The World of Computer Software/World_Of_Computer_Software-02-385-Vol-1of3.iso/t/tc13-005.zip/TC13-005.TXT

Text File | 1993-01-03 | 23KB | 541 lines

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 3 Jan 93 02:13:00 CST      Volume 13 : Issue 5

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Mission Impossible: IBT Getting My Order Correct (TELECOM Moderator)
    Re: Panasonic KXT-123211 Software (Craig R. Watkins)
    Re: Email to Genie (Fred Ennis)
    Re: About a Second Line in My Home (Dave Levenson)
    Re: ZyXEL Modem Review (Bill Fenner)
    Re: Sprint 800 Residential (Ray Normandeau)
    Re: Good Opportunity For Fraud (David Ash)
    Re: Good Opportunity For Fraud (Sean Donelan)
    Re: Bell Canada Calling Card Fraud (Tony Harminc)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 00:45:38 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Mission Impossible: IBT Getting My Order Correct


The past week has been a barrel of laughs where IBT is concerned with an
order to change some service for me.

On December 23, IBT was given the following instructions regarding
some lines I manage:

(There were):

Two hunt groups: one beginning xxx-2700 with four lines following.
                 one beginning xxx-7200 with a second line following.

Two phones independent of the hunt groups, xxx-7347  and xxx-7296.

On 7347, there were various features such as call waiting, three way
calling, caller-id, etc.

The request:

Drop the 2700 hunt group entirely.

Add one additional line to the 7200 hunt group making three lines in
total there, with the two back lines hunted from 7200.

Change the number on the line 7347 to 2700 and retain all the features
that 7347 had on it, plus add voicemail from IBT.

So I was dropping four of the eight lines and re-arranging the
remaining four lines.

I was promised the order would be done on Monday, December 28, the day
the billing is cut off each month. When I went to check on the work
Monday evening, here is what I found:

The 7200 hunt group was done correctly. There were now three lines in
the group.

The numbers following 2700 in that hunt group had been turned off, but
with an intercept saying 'being tested for trouble ... try again later.'
That intercept recording is still on those lines, now a week later.

7347 had been replaced by 2700, but with none of the features on it
(just a straight line; if in use caller got busy signal, etc). No
forwarding, no call waiting, etc.)

I called Monday night and complained; was told to call the Business
Office on Tuesday since 'the order had been written up wrong ...'.

Tuesday morning I called the Business Office. There was nothing wrong
with the order said the rep; the people who work in the CO have to
learn to read better. She assured me it would all be corrected that
day.

Tuesday night I check the (newly numbered) 2700 line. Still no
features on it. I call Repair again as the Business Office suggested,
and am told they can do nothing ... call the Business Office on
Wednesday morning.

Wednesday morning I wake up early and very cranky. I am on the line to
the Business Office the minute it opens. I am put on hold, and the rep
comes back to assure me, 'they are working on it right now, as we
speak ... give them about an hour, call me back if problems.'

Somehow I got distracted and did not get a chance to look at those
phones or lines Wednesday night. Late Thursday afternoon, New Year's
Eve, I go to that location.

Now 2700 has all the features -- including call waiting, as witnessed
by the fact that *70 responded with the tone bursts -- but they had
somehow decided to make 2700 also hunt into 7200 when it was busy!!
That I did not want, and I called Repair, 6 PM New Year's Eve. The
clerk said no one would be around that evening, but Friday (New Year's
Day) there would be someone working in the CO ... again I am assured
it will be fixed.

New Year's Day, about 10 AM I called Repair. 'Colleen' took my call,
put me on hold, and came back to say that 'Arlene' was in the CO
working on it ... wait a few minutes and see if it is okay ...'.

Sure enough, about fifteen minutes later, 2700 (which is supposed to
be stand alone, no hunt group but with lots of features, remember)
gives a little ding-ding on the bell.  I lift the receiver and hear
static on the line ... no dial tone ever comes on, but there is
battery present.  Well, I figure, I guess it is being worked on.

I test the line several minutes later by using it to dial itself,
expecting to get a busy signal ... instead it rings, and instead of
hunting to the 7200 line as it had been doing, now it hunts to the
*second line* in the 7200 hunt group!

I call back Repair, bellow loudly and the clerk puts me on hold. She
comes back to say 'Arlene' will call me in a few minutes when she
finishes talking to another customer.

