Phoenix Rising BBS/phoenixrising.zip/phoenixrising/tele-dig/td14-090.txt

Text File | 1994-02-18 | 25KB | 536 lines

TELECOM Digest     Fri, 18 Feb 94 12:51:00 CST    Volume 14 : Issue 90

Inside This Issue:                          Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Harrassing One-Ring Calls ([e-mail])
    Re: Harrassing One-Ring Calls (Jack Hamilton)
    Re: Harrassing One-Ring Calls (Bob Niland)
    Re: Harrassing One-Ring Calls (Anthony E. Siegman)
    Re: Don't Trust The Phone Company (Mark Brader)
    Re: Internet Costs and Software Are Free (Nick Sayer)
    Re: Internet Costs and Software Are Free (Chaim Frenkel)
    Re: More Information on the Economics of Dial-Back Services (Tan Ken Hwee)
    Re: More About INTERNET Connections (Linc Madison)
    Re: AT&T Says They Can't Resolve My Calls' Origin (L. W. Westermeyer)
    Re: AT&T Says They Can't Resolve my Calls' Origin (Ed Ellers)
    Re: A Small Town in Wyoming (Robert Casey)
    Re: Seeking Information Regarding UPT Standards Draft (Ed Garcia Lopez)

TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and GEnie.
Subscriptions are available at no charge to qualified organizations
and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:

                 * [e-mail] *

The Digest is compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson Associates of
Skokie, Illinois USA. We provide telecom consultation services and
long distance resale services including calling cards and 800 numbers.
To reach us:  Post Office Box 1570, Chicago, IL 60690 or by phone
at 708-329-0571 and fax at 708-329-0572. Email: [e-mail].

    ** Article submission address only: [e-mail] **

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

TELECOM Digest is gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup comp.dcom.telecom. It has no connection with the unmoderated
Usenet newsgroup comp.dcom.telecom.tech whose mailing list "Telecom-Tech
Digest" shares archives resources at lcs.mit.edu for the convenience
of users. Please *DO NOT* cross post articles between the groups. All
opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 18 Feb 1994 06:14:48 -0800
From: [e-mail] (puma)
Subject: Re: Harrassing One-Ring Calls


TELECOM Digest Editor noted in response to Bill Llewellyn (thinker@
rahul.net):

>> is the poor man's self-help to peace and quiet on the telephone. Oh, I
>> know the ACLU and the Socially Responsible People don't approve of it,
>> but then, I don't approve of them either.  PAT]

> The ACLU has no policy one way or the other on Caller ID.  The ACLU
> concerns itself only with Bill of Rights issues, and more specifically
> First Amendment rights in test cases.  In California where Caller ID
> is not in use, rape crisis centers were a driving force among groups
> against Caller ID.  They're concerned that (as an example) a woman
> calling to order a pizza could be harrassed by unwanted calls if the
> pizza dude thought her voice was arousing.

Here in Wisconsin (where the PSC has approved CallerID but it's not
implemented yet) the pizza places use a centralized number and ANI for
information on last orders, callback, etc.  Before they had that, they
would just ask for your number anyway, so I don't see where CallerID
would be a factor.


[e-mail]


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Because when they merely ask for your
number, you can lie about it and give a phalse number not your own.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Jack Hamilton)
Subject: Re: Harrassing One-Ring Calls
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 1994 14:50:33 GMT


[e-mail] (Jack Hamilton) wrote:

> I think you're misrepresenting the position of the people who were
> opposed to Caller IDd in California.  I was opposed to it, or at least
> to the way I understood it was to be implemented.

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Just as your right to to swing your arms
> around ends when your fist reaches my face, likewise your right to
> privacy ends when you cause my telephone to ring. If you want to live
> in your own private little world, no one is stopping you, but when you
> choose to interact with others, how can you sit there and say you have
> the right to approach them or call them anonymously?  Where are their
> rights to be left alone? Like with pizza drivers, their rights don't
> seem to matter, eh?

