. I had a number in Lake Forest that I wanted to have in the dorm room I was assigned. IBT refused, and gave me all sorts of excuses, similar to the ones you cite above, why the permanently assigned numbers had to stay, which I cut through like butter. They finally said that I could have my number (and only this once, ever) if I got written permission from the dean of students. When I spoke to the dean, he was surprised about the whole thing, but seemed to recall some silliness from IBT about their insistence on doing things with sequential numbers. He didn't care at all though, and immediately gave me permission. The IBT rep (case worker) was livid! A visit to the Highland Park IBT office to put down a deposit for the service (normally not required), and several days of no phone service later, I finally got my number. I was informed though that I would never be able to have that number again once I moved, and that it would be permanently assigned to that room. As of four years later it still was. > I still believe that not providing an interrupt is substandard > service. The students pay the same fee to hook up service even though > less work is required. The students pay the same fee for telephone > service -- they do not get a discount. Therefore they should be > entitled to an interrupt. Listen, nobody gets a referral out of GTE around here unless they absolutely demand it. Many times I have gotten into heated arguments with the service reps over this. If you do get a referral, its 30 days maximum. I have gotten 60 days but only after demanding to speak to a supervisor and threatening to bring the PUC into it. Yes, these guys are shysters, they want to *charge* money for it. One thing that GTE can claim, and IBT did, is that the room will soon be occupied by a student over summer (whether it will or not), and thus they can't give you a referral when the line will be back in use right away anyway. At Lake Forest College, they didn't put any message on, the number would just ring (even though the loop was dead). A. Jacobson ------------------------------ From: David Schanen Subject: Re: Telescam: Be Careful Who You Send Checks To Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1991 07:43:00 GMT In article pad@groucho.att.com Patricia A Dunkin) writes: > The second number was answered by a recording that told me roughly the > same thing the human did concerning the trip I had "won" to Hawaii, > instructed me to send a self-addressed stamped envelope and a check > for $12.95 to a Chicago address, and assured me that the travel office > fees would not exceed one Y-class fare to Hawaii. That must have been > the punch line. There are actually legal businesses doing this sort of thing. They get enough people to send them $12.95 and it adds up. The prizes (Hawaii vacations etc) often combinations of coupons, hotel accomodations, free film and developing, portraits, or other promotional material, mostly things you could find in magazines if you looked hard enough. I rememer a place like this in Denver that would call you and get you to answer a trivia question. If you got it right (two out of three chance:) you win a choice between Las Vegas or Hawaii! (Hotel accomodations only - transportation not included.) If you got it wrong, you get another guess, congratulations you win! Then you get a package of coupons, free portraits, etc ... delivered _to your door_ for a small promotional fee of $29.95. Ahh well ... shady but legal. I'm sure a *few* people even got there monies worth. Cheers! Dave Inet: mtv@milton.u.washington.edu * 8kyu * UUNET: ...uunet!uw-beaver!u!mtv ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Jun 91 12:06:02 EDT From: Tony Harminc Subject: Re: Official Phone Tapping in UK To avoid possible confusion: the term `engineer' is widely used in the UK for any sort of technician or service person. All those `engineers' needed to tap phones are certainly not the sort with engineering degrees from universities. Tony H. ------------------------------ Date: Friday, 28 Jun 1991 13:25:45 EDT From: Hugh Pritchard Subject: Re: "Kidnapped by Goons from the Mob!" Larry Lippman writes: > In a recent article John G. > DeArmond (emory!Dixie.Com!jgd@gatech.edu) spins an amusing yarn about > his alleged involvement with an AOS operation. >> Just as we were turning up the first system, the founders of this >> startup phone company sold the company. The new owner was, shall >> we say, unsavory. He decided that he did not want to pay royalities >> or allow us to own the program -which we had the right to. So he >> addressed the problem in the usual mob manner - he sent some goons over >> to kidnap us while they stole our equipment and software. > By golly, what a tale! Mr. DeArmond was "kidnapped by goons > from the mob"! Mr. DeArmond may have just been dramatizing things: The new owners of the client company may have invited him and his associate to a social event (Lunch? Drinks? A picnic for families of employees and contractors?) whilst they removed his stuff (client-furnished?) from his sub-leased office. I've heard of similar events. Hugh Pritchard, [(703) 883-] 6616 hapritch@mitre.org ------------------------------ From: Nick Sayer Subject: Re: The Way I Built and Operated an AOS Date: 26 Jun 91 15:11:02 GMT Organization: The Duck Pond, Stockton, CA marcus%cpva.span@sdsc.edu (Mark R. Jenkins 619-458-2794) writes: > After some pauses, I got an operator which I "assumed" was AT&T and > gave her my AT&T credit card number and completed the call. > However, I never received a bill from AT&T for that call. I wonder if a solution to the problem of fakers is to ask "Is this American Telegraph and Telephone?" If they answer 'yes' then either they are AT&T, or they're lying, n'est pa? Does this work? Nick Sayer mrapple@quack.sac.ca.us N6QQQ 209-952-5347 (Telebit) ------------------------------ From: Bob Lancelot Subject: RE: Two Cellular Phones With the Same ESN (was Dumb Question) Date: 26 Jun 91 13:25:51 GMT Organization: Motorola Inc. - Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL John R. Convert writes: > I'm really surprised that an employee of Motorola's Cellular Division > would publish information that would help people modify their > electronic serial numbers. Supposedly the device sold by these guys > will only make the number the same as the number in some other phone > that you own, but even this is a violation of the standard -- and who > is going to make sure that dealers who market the device are going to > be honest. It was not my intent to imply endorsement of the fraudulent modification of ESNs by posting the information received from CELLUSOFT SYSTEMS. It is partly due to the fact that I am employed by Motorola Cellular that I have an interest in these devices and their availability. > It is specifically the fact that there are phones which apparently > don't break permanently when you try to do this and that there are > dealers out there selling devices to take advantage of poor phone > design that PREVENT ME FROM BEING ABLE TO DIRECT DIAL LONG DISTANCE > CALLS WHEN TRAVELLING. Fraud is certainly a problem within the AMPS systems. However, I believe the main reason that you cannot direct dial long distance calls from your cellular phone is due to the lack of interworking among the operators and the lack of a national clearinghouse. IS-41 is addressing this issue. (Perhaps someone more knowledgeable in this area can provide details for John.) ------------------------------ From: Mike Van Pelt Subject: Re: Ayn Rand on Privacy Date: 27 Jun 91 21:31:50 GMT Reply-To: Mike Van Pelt Organization: Video 7 + G2 = Headland Technology In article TELECOM Moderator noted: > One of [Ayn Rand's] comments sticks in my mind: staring intently at > me, she said, "You are such a smart, intelligent boy! You are too > intelligent to believe in Gott! Why do you believe in Gott?" I hear she used the same line on William F. Buckley when she appeared on "Firing Line". I'd like to see the tape of that one; I believe some verbal pyrotechnics ensued. Mike Van Pelt Headland Technology/Video 7 ...ames!vsi1!hsv3!mvp mvp@hsv3.lsil.