I leave the little office where these phones are located and go
downstairs to (a) relieve myself and (b) get hot water for my coffee
in that order ... I am on the way back upstairs and hear the phone
ringing, but it stops before I get to it.

Well, that's no problem, after all, what is Caller-ID for? The display
screen shows a number, 312-509-something, and figuring it might be the
person in the CO wanting to talk to me, I press the 'Call Back' button
on the display unit.  It rings and someone answers, 'Repair, Colleen
speaking.' I ask did she call me, and she asks 'how did you get my
direct number?' ....!!!   From here on, it goes downhill ...

A few minutes later, another call comes from a woman named 'Debbie'
who states she is a repair supervisor in the Irving CO. Her complaint
is thus:  someone has 'been calling' repair on 'unauthorized numbers'
and it had better stop. If I want Repair Service, the number to call
is 611 and none other.

I told her all I did was press the 'call back' button on the display
unit and if she did not want calls on that line then the thing to do
would be to block her ID; that would prevent me from calling. After
all, what did she think Caller-ID was for? Furthermore, I noted, in
the Centel phone book (Centel is another phone company which has a few
exchanges on the northwest side of Chicago; they operate from the
Chicago-Newcastle CO) it plainly says people using Centel phones who
need Illinois Bell repair *cannot* dial 611 (they'll get Centel
repair) and *must* dial 509-something to get IBT. Finally, I noted,
instead of talking about my calls on 'unauthorized lines' maybe we
should talk about how her tech staff on New Year's Day could not get
their act together, and whether an appeal to the Chairman's Office on
Monday would be in order ...

I am put on hold ... a minute or so later, "Colleen" picks up the line
to tell me I need to call the Business Office on Monday, since the
order 'plainly says' that 2700 is to hunt to the second line in the
7200 hunt group ....

I defied her to find me something specific in the order which said
that and told her if she could, I'd come over to the CO and buy lunch
for her.

Back on hold I go ...

I am told 'Arlene' will call now if I will hang up.  So I hang up.
The phone rings a second or two later, again with a number 907-something
clearly displayed on the Caller-ID.  It is 'Arlene' who wishes to
argue with me about whether or not the order called for hunting (as
opposed to call-waiting) and where it was to hunt.

I told her if it is supposed to hunt, as you claim the order reads,
then how come *70 works?  The line has call-waiting alright, it just
never gets a chance to reach that point since you have it hunting. She
finally decides maybe someone transposed the digits 2700 and 7200
somehow and that is how the hunting got installed on 2700. After
trying to gain some sympathy from me by telling me how she is there
working on New Year's Day on overtime trying to get some jobs finished
(and I try to gain her sympathy by telling her some stories from the
olden-golden pre-divestiture days of telecom) she agrees to look into
it and 'see what can be done'.

Finally about 4 PM New Year's Day, after several calls to Repair
Service and about an hour in aggregate wasted on the matter, the line
is fixed, voicemail works and all the features are present.  Four days
after the job was due, with numerous calls, the work gets finished.

Almost that is ... the xxx-7347 number (and the other discontinued
numbers in the original hunt group) still have the 'being tested for
trouble' intercept on the line. Obviously, someone did not close out
the order.  But I could care less about those numbers; they were
merely being disconnected with no referral on them anyway.

And 'Arlene' claims she still is unable to put a default carrier on
the line ... the Business Office will have to write that part of the
order all over again.   I won't worry about it for now.

For now, I'll be content if the software to be used on the computer
associated with those lines arrives soon, gets installed and works

okay.


PAT

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

From: [e-mail] (Craig R. Watkins)
Subject: Re: Panasonic KXT-123211 Software
Date: 2 Jan 93 15:30:05 EST
Organization: HRB Systems, Inc.


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail].
arizona.edu (William Petrisko) writes:

> Does anyone know of PC software available as a front-end to
> programming the Panasonic phone system?

I would also be interested.

> Also (just an annoyance factor) when dialing, it seems that the
> touchtone echo is *delayed* until you get to the third or fourth
> digit.

I believe if you decrease your CO line "Pause Time" (default: 3.5 sec)
this may help your problem.  I believe the PBX is delaying your tones
from your CO line in order to give the CO time to provide dial tone.


Craig R. Watkins    [e-mail]
HRB Systems, Inc.   [phone]

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

Subject: Re: Email to Genie
From: [e-mail] (Fred Ennis)
Date: Sat, 02 Jan 1993 15:40:31 -0500
Organization: Page 6, Ottawa, Ontario [phone]


> it -- with a cover note saying, "Mike, I thought this was some very
> interesting stuff and hope you enjoy reading it as much as I did ..."

That reminds me of a rather clever practical joke played by Stuart
MacLeod, columnist at Thompson News Services in Ottawa. The victim was
Geoff Scott, M.P.

Members of the press gallery had been sent a book that was the story
of the Portugese immigrating to Canada.  The book was part English,
part Portugese.  There was no index, which forms the basis for the
gag.

Stuart sent the book to Geoff, along with a note supposedly from the
author saying "I hope I quoted you correctly each time." This, of
course, forced Geoff to read the entire book.

Nothing to do with Telecom, but a great practial joke.

All the best for the holidays.


Fred Ennis, [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Fred's message is like the late-arriving Christmas
card. He sent it December 15; it got here Saturday afternoon!  Happy
holidays to you too, Fre ... what there is left of them. How I will
hate my office more than ever when I have to go in Monday morning!  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Dave Levenson)
Subject: Re: About a Second Line in My Home
Organization: Westmark, Inc.
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 20:17:23 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, Ben Black <76672.2564@Compu
Serve.COM> writes:

> I've ordered a second line in my home for computer use. There is
> standard four wire cable in the wall (red/green/yellow/black.)

> Can I use the unused pair (yellow/black) for the second line, saving
> me the trouble of running a new pair all the way to the network
> interface?

You can use the second pair in a length of quad station wire for a
second line, BUT: expect to find crosstalk between the first and
second line.  How much crosstalk will depend upon how many feet of
quad you use.  Voice users probably won't interfere with each other.
Modem sounds will probably be faintly audible to voice users of the
other line.  Ringing will be the most noticable noise that bleeds
through.  A ring of your voice phone will likely cause a few dropped
bits on your modems.

I recommend, if at all possible, that you either use a separate piece
of cable, or use cable with two or more twisted pairs for multi-line
service.


Dave Levenson        Internet: [e-mail]
Westmark, Inc.        UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave
Warren, NJ, USA        Voice: 908 647 0900  Fax: [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Bill Fenner)
Subject: Re: ZyXEL Modem Review
Organization: Penn State Computer Science
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 18:02:51 -0500


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Ken Levitt) writes:

> Two types of security features.  One does dial back, the other works
> only with another XyXEL modem.

This is wrong.  There are two types of security, one which asks for a
password, and the other which only works with ZyXELs, which checks
against the other modem's supervisory password.

Either mode can allow dialback, either to one of 10 numbers based on
which password matched, or the "enter-password" mode can also request
a number to dial back on.

The security is completely transparent to the host connected to the
modem, except for the amount of time for the CONNECT message to come
back.  For example:

 Remote        ZyXEL        Host
 --------    ---------    ----------
        RING    ->
            <-    ATA
 (negotiate connection)
    <-    PassWord =
mypass    ->
    <-    Correct
        CONNECT 38400 ->

i.e. the host doesn't see the fact that the connection occurred until
the correct password has been entered.


Bill

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

Subject: Re: Sprint 800 Residential
From: [e-mail] (Ray Normandeau)
Date: 2 Jan 93 20:30:00 GMT
Organization: Invention Factory's BBS - New York City, NY - 212-274-8298v.32bis
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Ray Normandeau)


> I'll give it the full six months, but I'm concerned about the number
> of wrong numbers. It could be more trouble than it's worth.

I know of a business that had AT&T 800 service and discontinued it due
to too many wrong numbers.  They were getting billed for calls to the
number after business hourts when no one ws in the office and there
was no modem fax TAD or human to pick up the phone.

This is a company with the President and ONE worker.

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

From: [e-mail] (David Ash)
Subject: Re: Good Opportunity For Fraud
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 05:43:29 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(John R. Levine) writes:

> The only use to date that I have found for the mag stripe on a calling
> card is in the card reader phones found mostly at airports, which read
> the whole calling card number and stuff it down the line at the
> appropriate time as you're making a phone call.