The pizza stores could say "I'm sorry, you've disallowed Caller-ID, so
we won't deliver to you", or they could choose the intercept service
that says something like "non-id's calls to this number are not
accepted."  Again, you are misrepresenting the position of the people
opposed to Pac Bell's offering.

I'm not opposed to Caller-ID, I'm just opposed to making a lot easer
for other people to get my number than it is for me to keep them from
getting it.  I'm paying for my phone too.  The choice should be easy
for both parties, not just one.


Jack Hamilton      USMail: POB 281107 SF CA 94128  USA
[e-mail]     Packet: kd6ttl@w6pw.#nocal.ca.us.na

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

From: [e-mail] (Bob Niland)
Subject: Re: Harrassing One-Ring Calls
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 1994 05:45:46 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Colorado SuperNet


Richard Barnes ([e-mail]) wrote:

> We had this happen a while back, and frequently at night.  We had to
> call the phone company several times, and finally talk to a supervisor
> (we got incorrect information from everyone else).  The supervisor
> said it was the phone company's test equipment.

If it happens only once a night, usually at the same time, my
understanding is that it may be what I once heard described as "Line
Insulation Test".  It is an out-of-band (voltage and/or frequency)
ring signal.  I doubt that any CLID arrives with the signal.  On a
properly designed and manufactured telephone, it should have no
noticeable effect (esp. no ring).

It will cause many cheapo phones to "chirp", and will definitely cause
Radio Shack "Fone Flasher" neon lights to flash.  We have disabled
ringers on the bedroom phones, and use the lights to ID which line is
being called when the phones down the hall ring at night.  We've grown
accustomed to the once-a-night flash-flash as the test sequences
through our two lines.

Solutions:

- replace cheapo phones or disable their ringers
 - get used to it on Fone Flashers


Regards,

Bob Niland     1001-A East Harmony Road  Suite 503
Internet:  [e-mail]     Fort Collins
CompuServe: 71044,2124     Colorado     80525   USA

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

Date: Fri, 18 Feb 1994 11:04:50 -0800
From: Anthony E. Siegman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Harrassing One-Ring Calls
Organization: Leland Stanford Junior University


> I think you're misrepresenting the position of the people who were
> opposed to Caller ID in California.  I was opposed to it, or at least
> to the way I understood it was to be implemented.
> The problem was that it was going to be difficult for callers to turn
> off identification.  We wanted a way to turn off Caller ID "permanently"
> ...(much deleted)...

   This is a good message, and matches my impression of why Caller-ID
went down in CA.  Pac Bell insisted it be done "their way" or not at
all, and the latter prevailed.

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

From: [e-mail] (Mark Brader)
Subject: Re: Don't Trust The Phone Company
Organization: SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, Canada
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 94 02:31:43 GMT


> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: ... This is where having
> Caller-ID *and* 'return last call' both on the line would be useful.
> That way one could see the actual number placing the call even if the
> return trip led somewhere else. ...]

Or it would be useful to be in a place where "return last call" worked
that way in the first place, as it does here.

> Maybe there ought to be a dialing code for the purpose of 'do not forward'.
> That is, the person placing the call would dial some two-digit code (such
> as for blocking or do not disturb) which meant 'absolutely ring number
> such and such'. ...  Telco ... would ... ring that number or respond with
> a voice intercept, ... if the number was being forwarded. ...]

You know, I think there's a good idea there ...

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

From: [e-mail] (Nick Sayer)
Subject: Re: Internet Costs and Software Are Free
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: [phone], log in as 'guest'.
Date: 18 Feb 1994 04:31:46 UTC


> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Regards the viciousness of email (and
> in this regard, many Usenetters are as vicious as they come)

So are many niggers, gooks, chinks, honkies, and bitches, Pat.  Anyone
different is just not the same.

No, I don't really think that way. I'm just trying to make a point.