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #497 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa05692; 29 Jun 91 22:04 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa04960; 29 Jun 91 20:36 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa01829; 29 Jun 91 19:30 CDT Date: Sat, 29 Jun 91 18:25:51 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #498 BCC: Message-ID: <9106291825.ab12420@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 29 Jun 91 18:25:41 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 498 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Stupid Payphone Tricks [Carl Moore] Re: C&P Outage: What's the Story? [Sean Williams] Re: Telescam: Be Careful Who You Send Checks To [Ehud Gavron] Re: Never Sleep in Room 411 [Larry DeMar] Re: Simple Connection Between Fax and Fax Modem [Paul Cook] Re: I Cannot Access MCI ... Any Help? [Floyd Vest] Re: Explain This Scam [Steven M. Palm] Re: Pac*Bell Trivia [John Higdon] Re: Whatever Happened to Rich Andrews? [William Vajk] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 27 Jun 91 10:39:14 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: Stupid Payphone Tricks Well, at least your call was 20 cents instead of the outrageous COCOT charges that pop up on phone bills. But the Bell Atlantic pay phones I have seen on the east coast say "Out of Change?" and go on to explain that you can use a calling card to place local calls. By the way, local calls with a calling card have these instructions: 0 + NPA + 7D if the area is set up for NXX prefixes. 0 + 7D if it is set up for NNX only. (But if it's for a local call to another NPA, I think you have to use 0 + NPA + 7D.) Speaking of which, doesn't 215 area in PA still advertise 0 + 7D on its Bell Atlantic payphones under the "Out of Change?" message? This is supposed to change to 0 + NPA + 7D, for the same reason that 1 + 7D is changing to 7D for long distance within 215. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Jun 91 16:54 GMT From: Sean Williams <0004715238@mcimail.com> Subject: Re: C&P Outage: What's the Story? Charlie Mingo writes: > . . .and the local TV station was advising viewers to use MCI's access code > (10222) to call local numbers via "long distance". > I tried it and it worked. Note that MCI would reject local calls > within my own area code (202), but would connect me to local numbers > in 703 and 301. This is a technique that I have been using for some time to take advantage of the benefits of MCI's PrimeTime Plan. Calls from my home in Duncannon (717/834) to Harrisburg (717/numerous xxx's) are handled by United Telephone of PA, who charges outrageous rates because they think that there's no way anyone can call "local" long distance and avoid them. I simply prepend 10222 to all of my previously-United- handled calls, and they are billed at "MCI's low rates". This 10222 method works for calls anywhere in the area code, and was even recommended by MCI when I brought up the topic. (I can also make calls within my own exchange using 10222, but that's sorta stupid since the call is free anyway. And no, MCI doesn't charge you MCI rates for calls that would normally be free via United Telephone.) I recently called the "MCI People" regarding 10222, and they mentioned that in 99% of the state, you can replace 10222 with 1-700 (or 0-700 if you want to use your RBOC/local telco card) and achieve the same results. I guess I'm one of the other 1%, because it doesn't work here. Maybe other MCI users somewhere else would like to try? Sean E. Williams | seanwilliams@mcimail.com Spectrum Telecommunications | Have a good day! PO Box 227 | <> Duncannon, PA 17020-0227 | voicemail: +1 717 957 8127 [Moderator's Note: Telecom*USA has the same technique, using 0 + 700 or 1 + 700 + 7D for calls within your local area code. The problem with that here is that area 708 and 312 are very interchangeable for local calling purposes, and most of my calls are into 708. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Ehud Gavron Subject: Re: Telescam: Be Careful Who You Send Checks To Date: 28 Jun 91 18:05:43 GMT Reply-To: sunquest!alpha!gavron@uunet.uu.net Organization: Sunquest VMS Internals, Tucson AZ In article , pad@groucho.att.com (Patricia A Dunkin) writes: > Yesterday at work I got a call from a computer that claimed to be "The > Award Notification Center" (no other identification) and telling me to > call 312-733-7000 between 9AM and 9PM Eastern within 24 hours to claim > my "award." The recording also gave me a claim number, B44. > Oh, and they never did ask for the claim number -- if someone else > wants to use it, I wouldn't object. :-) I sure decided to (what the heck, work was slow on a Friday...) The young lady who answered informed me I had won one of: A 32" Sony color TV $2000 in cash Two airline tickets to Jamaica $1000 US Savings bond. My bonus prize (guess what, I won a bonus ;-) was seven days in Orlando Florida! (WHAT? in the middle of the summer??? I enjoy arid Arizona, thanks ;-) The company was identified as ACS - American Consumer Services, claiming to offer discounts on consumer purchases. Their yearly fee is $199. They *did* ask me "do you have a checking account" and enjoyed the "yes" answer. They say this promo is part of their membership drive. I have no idea which one of those prizes is worth the $199 but I suspect since "you'll get the membership material in 21-24 working days, and your prize in 30-31 working days" that by that time they would no longer exist. Ehud Gavron (EG76) gavron@vesta.sunquest.com [Moderator's Note: We covered this organization in detail a couple months ago, as Randy Borow will no doubt recall ... :) And who is Randy Borow you ask? ... Yes, I've had several inquiries in the mail in the past few days since the reference to 'the Randy Message' appeared here. Our mailing list is growing by leaps and bounds, and it is now dawning on me that at least a couple dozen of you were not here when Randy's now infamous gaff appeared in these columns. We had run a message from John Higdon discussing the Chicago telemarketing scam and some of us contributed what we knew. Randy Borow, then an employee of AT&T used his ability as an employee to pull records on this company and send them in a message to the Digest. His message made for fascinating reading, but angered his superiors at AT&T who fired him as a result of his revealing confidential customer information. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Larry DeMar Subject: Re: Never Sleep in Room 411 Organization: Chinet - Chicago Public Access UNIX Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1991 07:20:18 GMT In article TJW@vms.cis.pitt.edu (Terry J. Wood) writes: > On a recent vacation, I made the mistake of getting room 411 in a hotel. > I also made the mistake of being the one to sleep next to the telephone. > I guess that in some cities the number "411" connects you to directory > assistance. However, dialing it inside the hotel connects you to room > 411. Needless to say, I got a different room the next night. This situation is not unique to hotels. A friend of mine had extension 411 on the PBX at work. He got plenty of "directory" calls. After awhile (and before getting his extension changed) he would just give out numbers to people that asked (needless to say, he didn't have a phone book :). Email: chinet!larry@gargoyle.uchicago.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Jun 91 18:32 GMT From: Proctor & Associates <0003991080@mcimail.com> Subject: Re: Simple Connection Between Fax and Fax Modem Joseph Chan writes: > I have a standalone fax machine and a fax modem (send/receive at 9600 > baud) installed on my 286 machine. There is no RS232 port on the fax > machine. I have one phone line at home. Here is what I am trying to > accomplish (i.e. use the fax machine as a scanner): > 1. Connect the fax machine to the fax modem thru a regular telephone > cable. (rest deleted ... describes how he wants to be able to send from the fax modem to the fax machine, and vice versa, without going via a regular phone line.) This is easy to do with a CO line simulator, like the ones made by Proctor & Associates. They simulate regular central office lines, with dialtone, ringback tone, ringing voltage and everything, and can be used with any device that will work on a standard phone line. The four line unit is the model 49200, and it sells for $475. It will work with both rotary and tone dialing, and uses two digit dialing for each line. There is a new two line unit that is less expensive, the model 49250. It sells for $259.95, and uses only tone dialing. To dial the other port, just dial the # key, or any seven digit number. If the fax machines don't have to dial and don't need to hear dial tone, one could get by really cheap with a ringdown circuit. The Proctor model 46220 sells for $179, and as soon as it detects an off hook condition on one jack, it sends ringing to the other. With any of these devices one can do anything that one would do with a standard phone line. Modems can talk to modems, fax boards can use fax machines as printers, and phones can talk to other phones. Proctor & Associates is at 15050 NE 36th St, Redmond, WA 98052-5317. The phone number is 206-881-7000, and fax is 206-885-3282. All prices are FOB Redmond, WA, and Proctor accepts Visa or Master Card. Paul Cook Proctor & Associates Redmond, WA 206-881-7000 3991080@mcimail.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1991 00:11 CDT From: Floyd Vest Subject: Re: I Cannot Access MCI ... Any Help? [19 Jun 91 18:36:54 GMT] pjd@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Peter J Dotzauer) wrote: > As an on-campus resident at the Ohio State University, I can't seem to > have straight access to MCI that would allow me to subscribe to their > 'Call Europe' program (which would save me a lot of money). > Ohio State University has its own campus telephone system, and they > subscribe to U.S. Sprint for long distance services. U.S. Sprint > universally blocked alternate carrier access, so I cannot dial 10222 I believe OSU and not Sprint blocked the access. > Is there anything else I can do? Does Ohio State University or U.S. > Sprint violate any rights that I have? According to an article in {The Chronicle of Higher Education} last month, The FCC has ruled that colleges and universities which resale phone service are, in effect, AOS's and as such must permit access to alternate carriers, 800 numbers, and 950. Sorry, but I don't remember the issue. This was a very brief article and this is not a telecom journal. Perhaps someone else can supply more details. Floyd Vest Manager, Administrative Systems--Auburn University, Alabama USA Voice: +1 205 844 4512 BBS: +1 205 745 3989 FIDO: 1:3613/3 ------------------------------ From: "Steven M. Palm" Subject: Re: Explain This Scam Date: 28 Jun 91 01:40:16 GMT In spencer@med.umich.edu (Spencer W. Thomas) writes: > When the phone company comes on the line, the customer is slient as > the inmate orders a new phone under a phony name. I tend to agree with the Moderator on this one. I know that when I recently moved to Milwaukee, I was asked just about everything about my life history that I can remember in order to get phone service. :-) I even had to send in a $40 deposit prior to placement of the order. This was BEFORE they would complete the order processing, not before they would turn on the phone. What a world, what a world. Fido: 1:154/600 | myamiga!smp@fps.mcw.edu | rutgers!uwm!fps!myamiga!smp ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 29 Jun 91 02:09 PDT From: John Higdon Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Pac*Bell Trivia Jim Redelfs writes: > If they successfully pull it off (do the job right) will it improve > your opinion of them? Well, the jury is still out. They didn't make the due date (6/28). But wait there's more ... > Why don't they just BURY the whole mess? I believe that (if feasible) > that wouldn't be much more expensive that replacing the existing rats > nest with more aerial. > As I recall, you've said there is, currently, a wide assortment of > individual protectors. Have you requested an RJ21X interface > w/amphenol connector? The man showed up today and replaced my ten individual drops with three six-pair cables. They are terminated on modern demark boxes (you know, the kind with modular plugs inside). The old drops are history, and the interruption was minimal. But the six new lines (I upped the order) are yet to be installed. Earlier in the week, my rep told me that the order had been referred to the "P102" desk. It seems that the neighborhood facilities are under some strain. On Thursday, I was told that two pairs had been cleared in "the underground" but zero pairs were yet to be made available in the aerial. The man said, and I quote exactly, "I'll be back on Monday to install your six lines." This evening I discovered that the six pairs had been "built" in the CO. That is, they ring without intercept. But only two of them sound as though there is any wire on them. (An interesting characteristic of crossbar is that a good ear can tell many things about the ringing line from the caller end of ringback.) The hunt group works properly. It will be interesting to see just exactly what gets installed on Monday. The installer made an interesting comment about the upcomming CO upgrade. The crossbar will be cut to 5ESS in September, and I have been thinking CLASS and all that good stuff. While that WILL be available, Mr. Telephone Man commented that the only reason the PUC was now "letting" Pac*Bell finally replace all the crossbar was so that the company could provide 976/900 blocking universally. If true, it goes right along with our regulatory embarassment that calls itself a PUC. Apparently, providing modern, useful telephone service is not important; protecting idiots (those who cannot help dialing 976/900 numbers) is. While I have been eagerly awaiting the 5ESS for the real services it will provide, the only value the PUC sees is the blocking it will provide. I wonder how many more years the crossbar would have been allowed to wheeze away if it had not been for the most holy 976/900 blocking. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: "William Vajk (igloo" Subject: Re: Whatever Happened to Rich Andrews? Reply-To: William Vajk Date: Sat, 29 Jun 1991 16:53:32 GMT > [Moderator's Note: Now I am hearing from usually reliable sources that > Rich had been involved in some other (non-computer-related) malfeasance, > and the feds had no touble whatsoever getting him to work along on the > computer investigation in exchange for making life easier for him on > the other charges. I'm told he is completely out of the computer > scene at this time and happily intends to stay that way. He does not > wish to correspond with us. So be it. PAT] Having had only a smattering of dirt about other difficulties, I have scheduled research sessions at several courthouses to locate actual information and not disseminate rumors. It is a question regarding which of three possible counties causing me the momentary difficulty. Your comment regarding "no trouble whatsoever" isn't quite true, Pat. The feds went to the U. S. Magistrate and secured a search warrant. Rich didn't simply hand over his equipment because they wanted it (in spite of the fact that he gave such an impression in a phone conversation I had with him at that time.) I searched for the warrant and affidavits. It took two working days at the federal courthouse to locate and copy the information as the Magistrate's court in Chicago does not maintain an index of cases. I immediately faxed several pages to Len's attorney in Maryland and followed up by mailing a complete copy to them as the justification for the seizure of jolnet was based in part on information acquired in the Rose seizure and interrogation. At least Sheldon Zenner had the common courtesy to send a thank you note to me when I shared pertinent information he didn't have and needed. When you say that Rich is "completely out of the computer scene at this time" you must mean as a hobby, bbsing, and usenet participation. I doubt Rich is completely netless. He is, as reported to me by a former colleague of his within the past thirty days, in a computer consulting business in a two man office. Bill Vajk ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #498 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa09083; 29 Jun 91 23:27 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa05888; 29 Jun 91 21:41 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab04960; 29 Jun 91 20:36 CDT Date: Sat, 29 Jun 91 19:55:10 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #499 BCC: Message-ID: <9106291955.ab27963@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 29 Jun 91 19:54:53 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 499 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: All AOS's Aren't Scum [Carl Wright] Re: In Defense of Thrifty Tel [Jim Thomas] Re: Highly Remote "Extensions" on Mitel [Dave Johnston] Re: Highly Remote "Extensions" on Mitel [Steve Forrette] Re: Emergency Calls (was Operator Busy Break-In) [Greg Andrews] Re: Operator Busy Break-in Now Costs $1.60 [Kevin Boyd] Re: Operator Busy Break-In Now Costs $1.60 [John G. Dobnick] TCP/IP Over ISDN? [On G. Paradise] ISDN Mailing List [Robert Ullmann] Wiring For ISDN, etc. [Stan Reeves] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: wright@ais.org (Carl Wright) Subject: Re: All AOS's Aren't Scum Date: Tue, 25 Jun 91 03:56:55 GMT Organization: UMCC I'm sorry, Fred. Either you want to appeal to my prejudices by calling AOS's names (bottom feeders, etc.) or you want to appeal to my logic (AOS's were never intended to happen, etc.). I don't buy it. Let's hear it for bottom feeders. Carl Wright | Lynn-Arthur Associates, Inc. Internet: wright@ais.org | 2350 Green Rd., #160 Voice: 1 313 995 5590 EST | Ann Arbor, MI 48105 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Jun 91 02:18 CDT From: TK0JUT1@mvs.cso.niu.edu Subject: Re: In Defense of Thrifty Tel > [Moderator's Note: While it is true Thrifty Tel's tactics are extreme, > and of questionable legality by USA standards, we should note that in > countries with 'neandrathal' schedules of punishment (i.e. Saudi > Arabia, where public floggings, beheadings, and amputation of body > parts appropriate to the crime committed -- shoplifting, sexual > assault, etc -- are routine events), the crime rate is *extremely* > low. If Thrifty Tel doesn't break Some People of their Bad Habits, I > don't know what will. PAT] Not a good analogy! We don't live in Saudi Arabia, we live in a democracy with constitutional protections. Saudi Arabia also lacks the poverty, population density, and other "social problems" endemic in most industrialized societies that contribute to higher crime rates. By contrast, in addition to suppressing "crime," that culture also suppresses (sometimes in the Draconian ways Pat mentions) freedoms that we take for granted. Women's activities are tightly controlled, reducing opportunity for sexual assault, but domestic violence and spouse abuse are reportedly exceptionally high. But, it's not illegal. There is also some question about the "low" crime rate, because the system of recording and prosecuting does not make comparative analysis easy. Respect for law begins with respect for that which law enforces. As it has been described, Thrifty-Tel sounds like vigilante extortionists. One way to break people of bad habits is through systematic and visible education about cyber-ethics, beginning early. In addition, *fair* and *just* enforcement of predatory law with sactions that include options to incarceration is another. Officially allowing private extortion is not a way to encourage respect for law, and only contributes to public cynicism that encourages disregard of it. Islamic law is the antithesis of our Constitutional democracy, and TT's policies resemble the former rather than the latter. Jim Thomas ------------------------------ Date: 27 Jun 91 08:39 +0000 From: Dave_JOHNSTON%01%SRJC@odie.santarosa.edu Subject: Re: Highly Remote "Extensions" on Mitel In Telecom Digest V11 # 493, Jim Hickstein wrote: > Now that this is possible, I want to set things up so that I can dial > an "extension" (2xxx or 3xxx) on my phone, and have it somehow prepend > the area code and exchange and hand it to a CO loop. > Note that this is the INVERSE of the usual "off-premises extension". > Is this possible without spending a lot of money? Is it possible at > all? Jim neglected to say whether it was a SX-200 analog or SX-200D type switch. On the SX-200D it is relatively easy to do with ARS (Automatic Route Selection ... ala Least Cost Routing for you non- Mitel types.) You can have the 2 or 3 be additional ARS access digits and then have the routing table handle adding the extra digits. It's been a while since I've worked on a 200D, but that's my recollection. If you have an analog SX-200 or SX-100, then about the only I can think of would be using system speed dial. I don't think you could handle all of the extension that way though. I think you can only support 100 or less system speed dials (it depends on memory configuration). The only other idea I have would be to install Mitel SMART-1 dialers on your COs. You could program the dialer to add the extra digits. Kind of an expensive way to do it though, especially if you have a few lines. Good luck, Dave Johnston Santa Rosa Junior College, Santa Rosa, CA Supervisor, Campus Data/Telecom +1 707 527-4853 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Jun 91 22:56:49 -0700 From: Steve Forrette Subject: Re: Highly Remote "Extensions" on Mitel Organization: University of California, Berkeley In article Jim Hickstein writes: > Now that this is possible, I want to set things up so that I can > dial an "extension" (2xxx or 3xxx) on my phone, and have it somehow > prepend the area code and exchange and hand it to a CO loop. (It > already buffers the entire number and outdials it, so this should be > possible.) No way, say the few people I have asked who ought to know. > But I think they probably have a vested interest in not having to > take the trouble to figure it out. I have no knowledge of the > switch itself, or any apparent access to its features: I have to pay > some moron $100/hour to come and do adds and changes (which I have > managed to avoid doing so far). I don't know if this would work with your switch and internal extension numbering plan, but here goes: Set up a local extension numbered as above, and enable immediate call forwarding to the external number in Boston. I've done this sucessfully on a Toshiba PBX. Sometimes, when I went out to lunch, I would hit the forward button, then at the point where you normally enter the extension to forward, I hit 9 to get an outside line, then my cellphone number. Anybody dialing my three digit extension from the inside would get me in my car. If you have line cards to spare, this may work for you. Note that once you turn on the forwarding, you don't even need a desk set. Steve Forrette, forrette@cory.berkeley.edu ------------------------------ From: Greg Andrews Subject: Re: Emergency Calls (was Operator Busy Break-In) Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services {408 241-9760} Date: Sat, 29 Jun 1991 19:10:10 GMT In article gordon@sneaky.lonestar.org (Gordon Burditt) writes: > The original start of this thread involved a charge for an operator > break-in on an ongoing call, so one party could receive another > emergency or non-emergency call. The Moderator noted that it was > illegal to refuse to yield the line to RECEIVE an emergency call (or > let someone make one). I claim that an 'emergency call' directed TO > ME, a person who does not work for emergency services, can never > happen because an emergency call is directed to emergency services, by > both legal definition and common sense. (When was the last time > someone was in an automobile accident and needed an emergency port of > UNIX to a new platform? How about the last time a building was on > fire and the fire department needed the root password to put out the > fire?) How about a call from the hospital informing you that your spouse was in a serious automobile accident, is at the hospital in critical condition, and could die within the hour? Or a call that your sibling, who has had a long history of severe depression, is currently talking with the suicide prevention hotline. There is a very real chance that your sibling will attempt suicide if you don't talk with them on the phone, or go over to their house. Are you saying that you do NOT want to receive a call notifying you of these kind of events? That the need to get hold of you does NOT constitute an emergency situation? That the operator should wait until you finish chatting with Aunt Edna before calling you? Of the two examples I cited, the first is merely hypothetical, the second was a call I overheard on a local radio talk show. A woman was discussing with the talk show host (a therapist) how her brother's suicidal tendencies were affecting her life, when the operator broke in and asked her to hang up so the suicide prevention hotline could contact her. Both of these situations are ones that I would certainly consider an emergency. I'm not saying that I would be called upon to respond to a fire or automobile accident, but that the need to contact me regarding the imminence of death to my immediate family DOES constitute an emergency. Greg Andrews | UUCP: {apple,amdahl,claris}!netcom!gandrews | Internet: gandrews@netcom.COM ------------------------------ From: Kevin Boyd <9457boydk@vmsf.csd.mu.edu> Subject: Re: Operator Busy Break-in Now Costs $1.60 Date: 29 Jun 91 21:49:30 GMT Reply-To: 9457boydk@vmsf.csd.mu.edu Organization: Marquette University - Computer Services In article , colnet!res@cis.ohio-state. edu (Rob Stampfli) writes: > Suppose the line is being used by a modem. I wonder what the operator > has been instructed to do in this case. Does the operator "listen" > first so as not to disturb the modem, or do they arbitrarily drop the > call? If they don't drop the call, what do they tell the intended > caller? (Mentioning that a modem is in use is, in my mind, giving > away details about the call in progress.) > [Moderator's Note: When the operator is asked to 'verify busy' or > interupt a call, they will first listen on the line only for a second > or two to detirmine the status. A single word or two of conversation It should be this simple, but I had another experience: Several years ago, I was working the studio control board for a LIVE radio football broadcast over dial-up lines. About midway through the first quarter, the operator did an emergency break-in on our line. It took me almost two minutes to get her off the line, while our announcers at the other end got more confused and angry. She simply didn't understand the concept of live radio over phone lines. (I finally had to talk to her supervisor to get the line cleared.) Apparently the person trying to break in was the control room operator from the radio station in the booth next to ours. Their dial-up line wasn't working, so he got the brilliant idea that he could get ahold of his announcer team using our line. I seem to remember that our station General Manager made both the telco and the other station regret the whole incident the next day. :-) I think the incident can probably be chalked up to an