On this topic, has anyone ever found any use at all for the mag strips
on the calling cards issued by MCI and Sprint?  As far as I know, even
the card readers which allowing billing to these carriers won't allow
the physical use of the card?


David W. Ash    [e-mail]

HOME: [phone]  WORK: [phone]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Good Opportunity For Fraud
Date: 3 Jan 93 00:34:25 CST
Organization: Data Research Associates, Inc.


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(gordon hlavenka) writes:

> I've been working on a credit card / phone project, and discovered
> something that is probably known to many but was news to me: My PIN is
> _on_ my calling card!  Recorded on Track 2, offset 23 characters after
> the SS.  In the clear.

If you are working on a credit card/phone project a good introduction
is "Credit Card Validation and Security" by David Jordan (MCI
Corporate Systems Integrity Organization), Telecommunication Journal,
Vol.59 (April 1992).

Mr. Jordan wrote:

   "In the United States, several administrations utilize 14-digit
card numbers, with the last four digits referred to as the customer
PIN.  For customer convenience the PIN is printed on these cards.  The
fraud deterrent capability associated with the use of the PIN in these
implementations is negated."


Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO
Domain: [e-mail], Voice: (Work) [phone]

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

Date: Sun, 03 Jan 93 00:52:37 EST
From: Tony Harminc <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Bell Canada Calling Card Fraud


[e-mail] (Dave Leibold) wrote:

[quoting from a leaflet distributed with recent phone bills]

> Calling cards can no longer be used as a billing option when placing
> long distance calls from payphones in Bell territory to certain
> destinations:

> + locations in 809 area code(*) (as of October 30, 1992);

> + overseas (as of April 13, 1992) unless you call from a Millenium
> payphone;

> In spite of these restrictions, there are still a number of ways you
> can place overseas or 809 calls from payphones:

> + use your American Express, Visa, Mastercard or EnRoute card in
> Millenium phones (these are the "card swipe" phones);

> + place a person-to-person collect call;

> + bill your call to a validated third number in Canada or the United
> States, or

> + place a cash call from a regular payphone.

This is getting bizarre.  I never carry my calling card because,
unlike the various other cards in my wallet, its number is valuable on
its own -- without the physical card.  This, of course, is because the
PIN is printed right on the card, and the number (with PIN) is
accepted without the card itself.  Now Bell is saying I must carry the
card in order to make these calls (a good start), but the PIN is still
printed on the card and stored unencrypted on the magstripe.

In a previous job I had access to credit card embossing and encoding
equipment, and I was tempted to make copies of my calling card on
credit card stock with a fake number embossed, but with the correct
one on the magstripe.  This solves some of the problem, but I
concluded that, even though it wouldn't be illegal, I would probably
spend a lot of time "helping the police with their enquiries" if I was
ever found with such a card.

> [Moderator's Note:  Well here we go again with the telcos claiming
> that 'fraud is everyone's problem ... '  it is NOT everyone's problem;
> it is telco's problem. They won't install the technology to eliminate
> or help reduce fraud; it is simply easier to discriminate against
> large numbers of citizens whose national origin is that of an affected
> country. I must say Bell Canada seems to be more open about admitting
> what they do; you'll never see AT&T ever put anything in writing about
> their illegal and discriminatory practices. Of course I don't know the
> law in Canada; maybe Bell Canada is breaking no laws by blocking calls
> in this manner. AT&T needs to have the screws turned to them harder
> than ever on this issue.    PAT]

But note that Bell Canada is disallowing such calls to all foreign
countries except the United States.  They are not picking a small (and
troublesome) subset as AT&T seems to have done.  I think it would be
pretty hard to make a case of discrimination against everyone except
American immigrants.


Tony Harminc


[Moderator's Note: Are you *positive* that if you try to use a Bell
Canada card on a call to the UK, Australia or New Zealand it won't go
through?  Forget what their literature says for a moment and try it.
If it does go through on the card, then the very same situation exists
in Canada as here: discrimination against what you term a 'troublesome
subset' ... although a credit grantor can deny credit to someone who
has defrauded or is attempting to defraud them, the credit grantor
cannot, under the law, approve a line of credit then selectively
refuse to honor that line of credit because there 'might be' fraud
committed. If AT&T would put in writing in their published
literature such as their 'International Calling Guide' that credit
cards cannot be used on international calls to point X, