Software Vault: The Diamond Collection/The Diamond Collection (Software Vault)(Digital Impact).ISO/cdr16/tc15_027.zip/TC15-027.TXT

Text File | 1995-01-22 | 29KB | 744 lines

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 12 Jan 95 13:12:00 CST    Volume 15 : Issue 27

Inside This Issue:                          Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Cell Phone PINs (Jeffrey Mattox)
    Re: Cell Phone PINs (Matthew P. Downs)
    Re: Cell Phone PINs (Alan Boritz)
    Re: Atlanta Airport's Pay Phones Reject 1-800 Numbers Randomly (K
Gooding)
    Re: Atlanta Airport's Pay Phones Reject 1-800 Numbers Randomly (G
Hlavenka)
    Re: Wireless CO's Challenge New NPAs? (James M. Roden)
    Re: Need an EBCDIC Spec (Paul Robinson)
    Re: SNA Over Token Ring (Paul Robinson)
    Re: Some Questions About the LDDS Calling Card ([e-mail])
    Re: Chatter Heard on Scanner Leads to Criminal Charges (Bob
Keller)
    Re: Procedure for Obtaining a 10XXX Code (Daniel Fandrich)
    Re: Urgent Help Needed With European Phone System (Wolf Paul)
    Re: Is TeleScript Already Available? (Michael Libes)
    Last Laugh: Speaking About Who is Boss (TELECOM Digest Editor)

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

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

                 * [e-mail] *

The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
                    9457-D Niles Center Road
                     Skokie, IL USA   60076
                       Phone: [phone]
                        Fax: [phone]
  ** 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 partially funded by a grant from the
*
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland
*
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES)
*
* project.  Views expressed herein should not be construed as
represent-*
* ing views of the ITU.
*
**********************************************************************
***

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

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

From: [e-mail] (Jeffrey Mattox)
Subject: Re: Cell Phone PINs
Date: 11 Jan 1995 16:42:08 GMT
Organization: Heurikon Corporation


In article <[e-mail]>, Carl Oppedahl
<oppedahl@patents.
com> wrote:

> I was reading a book about the cellular system that was published
> eight years ago ... it identified the problem that if people copy
down
> the ESN and phone number they could get free calls ... despite this
> the cellular industry moved ahead with the present system.

Somewhere, the person(s) that made the design/political decisions to
implement the system this horrible way are watching.  They probalby
even have cellular phones themselves.  I wonder what they are
thinking.  "Gosh, I was a dumb so-an-so for ..."  I wonder if it's the
same guy who invented the VCR programming scheme -- in which case he's
probably more of the mind to be laughing at the mess he's created.


Jeffrey Mattox -- [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Matthew P. Downs)
Subject: Re: Cell Phone PINs
Date: 11 Jan 1995 16:47:50 GMT
Organization: ADC Telecommunications


[e-mail] (Steve Seydell) writes:

> [e-mail] (A. Padgett Peterson) writes:

>> Sorry but I seem to be missing something here. If the PIN is sent
in
>> the clear then anyone grabbing the cell phone number off the air
will
>> also get the PIN.

> The PIN is sent as DTMF across the voice channel.  The ESN and
mobile
> ID are currently stolen by listening to the reverse signalling
> channel.  It is technically possible to steal the PIN, but it will
> take some time for thiefs to catch up.  The money saved by the
telcos
> will easily cover the cost of purchasing and operating this feature.

Determining DTMF tones is very easy.  It seems like they could come up
with a better method which would be as cheap.


Matt

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

Subject: Re: Cell Phone PINs
From: drharry![e-mail] (Alan Boritz)
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 95 21:35:20 EST
Organization: Harry's Place - Mahwah NJ - [phone]


[e-mail] (Steve Seydell) writes:

>> Sorry but I seem to be missing something here. If the PIN is sent
in
>> the clear then anyone grabbing the cell phone number off the air
will
>> also get the PIN.