inexperienced operator at the telco. Regards, Kevin Boyd Marquette University Office of Campus International Programs Internet: 9457boydk@VMS.CSD.MU.EDU ------------------------------ From: John G Dobnick Subject: Re: Operator Busy Break-In Now Costs $1.60 Date: 29 Jun 91 22:28:28 GMT Reply-To: jgd@convex.csd.uwm.edu From article , by gws@cblph.att.com (Gary W Sanders): > Do you need to talk to someone, and the line is busy? For a $1.60 per > call, you can ask the Ohio Bell Operator to interrupt a busy line. [for non-emergency calls] This is going to play merry hell with data calls, as I'm sure many others have mentioned (or will mention). Does Ohio Bell also supply a feature analogous to "disable call waiting" to inform the operator that a call is *NOT* interruptible? John G Dobnick Computing Services Division @ University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee INTERNET: jgd@uwm.edu UUCP: uunet!uwm!jgd ATTnet: (414) 229-5727 ------------------------------ From: "On G. Paradise" Subject: TCP/IP Over ISDN? Reply-To: oracle!us.oracle.com!oparadis@uunet.uu.net Organization: Oracle Corp. Date: Wed, 26 Jun 91 17:25:47 GMT Does anybody have TCP/IP running over phone-company ISDN basic service? How does it work: ppp or slip on a B circuit? IP/X.25 on the D? What hardware is available? Are there any S interface cards out there for S-Bus? How does ISDN compare to ppp over V.32/42 (speed, cost, reliability)? Facts, ideas or speculations will be greatly appreciated. Please reply by mail; I will summarize to comp.protocols.tcp-ip if there is interest. Thanks! On Paradise, Oracle Federal/Civilian, Bethesda, MD. (301)907 2313 ------------------------------ From: Robert Ullmann Subject: ISDN Mailing List Date: 26 Jun 91 15:57:54 EDT The following is a description of a not-new mailing list. It grew out of TCP-ISDN and some other parts. Please note the ==> ISDN-Subscribe@List.Prime.COM <== address for automatic subscription. ISDN@List.Prime.COM ISDN is a mailing list for the discussion of the technical aspects of ISDN. There are presently 1400+ subscribers in more than 25 countries, including many of the (would be :-) ISDN providers. The ISDN list is not moderated. All submissions are automatically reflected to the entire list of subscribers. Note that discussion of voice telephony may be more appropriately carried on in the TELECOM Digest and newsgroup (comp.dcom.telecom). This is, of course, at the contributor's discretion. You can receive this list by SMTP/X.25/ISDN; see RFC1090 and ask ISDN-Request for more information. Archive of sorts: anonymous FTP, on tiger1.prime.com:pub/isdn/* All requests to be - Added to the list should be sent to: ISDN-Subscribe@List.Prime.COM Deleted from the list should be sent: ISDN-Cancel@List.Prime.COM (these two are automagic) Submission to the list: ISDN@List.Prime.COM Questions, problems: ISDN-Request@List.Prime.COM Coordinator: Robert Ullmann, Ariel@Relay.Prime.COM +1 508 620 2800 x1736 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Jun 91 17:19:52 CDT From: Stan Reeves Subject: Wiring For ISDN, etc. My wife and I are planning to build a house beginning in a few weeks. I've been trying to think ahead and figure out if there's any extra wiring we might like to put in the house before the sheetrock is put up. Simple ideas include wiring every room with speaker jacks that run to a central location to be driven by a stereo. There's also the possibility of an intercom system or something like that. Taking a longer view, though, I'm wondering what else might be included in the house. For example, it occurred to me to wire the house for a PC-LAN. I doubt I'll do that, but it's an idea. I've also been thinking about ISDN. Unfortunately, I don't know how such a thing would be wired (what kind of wire, interfaces, etc.). Right now, this is about all I know (or think I know) about ISDN: * Some aspects of ISDN are still evolving. * Some types of ISDN service are already being offered in some areas (but not here). My questions: 1) Would ISDN require special wiring in the home, or would it use existing phone lines? 2) If it requires special wiring, does it have to be a particular type? What type would be best? 3) Would you recommend trying to wire the house in anticipation of ISDN service becoming widespread and being offered in my area? 4) Do you have any advice that I should consider for wiring the house to make it easy to add other communications devices as desired (smart house wiring)? 5) Are there other newsgroups that might be more appropriate for some of these questions? Thanks for your help. Stan Reeves Auburn University, Department of Electrical Engineering, Auburn, AL 36849 INTERNET: sjreeves@eng.auburn.edu ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #499 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa11345; 30 Jun 91 0:25 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa21116; 29 Jun 91 22:46 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab05888; 29 Jun 91 21:41 CDT Date: Sat, 29 Jun 91 20:42:38 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #500 BCC: Message-ID: <9106292042.ab22067@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 29 Jun 91 20:42:31 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 500 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Call for Papers: Telepresence Conference, Sweden [Robert Jacobson] Line-Powered 'In Use' Circuit Problem [Rich Mintz] Blocking of Room-to-Room Calls in Hotels [Larry Lippman] Cellular Telephone Antennas (was Cellular Phone Jamming) [Bruce Perens] Cell Phones: Whose is Best? [jayms@cunyvm.bitnet] C & P Phone Outage [Richmond Times Dispatch via William W. Arnold] C & P Outage Didn't Affect Me [Carl Moore] Bellevue Prefixes (Washington State) [Carl Moore] Radio Shack Call Detail Recorder Box Wanted [Bill Huttig] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robert Jacobson Subject: Call for Papers: Telepresence Conference, Sweden, 24-25 Oct 91 Organization: Human Interface Technology Lab, Univ. of Wash., Seattle Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1991 15:10:51 GMT First Announcement and Call for Papers First COST #229 WG.5 Workshop (IFIP) TELEPRESENCE -- A NEW CONCEPT FOR TELECONFERENCING University of Linkoping, Sweden 24-25 October 1991 The goal of the workshop is to highlight the technical and telecommunication related problems which occur when Telepresence (helmet display systems) is used for teleconferencing. The workshop will work as a forum to discuss these problems and as an information about current research and development of equipment in the area. The following types of sessions are scheduled: o Invited tutorials that focus on the state of the art and current research o Roundtable discussions to present and discuss open problems regarding different research topics Topics include: o 3D scene representation o Data sharing/task allocation o Human body modeling o Facial feature detection o Body movement detection o Artificial 3D sound generation o Image representation o Special purpose processors o Real time image generation o Display headsets Workshop Committee: Dr. Robert Forchheimer