Nick Sayer <[e-mail]>  N6QQQ @ N0ARY.#NOCAL.CA.USA.NOAM
[phone], log in as 'guest' PGP 2.2 public key via finger


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Ah, but the category of Usenetter transcends
all those ugly terms you mention above. One can be any of those people and
be a participant on Usenet and none of those people are in and of themselves
inherently nasty or bad. But there is something about being hidden behind
a keyboard typing things as we do which brings this medium closer day by
day to the epitomy of Citizen's Band Radio at its heyday in the late 1970's
and early 1980's, with all its viciousness and hostility. In the 1960-70
era, only a few people had CB radios ... and it was a rather elite crowd.
But they were very helpful, kind and intelligent people. Then Johnny Cash
popularized a song about CB and the whole world got in on it. Was that a
good idea? Well, in theory yes, but before long the nasty people dominated
it and ruined it for everyone. All the accusations made about the Internet
and Usenet now were made about CB back then: it was used to spread racial
propoganda; it was used by pedophiles to lure children to their homes; it
was used by prositutes at truck stops seeking customers; it was used by
religious fanatics who would preach the most bizarre sermons for hours on
end ... and more. Update the technology and re-write the complaints a
little -- bingo, you have Usenet. Usenet is simply CB Radio all over again
with Big Men dominating the scene who type what they please knowing there
will be no real repercussions for the most part. But because with CB
the transmission was generally limited to a few miles, and every community
had its own obnoxious CB'er whose impact was generally limited to the
community while Usenet's transmission goes over a wider territory, the
'obnoxious affect' works a little differently also. Of course I speak with
the bias of a city person who operated a *large, very powerful* CB. An
antenna 100 feet in the air overlooking a large lake is going to pull in
trash -- oops, I mean signals -- from everywhere, and I did. So I got to
listen to all of Chicago and quite a bit of Illinois on my CB in those
days and toward the end it was bad news. Finally over a period of several
months, maybe a year or more people just kept dropping out the way they
had earlier dropped in. I turned on my CB the other day for the fun of
it and heard little or nothing on any of the channels.  I forsee the same
thing on Usenet: for a while longer it is going to grow and grow and grow.
Those 'make money fast' chain letters will start appearing almost daily.
News traffic will grow much larger. More and more newspaper articles will
appear telling people about Internet and how to use it. Then large numbers
of people will start burning out from all the reading they do and the
abusiveness of the whole thing and start tuning out. The commercial ventures
will keep on posting stuff but the ordinary user will grow weary and quit
reading news as often. There won't be any such thing as the long-forcasted
'death of the net'; it will just keep evolving until a few years from now
an old timer who returned for a visit would not recognize it and for the
average person, communication via Usenet becomes a futile exercise.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Chaim Frenkel)
Subject: Re: Internet Costs and Software Are Free
Date: 18 Feb 94 04:06:37 GMT
Organization: Nonlinear Knowledge, Inc.


> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I've always felt the same way where this
> Digest was concerned. It is purely my contribution to the world to help
> stamp out ignorance where the operation of telephone networks is concerned.
> At least it began that way ... now I think I am a victim of my own success
> where the Digest is concerned as the volume of traffic and the size of
> the mailing list has increased far beyond what either Jon Solomon or I
> expected or considered possible. Part of this of course is due to the
> general increase in Internet usage; part perhaps due to my own efforts to
> gateway the Digest to so many places. At that I was successful, and now
> the mail is pouring in at such a volume that even a cursory examination
> of much of it is difficult. And that is not good. I wish I could read
> every peice of mail and use every peice of mail I receive, but until the
> time comes that I can support myself independent of other outside jobs
>  -- if that time ever comes -- and work on the Digest eight or nine hours
> per day -- which could easily be done now if resources were available --
> then I have to do what I can. I wish I lived high enough in the "Maslow
> Hierarchy" to be able to afford it.  PAT]

Have you considered some sort of sub-sysop as done on various BBS's?

Assign the next article that is ORIGINAL to the next sysop, record the
thread and continue to route any followup to that thread to the same sysop.

Overall editorial content would then be yours. You might want to review
only the initial message to give some editorial guidance to the sysop.

Etc. Etc.


Chaim Frenkel              On contract at:
[e-mail]              [e-mail]
Nonlinear Knowledge, Inc.  Bear Stearns & Co., Inc.


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I've thought about it, and probably would
then have them edit their articles and send them back to go into the
finished, published issue. One problem with this is the additional delay
it would cause in getting stuff out. To some extent, c.d.t.t. has been
helpful; believe it or not, I am actually getting more stuff now than I
did before c.d.t.t. I don't know what I would do if I had all that stuff
still coming in as well. :(  It appears however that at least some of
the problem is ending. The Digest has been awarded a grant which will
partially fund me. The grant -- a very generous one I might add -- will
come in the form of a monthly stipend to help offset costs. It is coming
to me from an organization to which telephone companies all belong, so
in effect all telcos will be contributing. I intend to announce this in
more detail within the next week or two. While I won't be in a position
to sing 'Happy Days are Here Again', neither will I be quite as concerned
about the phone and other utility bills. It looks like the gas heating
bill for January is going to cost me about $500. (brr and shiver, in
more ways than one.)  :(   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Tan Ken Hwee)
Subject: Re: More Information on the Economics of Dial-Back Services
Date: 18 Feb 1994 13:44:05 GMT
Organization: National University of Singapore


Gowri Narla ([e-mail]) wrote:

> and your frequent callers by prior arrangement.  Your long distance
> caller lets your phone ring twice and hangs up. He does this twice and
> you know who's calling. Obviously, you DIAL-BACK. Likewise, another
> party is identified by, say ... two sets of three rings. And so on.
> Inconvenient? Yes. But for someone who's used to seeing the pits of
> telecoms, it's ok.

Well ... another way I thought of but never tried was to use the
Country Direct number, get to the operator of the target country and
ask to make a collect call to Mr. Fictitious at xxx-xxxx.  The people
at xxx-xxxx would then know that I am trying to call them and can call
me back.  Different names -- different people.  Of course, the party
at the target country has to *refuse* to accept the collect call.

[ This might be subject to strange snags.  I found out after calling
Singapore Direct genuinely a couple of times from America, that the
operator could recognise my voice! ]


Ken Hwee TAN    National University of Singapore


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Not only that, what you propose is
pure and simple fraud. Now where do you draw the line between conveying
a voice message through an operator with no intent to pay for it versus
delivering a message by causing someone's phone to ring with no intent
to pay for it? Well, I sell arbitrage call-back, so I say the latter is
legal and the former is illegal!  :)  But if it were not for AT&T selling
their own answering machines with the 'toll-saver feature', I'd have a
hard time justifying my method as well.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Linc Madison)
Subject: Re: More About INTERNET Connections
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 1994 10:44:04 GMT


Lars Poulsen ([e-mail]) wrote:

> After my article about Internet conenctions, I have received many
> generic questions about connecting to the Internet. Here are some answers:

> 3) You mentioned a PC or Mac e-mail client called Eudora. Can you tell me
>    more?

>    Eudora exists in a Mac version (which I have used with MacTCP) and in a
>    PC/Windows version. It used to be NCSA freeware, but the author moved to
>    QualComm who have decided to take it commercial. The older version is
>    still available by FTP from ftp.qualcomm.com.

Small correction here: the freeware version of Eudora is still around
and being updated.  Version 1.4.2 is in beta testing currently, with
release expected in March (according to the Eudora mailing list).  The
commercial version is also beta'ing an update (v. 2.0.2) in parallel.
The commercial version adds some convenience features not provided in
the freebie.


Linc Madison   *   Oakland, California   *   [e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 18 Feb 94 10:52:18 CST
From: L. W. Westermeyer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T Says They Can't Resolve My Calls' Orgin


If your office has a PBX with digital trunks to the LEC CO, unless it
is an ISDN circuit, it is my understanding that the CO only receives
the billing telephone number (BTN).  The BTN is a *bogus* number used
by the LEC for billing purposes.