> The PIN is sent as DTMF across the voice channel.  The ESN and
mobile
> ID are currently stolen by listening to the reverse signalling
> channel.  It is technically possible to steal the PIN, but it will
> take some time for thiefs to catch up.  The money saved by the
telcos
> will easily cover the cost of purchasing and operating this feature.

CellularOne, in the New York City area, seems to have no concern about
this issue.  Their "pin" numbers aren't required if you roam outside
your home area (even for NYC area customers roaming in southern New
Jersey).  It would seem that while exposing their NYC roamer customers
to potential fraud, they have not implemented their fraud-protection
system in such a way to protect their home customers from fraud while
roaming.

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

From: impact <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Atlanta Airport's Pay Phones Reject 1-800 Numbers
Randomly
Date: 11 Jan 1995 19:27:03 GMT
Organization: CompuTech


>> Today, I was in the airport that serves Atlanta, GA.  I tried to
place a
>> few 1-800 toll free calls, and had a lot of trouble.  Numbers I
know
>> to be good got responses of "invalid number".  I'd reach for
another pay
>> phone, and got thru to the number. I tried the same numbers later
that
>> day (while getting hung up with the dead Newark airport mess) in
the
>> Atlanta airport and got more "invalid number"; another attempt got
me
>> thru, then I got cut off.  Pay phones were labeled "PTC" (or
something
>> like that) and also said that the local exchange didn't "own" these
>> phones.  Some phones didnt work at all (bad keypads, or just dead).
I
>> don't know who "PTC" is, but they really SUCK!

When I worked as an operator for an AOS, we had many many reports of
payphones that would not complete toll-free calls, as well as those
that would actually CHARGE the end-user for a toll-free call. My
understanding is that the COCOT owner has the ability to program that
phone any way that s/he sees fit, be it legal or not. Let's face it,
if you're using that phone for a toll-free call, the phone owner is
making no money from coin or card paid calls...


Katherine Gooding
ITC Teleservices - LDDSMetromedia - What? Now WilTel too?


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Yes you are correct that the person
with
the admin passcode can program the COCOT however s/he sees fit ... as
you put it, legal or not ... and I will add, usually not. Now, we are
expected to have sympathy for the poor person who owns the phone and
is
making no money during the time we are making our toll-free call.
Well,
that's just another example of how intricately the phone network is
locked together. The way we *used* to do it was to have all pay phones
owned by the telco. The telco in turn was part of a process at AT&T
called 'separations and settlements' ... where telcos were paid for
their share of traffic over internetwork facilities where they did not
actually collect the money from the user. In turn, a portion of what
they actually collected went into the pot to pay the other telcos
involved. Gee, that method worked great for several decades ... then
Judge Greene decided things needed to be fixed and changed. Now
instead
of separations and settlements done in a uniform way, every COCOT
owner does his own thing with the public phone user being damned.
PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (gordon hlavenka)
Subject: Re: Atlanta Airport's Pay Phones Reject 1-800 Numbers
Randomly
Organization: Vpnet - Your FREE link to the Internet [phone]
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 1995 04:46:39 GMT


[e-mail] (Robert Casey) writes:

> Today, I was in the airport that serves Atlanta, GA.  I tried to
place a
> few 1-800 toll free calls, and had a lot of trouble.  Numbers I know
> to be good got responses of "invalid number".

Andrew Laurence <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Could it be that the numbers you were calling were not reachable
from
> that area? Some 800 numbers specifically include or exclude certain
> states or regions.

Recently I ran across a payphone in Oakbrook Terrace, IL which wanted
fifty cents to reach an 800 number!  Made me wish I had a tow rope in
the truck :-)

Payphone owners receive no revenues from 800 calls.  Hence I'd imagine
that they don't rate 800-access problems very high on their list of
priorities.


Gordon S. Hlavenka   [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (James M. Roden)
Subject: Re: Wireless CO's Challenge New NPAs?
Date: 11 Jan 1995 21:47:49 -0800
Organization: CRL Dialup Internet Access [phone]  [Login:
guest]


Linc Madison ([e-mail]) wrote:

> In some of the recent discussions of the swarm of new area codes
> coming this year, I've seen notations that the wireless companies
are
> challenging plans to move wireless services (cellular, beepers,
etc.)
> into an overlay area code.  The challenges are being made to the
state
> regulators and/or to the FCC.

> My question is, on what grounds are they challenging the overlays?
It
> seems to me that the tariffs have always been pretty clear that the
> telco does not in any way guarantee that you will be able to keep a
> given number or area code.

The real reason wireless (read cellular) carriers do not want to
switch their entire customer base to another NPA is (think about this)
_EVERY_ customer phone would have to be reprogrammed with the new NPA
number.  Going forward is one thing. Changing the base is quite
another.


Mike Roden / N5FL / [e-mail] / San Antonio, Texas

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

Date: Wed, 11 Jan 1995 14:08:00 EST
Subject: Re: Need an EBCDIC Spec
Organization: Tansin A. Darcos & Company, Silver Spring, MD USA
From: Paul Robinson <[e-mail]>


The specifications for EBCDIC are available in many IBM 370 Mainframe
publications, as IBM is the inventor and primary user for the EBCDIC
specification.

If you have a college near you that has an IBM or equivalent mainframe
and still teaches assembly language, their book store should have the
Gold Card, which is a small pamphlet listing various assembly
instructions
and a list of the EBCDIC character set and the translation of the
equivalent to ASCII.  Most programming manuals for IBM Mainframe
languages will include it, and if your local university or college has
books on IBM mainframe themes, one of them will probably include a
listing of the translation table, which is in the public domain.

You may also want to take a look at:

ds.internic.net:/rfc/rfc1345.txt

Which contains a list of many character sets, and will probably
include the listing for EBCDIC.

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

Date: Wed, 11 Jan 1995 14:16:36 EST
Subject: Re: SNA Over Token Ring
Organization: Tansin A. Darcos & Company, Silver Spring, MD USA
From: Paul Robinson <[e-mail]>


Timothy S. Chaffee <[e-mail]>, writes:

> I am looking into moving our print traffic from a SDLC/SNA
> connection to run over our Token Ring network. Can this be done? Any
> pointers in the right direction would be greatly appreciated!

There is a company -- the name escapes me -- selling a product called
the "Hydra" which connnects in place of a terminal controller, and
allows RS232 connections to look like 3270 terminals, allowing a
person on a PC or a modem to call into an SNA terminal network as if
their terminal WAS a 3270 terminal. If they can do this, they probably
have something that will do what you want.

Also, Black Box (someone here will have their number) has a statement
in their catalog that if you can describe to them a box to do a
protocol conversion they will see if they can find one if they have
it, or will quote you a price to create it if they don't have it and
their engineers can figure out how to make one.

Considering the number of nice printers including postscript and laser
that are out, I wouldn't be surprised if a device like this isn't
already out there for sale, probably around $2-3000, or roughly
whatever an internetwork device to connect SNA networks would cost,
which I'm not really familiar with.

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

From: [e-mail] (SM Communications And Marketing)
Subject: Re: Some Questions About the LDDS Calling Card
Date: 11 Jan 1995 19:15:27 -0500
Organization: InfiNet - Internet Access (614/224-3410)


In article <[e-mail]>, Yeechang Lee
<[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Well, I got the fabled LDDS calling card in the mail.  You know, the
> one its salesmen annoy people in every newsgroup with ads about?  It
> _is_ supposed to have much better rates than my AT&T or Sprint
cards,
> and I guess I'll find out as soon as I need to use it.

Yes it does and you'll see it when you use it and receive your bill.
It is only 17.5 cents per minute and no surcharges.

> Anyway, a few questions:

> a) All I got in my envelope was the card (in a paper carrier).  No
> brochure w/rates or anything.  I sorta know the rates but would have
> liked a paper reference.  Was there something missing?

You could ask the sales person who sent you the application to send
you a printed brochure. They have a nice brochure/order from that
describes everything about the calling card.

> b) My card has the logo of "American Travel Network" on the
> upper-right-hand side.  I also hear "Metromedia" associated with the
> LDDS name, but it doesn't appear on the card.  Who's ATN, are there
> different versions of the card, and if so are there different rates?

ATN is American Travel Network. They are the resellers of
LDDS/Metromedia
service. They are marketing the calling card and discount residential
and business services. However, the billing is done by
LDDS/Metromedia.

LDDS and Metromedia were two different companies before, they merged
(I think) September 1993 and formed the new company called
LDDS/Metromedia.
However sometimes you can see just LDDS or just Metromedia being used.
(I am not sure about this but they may have some old stock supplies to
finish!) :-)

There are no versions of the card. It is one calling card with 17.5
cents rate. The rate would the same no matter which representative you
get it from of directly from ATN.  However, note that you cannot get
the card directly from LDDS/Metromedia! since ATN is created this
program and they have special conract with LDDS/Metromedia to market
at this rate.  LDDS/Metromedia does not market at that rate!


Metin         e-mail: [e-mail]
Europe Frm $0.35     | FREE calling card, 17.5 cents, no surcharge.
India      $0.99     | Flat rate LD: As low as 10 cents per minute!
Asia   Frm $0.45     |***Free*800*service*as low as 12.5 cents flat
rate***
Middle East Frm $0.89| Credit Card Merchant          | Save 50-90% off
your
S.America Frm $0.75  | Accounts. As low as 1.65%     | International
Calls.


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Sometimes I delete .signatures and
obvious advertisements; sometimes not ... usually I do, but I saw this
fellow's thing above and it reminded me of when I used to do Orange
Card here ... as you who signed up through me will recall, Orange is
still another of the resellers of LDDS. I hope *he* makes some money
at it ... :) I still get my Orange Card residual checks every month,
as
pitiful as they are, now a couple years after getting involved.  PAT]

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


·
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 1995 12:50:46 EST
From: Bob Keller <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Chatter Heard on Scanner Leads to Criminal Charges


Hi Pat,

> Most readers have been following this thread in the Digest in recent
> days. Bill Sohl has written a final response on the topic, in which
> he summarizes FCC regulations and responds to comments made by
myself
> in recent issues.

I have _not_ been following the thread closely due to press of other
business, but I could not resist agreeing with you and disagreeing
with Mr. Sohl on one point ...

> You (PAT) said:

>> Aside from what the Electronic Communications Privacy Act says, the
>> Federal Communications Commission addresses the question of radios
>> which have been modified.  Illegal modification (i.e. modification
>> by an unlicensed person) voids your FCC authority to operate the
>> radio.

> Sorry, that is absolutely false.  The FCC part 15 rules are the
> specifc requirements for which RF devices must be tested against by
> the FCC to CERTIFY them for initial sale to the public.  That is all
> that the rules govern ... initial certification.  The rules do not
grant
> any "authority to operate" the device, nor do the forbid operation
of
> any certified device that has been modified after the initial sale
nor
> do they forbid operation of any uncertified device that may have
been
> built from scratch.  Bottom line...Part 15 rules impose absolutely
NO
> duty on the consumer.

I don't agree.  Rule 15.1(b) provides:

 "The operation of an intentional or unintentional radiator
  that is not in accordance with the regulations in this part
  must be licensed pursuant to the provisions of Section 301
  of the Communications Act, as amended, unless otherwise
  exempted from the licensing requirements elsewhere in this
  chapter."

Note that this rule addresses _operation_ of the device.  In most, if
not all, radio services, the modified device would not be properly
type accepted in the applicable service which would, in turn, preclude
licensing of its use pursuant to Section 301 except in special cases
(e.g., an experimental or developmental authorization, or possibly
certain amateur radio uses within ham bands and subject to ham rules).

> Anyone can buy any commercial receiver (or scanner, or TV, or
> computer, etc.) and modify it in any way they want and not be in
> violation (as you claim) of any law.  Additionally, hobbyists have
> been building their own receivers and/or modifying commercial (as
well
> as military surplus) receivers for years.  Doing so is not a crime,
> nor does it render the use of any such home built or modified
RECEIVER
> illegal.  Furthermore, there is NO license required to build,
modify,
> repair or otherwise tinker with any radio receiving equipment used
by
> the general population.

I am not sure that this statement can be squared with Section 15.21 of
the FCC Rules which provides:

 "The users manual or instruction manual for an intentional
  or unintentional radiator shall caution the user that
  changes or modifications not expressly approved by the
  party responsible for compliance could void the user's
  authority to operate the equipment."

While I would not necessarily go so far as to label scanner and other
receiver adjustments and/or modifications as necessarily or even
likely "criminal," it is nonetheless important to keep in mind two
important factors:

 (1) A device or a circuit within a device that is
     "receive-only" may still be (and in the case of
     radio receivers usually is) either an intentional
     or unintentional radiator within the meaning of
     Part 15 of the Rules; and

 (2) Without even getting into the debate over the special
     statutory and regulatory provisions applicable to
     cellular-capable scanners, there is a _big_
     difference between opening up a device to repair, allign,
     or adjust it and modifying the manufacturer's design
     features of the device.


Bob Keller (KY3R)   Robert J. Keller, P.C.   Tel: [phone]
[e-mail]   Telecommunications Law   Fax: [phone]
<ftp://ftp.clark.net/pub/rjk/>      <finger [e-mail]>


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Thank you, Bob. Section 15.21 is all
I was trying to get across to readers here. No, one does not have to
have a 'license', ie. written document or whatever to operate a
receiving only radio; authority is automatically given when you buy
it from a licensed source. But as soon as you tamper with the innards
and make changes in how or what the radio receives, and how it
processes
what it receives *and you are an unlicensed person* -- that is, you
lack a
tech ticket -- then according the FCC and 15.21 you lose your
authority
(albiet granted originally by default) to 'operate' the radio, which
may
amount to nothing more than twisting the off/on switch and the tuning
dial.
May I suggest to readers the next time you decide to purchase some
sort of
radio, or television perhaps, *look at the user manual*. Let's leave
Radio
Shack out of this since some people around here seem to think I am in
cahoots with Tandy or somehow playing tricks using their name. Buy
your
radio from whoever. Read the manual. Note the legal verbiage in there
somewhere about *losing your 'authority' to operate the darn thing if
you
make unlicensed repairs or modifications*. Why do you think General
Electric, Best Buy, K-Mart, Wal-Mart, etc and oh yeah!  Radio Shack
put
that admonition in there?  The FCC *requires* them to do so.

Radio Shack was putting in the FCC admonition, then their clerks were
making mock of it. In essence, the FCC said, "We'll show who is boss
...'
and they did.   PAT]

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

Date: Tue, 10 Jan 1995 19:57:40 -0800
From: Daniel Fandrich <[e-mail]>
Organization: Fandrich Cone Harvesters Ltd.
Subject: Re: Procedure for Obtaining a 10XXX Code


> And while we're at it, are there any 10XXX[X] codes assigned in
> Canada?

There are at least two "casual dialing" codes in BC: BC Tel (and
probably all Stentor members) has 10323, and Unitel has 10869.  Other
companies I've talked to either claimed not to have a code (e.g.
Sprint Canada) or simply refused to divulge theirs.  I haven't gotten
around to asking the CRTC if the complete list is public information.

Using the 10323 code worked as expected -- the calls were billed as
regular long distance calls on BC Tel's bill.  Using 10869 on a line
with BC Tel as the primary carrier resulted in charges showing up in a
section titled "Other carriers' long distance" on BC Tel's bill.