Mrs. Anna Linderhed Mr. Bengt Kvarnstrom Deadline for extended abstracts (1500 words): AUGUST 1, 1991 Authors will be notified of the acceptance of their papers by August 24th. Please address questions, or willingness to contribute, to: Mrs. Anna Linderhed Department of Electrical Engineering Linkoping University S-581 83 LINKOPING Sweden Fax: (46)(13) 139 282 Phone: (46)(13) 281 000 Email: anna@isy.liu.se ------------------------------ From: Rich Mintz Subject: Line-Powered 'In Use' Circuit Problem Organization: California State University, Chico Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1991 04:13:24 GMT I own a product from Radio Shack called the "Multiphone Recording Control" (catalog no. 43-236). That's a nice way of saying "Sneaky Phone Tap." This line-powered device is a small box with one regular, mono, earplug-type connector (plug, not socket), and one smaller plug. The larger plug is connected to the MICrophone jack on a tape recorder, and the smaller plug, to the REMote jack that older tape recorders have (not needed with new recorders that automatically turn on and off by monitoring their MIC's sound level). Once this box is connected to any extension in the house, it will automatically turn on the recorder and record a conversation (or any line activity) when ANY extension in the house is picked up, and stop recording, and go off-line, when all extensions are hung-up. When you consider the function of the signal from the remote jack by itself, it is essentially an "In Use" light, but in "signal" form (for lack of a better word). I interfaced this remote jack lead to my computer via the "external event detection jack" on my voice mail card, which is capable of detecting an open or closed circuit, intended for use with security systems, etc. Connecting the remote lead to the computer for monitoring with software could just as easily be done using one of the printer or COM port leads, etc. I wrote a little routine in Turbo C that will check the port, and report whether all extension phones are hung up or not, without having to actually pick up the phone. Now, if I need to make a call, and someone's on the line, the computer will alert me as soon as they have hung up, without having to bother the caller by continuously picking up the phone to check if the line is free. The system has worked fine for a long time, but I'm having a problem with it now. I built the "in use" light from the schematic submitted by Nelson Bolyard in article number 12352 (thanks, Nelson), and it worked fine. Unfortunately though, the Radio Shack device sends little "pulses" to the phone line when the line is not in use, presumably as some side effect of its being line-powered. For whatever reason it does this, the unwanted result is that it causes the "in-use" LED to blink constantly when the line is not in use, and to come on steady when it is. This is not only confusing to those using it as an indicator of line status, but it will also cause the batteries in the "in-use" device to be depleted quickly. Due to some earlier, unfortunate "tinkering" with the RS product, the portion of the circuit which handles the output to the MIC jack was ruined, and no longer functions. However, I distinctively remember this tendency for the device to send pulses to the line even when it was brand new. In fact, when monitoring the signal from the REMote lead with software, I have to check for a continuous 1..0..1..0..1..0 pattern to signify all extensions on hook, and a steady 0..0..0..0..0 when an extension is picked up. I have driven myself bonkers trying to fix the problem by removing and adding capacitors on both the RS unit, and the "in-use" circuit with no luck. 1) Any suggestions for stopping those annoying pulses on the line by the RS device? 2) Would it be safe (and feasible) to use Nelson's "in use" schematic, but connect the computer signal leads across where the LED is supposed to go, in order to get a true signal for the line status that won't pulse? 3) As I am only using a 2400 baud modem, a simpler, line-powered "in-use" circuit would (hopefully) not interfere with my modem, and would simplify my assembly of three or four of these units for all of the extensions in my house. Anyone have such a schematic that will work? 4) Does an alternative device exist that will simply "suck" all the line voltage away from the other phone extensions in the house when mine is in use, to prevent pickups from disturbing my modem's activities? NOTE: It may be illegal to record phone conversations with the device mentioned in this article, without the knowledge of one or both parties on the line, in your state. Inquire about applicable laws where you live before doing so. Thanks a lot, Rich Mintz Internet: rmintz@cscihp.ecst.csuchico.edu CompuServe: 71560,1142 Phone: (916) 894-3342, Chico CA ------------------------------ Subject: Blocking of Room-to-Room Calls in Hotels Date: 26 Jun 91 23:58:21 EDT (Wed) From: Larry Lippman In article TJW@vms.cis.pitt.edu (Terry J. Wood) writes: > On a recent vacation, I made the mistake of getting room 411 in a hotel. > I also made the mistake of being the one to sleep next to the telephone. > Around 3 AM the phone rings: At one time it was a standard feature of PABX's for intended for hotel operation to provide a key on the attendant console which blocked room-to-room calling. The attendant usually operated the key to disable room-to-room calls between 11 PM and 7 AM or so. The intention, of course, was to prevent guests from disturbing other guests. Calls from room-to-room could still be completed through the attendant, however. Does anyone know if such a feature is still used? I have a feeling that this is no longer considered to be a "problem". Larry Lippman @ Recognition Research Corp. "Have you hugged your cat today?" VOICE: 716/688-1231 {boulder, rutgers, watmath}!ub!kitty!larry FAX: 716/741-9635 [note: ub=acsu.buffalo.edu] uunet!/ \aerion!larry ------------------------------ From: bruce@pixar.com Subject: Cellular Telephone Antennas (was Cellular Phone Jamming) Organization: Pixar -- Point Richmond, California Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1991 01:22:53 GMT A unity gain whip for 800 MHz cellular systems is three inches long, not counting the ground plane. This means that a small whip could be mounted INSIDE, on the rear deck of a sedan and give adequate performance for an auto alarm transponder in an urban area. I have one of those 27 MHz Mobile Alert systems, and I use a hidden piece of wire inside the car for its antenna so that it can't be defeated by breaking off an external whip. I've also noticed that the window mount cellular antennas go on working in urban areas even with the entire outside part missing. In these areas, multipath is more of a problem than signal strength. I use a Hirschman "stamp handle" antenna mounted on the center of my car's roof with my cellular telephone. Its length from the car's roof to the tip of the whip is three inches or a bit less. It looks like a chess pawn sitting on the roof of the car (they even come in black or white!). The car is the ground plane. The window mount antennas are so long because they have have gain to fight the loss of that lame through-window capacitive coupling. I have a 5 dB gain whip that screws into the same base as the unity gain antenna, but it has not yet been necessary to use it (using GTE in the S.F. Bay area). Most cellular connections don't use all of the power of the transmitter in your car, which can be commanded to transmit at different power levels by the cell. I don't know if the cell can also reduce its own transmit power level. Bruce Perens ------------------------------ Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center Date: Thursday, 27 Jun 1991 07:52:41 EDT From: JAYMS%CUNYVM.BITNET@mitvma.mit.edu Subject: Cell Phones: Whose is Best? I'm sure this question has been posted before - but I've finally decided to take the plunge and conquer my resisting to get a portable/car cel phone. Can anyone tell me the latest and greatest model of cellular phone? I'm interested in a model used in the car where the handset can be unplugged and become a portable -- or a high quality tiny pocket portable will do. As this technology is constantly changing, does anyone know of something which is about to come out in the near future and worth waiting for? Besides this newsgroup have you any suggestions on sources of information on cellular phones? Magazines, newsletters, trade journals, etc.? Please reply direct to me. THANKS! ------------------------------ From: "William W. Arnold" Subject: C&P Phone Outage Date: Thu, 27 Jun 91 9:26:42 EDT Quoted from the {Richmond Times Dispatch}, Thursday, June 27, 1991 Computer glitch curbs phone service to many Millions of Virginians could not make local phone calls yesterday afternoon. The cause: a computer problem in Baltimore. In all, as many as 6.3 million telephone lines in the District of Columbia, Maryland, Virginia, and West Virginia were affected. The problem began about 11:40 a.m. and phone service was fully restored by 9 p.m. "I've been with C&P for 17 years and I don't recall anything of this magnitude," said Paul Miller, spokesman for the Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Company of Virginia. The glitch meant that many or all customers whose phones were connected to C&P's computer-assisted Intelligent Network could not make most local calls. Some long-distance calls were also interrupted. About 6.3 million of C&P's more that 7 million lines in the three stated and Washington are connected to the computerized network. In Virginia the company has 2.6 million lines. Coming in the middle of the business day, the failure idled thousands of phone-dependent workers and created headaches for many others. "Needless to say, there are a few newspapers being read today," said Vic Harper, a stockbroker with Scott & Stringfellow in Richmond. "The trading desk is pretty much dead." Brokers could call stock exchanges to make trades, Harper said, but they couldn't reach clients, and clients couldn't reach them. At Southside Regional Medical Center in Petersburg, the phone failure caused logistical problems. "There's been a couple of doctors who couldn't get," reported Julia Callis, a nursing supervisor. In one case, the hospital sent police to Dinwiddie County to find a physician. At Richmond Newspapers, the company that publishes this paper, classified advertising calls were down by at least one-third for the afternoon said George Johnston, a classified ad supervisor. The loss in business could run into thousands of dollars. "It's a very strange thing to sit here and hear no phones ringing," Johnston said. In the Richmond area, 911 emergency calls went through. However, many people, unable to complete local calls, flooded the emergency lines trying to get information, creating problems for police and fire communications workers. "We've got literally hundreds of extra phone calls," said J.P. Hoskin, supervisor for Richmond's Emergency Communications office. Most of the phone lines in Washington were affected, but high-level government agencies, including the White House, the Pentagon and the State Department said their communications were not greatly impaired. The problem was caused by a switching system that Bell Atlantic, C&P's parent company, began installing in the mid-'80s. Bell Atlantic pinpointed the trouble at a computerized "signal transfer point" of STP, in Baltimore. The STP determines how local calls are routed from one switching office to another. C&P has four STPs and they route calls in the in the district, Maryland, Virginia and West Virginia. Yesterday, the company was transferring some of the switching load from an STP in Washington to one in Baltimore when the latter computer signaled trouble and shut itself down. Normally, one of the other three STPs would provide a backup, said Sandy Granzow, spokeswoman for Bell Atlantic. But when the Baltimore STP electronically signaled it was entering a "trouble mode," it also sent a blizzard of spurious messages to the other STPs, causing them to shut down as well. Bell Atlantic vowed to review the system to find the bug responsible for the failure. "You can be sure it will be fixed," Ms Granzow said. The STP computers, in addition to providing fast switching, have also allowed C&P to introduce new services, such as Caller ID, which allows customers to learn the phone number of a caller before answering the phone Bell Atlantic, in its ads, calls the system its Intelligent Network. Coincidentally, a computer glitch disrupted phone service in Southern California for several hours yesterday, Pacific Bell said. William W. Arnold | has8wwa@cabell.vcu.edu | warnold@gnu.ai.mit.edu Student Consultant, Academic Computing, Virginia Commonwealth Univ. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Jun 91 13:13:31 EDT From: Carl Moore Subject: C&P Outage Didn't Affect Me The top story in today's {Baltimore Sun} was a telephone outage affecting Maryland, DC, Virginia, and parts of West Virginia. I live in Delaware and work in northeastern Maryland, and did not notice anything wrong. Anyway, the article says that AT&T operators were placing some local calls (via emergency waiver of some sort?) at 80 cents a call. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Jun 91 13:58:38 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Bellevue Prefixes (Washington state) In a recent Digest is listed: > Bellevue, WA Central Office: 641, 643, 644, 747 > and possibly others now (area 206) Other Bellevue prefixes as of 1982 were 451,453,454,455,746. ------------------------------ From: Bill Huttig Subject: Radio Shack Call Detail Recorder Box Wanted Date: 27 Jun 91 22:08:10 GMT Reply-To: Bill Huttig Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL I have been looking in all the local Radio Shacks for the device they sold in the last catalog which records the time/length of all outgoing calls. I have not been able to find any since it is a discontinued item. If anyone see one (on sale and could pick it up for me) please let me know. I did manage to get the call forwarding box though. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #500 ******************************