Voice: [phone]              [e-mail]   (Bitnet)
Fax:   [phone]              [e-mail] (Internet)
Mailing Address: University of Missouri - St. Louis
                 8001 Natural Bridge Road
                 St. Louis, MO 63121 USA

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

From: Ed Ellers <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T Says That They Can't Resolve my Calls' Origin
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 94 15:55:57 GMT
Organization: Delphi ([e-mail] email, 800-695-4005 voice)


Eric De Mund <[e-mail]> writes:

> AT&T calling card calls from my office in California to my parents in
> New York results in a telephone number other than that of my desk
> phone appearing on my AT&T calling card bill as the calls' origin.
> When I telephone that number, I get an internal recording telling me
> that that number isn't in service. (I work for a DOE/UC laboratory in
> Berkeley.)

I suspect that the telecom people where you work have told the telco
to set that one number to appear for any calls dialed out of your
facility.  With DOE involved (would this be LBL by any chance?) I
wouldn't be at all surprised that they'd want to prevent actual DID
numbers getting out by accident.

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

From: [e-mail] (Robert Casey)
Subject: Re: A Small Town in Wyoming
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 1994 05:26:40 GMT


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

> I lived in Acton, Massachussetts back in the late 70's.  They had five
> digit dialing there.  The adjacent towns were local calls.  The
> calling pattern was 5 digits for Acton, 7 for adjacent towns, 8 (1+)
> for the rest of 617 and 11 for everywhere else.  This was possible
> with Acton as 263 and Concord as 369 for example because there were no
> numbers in Acton of the form 263-69XX.  I may have the prefixes wrong,
> it's been a long time.

At about this same time ('79, '80), I used to live in the Binghamton,
NY area.  One night, I somehow stumbled onto the fact that I could
make some phone calls with less than seven digits.  Spent a little
time figuring out what shortened code would get me what exchange.  The
phone book made no mention of these short cuts.  I had never heard of
being able to make calls with less than seven digits before, I grew up
in northeast NJ in NPA 201 where all calls are seven digits.  Some of
my friends who grew up in Binghamton told me that the shortcuts were
common in the 60's, but had thought that they were gone when I found
them.  Binghamton is in 607.

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

From: [e-mail] (Eduardo Garcia Lopez)
Subject: Re: Seeking Information Regarding UPT Standards Draft
Organization: Telefonica I+D
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 1994 13:18:48 GMT


[e-mail] (b.vempati) writes:

> Is it possible for me to get hold of some information regarding UPT
> (Universal Personal Telecommunications) standards that are in the
> process of being drafted?

Below you'll find a list of ITU-T and ETSI drafts.

ITU-T drafts

Q.76  Service procedures for UPT- Functional modelling and information flows
      (study group 11)

F.851 Universal Personal Telecommunication - Service Description
      (study group 1)

F.850 Principles of UPT (study group 1)

COM XI-R267 Nov 92 Annex 10  List of open terminology used by WP XI/5
                             (includes many UPT terms)

ETSI Draft Reports


ETR NA-70201 Network Aspects: UPT General Service Description
ETR NA-70202 Network Aspects: UPT Service Requirements on Charging, Billing
                              and Accounting.
ETR NA-70203 Network Aspects: UPT Service Requirements on Security Mechanisms
ETR NA-70204 Network Aspects: UPT Terminal and UPT access devices
ETR NA-70205 Network Aspects: UPT Subscription and UPT service profiles
ETR NA-70206 Network Aspects: UPT user procedures and states
ETR NA-70207 Network Aspects: UPT Man-Machine interface
ETR NA-70208 Network Aspects: UPT Service requirements on numbering, addressing
                              and identification.
ETR NA-70209 Network Aspects: UPT Service Requirements on protection of third
                              parties
ETR NA-70210 Network Aspects: UPT Suplemmentary Services.

ETR NA-70401 Network Aspects: General UPT security architecture.
DTR NA-71101 Network Aspects: UPT Phase 1: Service Aspects: Guidelines
DTR NA-71305 Network Aspects: UPT Phase 1: Network functionalities for charging
                              billing and accounting.



Eduardo Garcia-Lopez
Telefonica I+D; Div. 4110; C/Emilio Vargas, 6; E-28043; Madrid; Spain
e-mail: [e-mail], Tel: [phone], Fax: [phone]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V14 #90
*****************************