The number 1-700-555-4141 works the same here as in the U.S., giving
the long distance carrier's name.  Unitel's message is a bit
misleading when it's dialed as 10869-1-700-555-4141, however, as it
states, "Effective immediately, long distance calls made from the
telephone number you are calling from will be on Unitel's long
distance network."  It seems they'd rather not acknowledge the
existence of 10XXX codes in favour of signing you up for automatic
dial-1 carrier access.


Dan

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

Date: Wed, 11 Jan 95 11:16:15 +0100
From: [e-mail] (Wolf Paul)
Subject: Re: Urgent Help Needed With European Phone System


In article [e-mail],  [e-mail] (Petar Nikic)
writes:

>> What should I do to make a cordless phone work in Europe? I bought
it
>> in Canada. There are two problems with the plugs: the phone plug
and
>> the plug for the recharger. Both of them are different than those
>> which Europeans use.

This is not an easy question to answer since different phone plugs and
power plugs are used in the different European countries.

Additionally, the use of non-approved (i.e. foreign-bought) phones is
illegal in many European countries, and is considered especially
serious
in the case of cordless phones, whose frequencies may interfere with
local frequency assignments.

However, if you are determined to take that phone with you, feel free
to call me once you are in Europe, and I will try to help you find the
necessary adapters.


Regards,

Wolf

  *** PLEASE NOTE MY NEW LOCATION, E-MAIL ADDRESS AND PHONE/FAX
NUMBERS ***

Wolf N. Paul, UNIX Support/KSR          [e-mail]
Alcatel Austria AG                   [phone] (w)
Scheydgasse 41/E26                  [phone] (fax)
A-1210 Vienna, Austria (Europe)         [phone] (h)

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

From: [e-mail] (Sharpened Software)
Subject: Re: Is TeleScript Already Available?
Date: 11 Jan 1995 11:19:50 GMT
Organization: Sharpened Software Inc.


In article <[e-mail]>, Paul Boots <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Would there be anybody who can tell me if TeleScript is allready
> available.  I heard and read a lot about it and I would love to get
> hands-on experience.

Yes and no.  AT&T's new PersonaLink system runs the (currently) only
Telescript service.  There are a few developers working on more
Telescript services, but the development environment is not yet
available to anyone who want it.  The SDK, and the shrink-wrapped
Telescript engine are not yet stable and polished enough for general
use.


Michael Libes         Sharpened Software Inc
[e-mail]   Seattle, WA

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

From: [e-mail] (TELECOM Digest Editor)
Subject: Last Laugh: Speaking About Who is Boss
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 1995 13:00:00 CST


On the topic of "we'll show who is boss" I am reminded of this
delightful
little story first told to me about thirty years ago ...

One day the various parts of a man's body were having an argument
among
themselves over which of them was the most important part. The arms
claimed
to be the most important since they did whatever work was needed for
the
man. No, no, not so, claimed the legs. We are the most important
because
we convey the rest of the man's body, including his arms, to wherever
he
wants to go. Without us, how could the arms get to where they need to
be
to do their work?

The man's eyes claimed they were much more important, since without
them,
the legs would not know where to walk and the arms would not know what
to touch or work with. The brain kept insisting that it was the body
part
which coordinated all the rest; none of the others could function at
all
without it it kept arguing.

All this time, the man's asshole had been sitting there listening
quietly to the discussion. Finally it spoke up with disdain and said
"I'll show who's boss!" Having said that, it went on strike; plugged
itself up, and refused to allow anything to pass by. It went on for a
couple weeks that way, and before long the man's legs and arms were
sluggish; his stomach hurt; his eyes had a burning sensation, and his
thinking process had slowed down quite a bit. He found himself sitting
in one place for long periods of time each day getting nothing
accomplished.

Finally the asshole relented, and went back to work with the other
body
parts. The moral of this story?

  *To succeed as a boss you don't need to be a brain, just an
asshole.*


PAT

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #27
*****************************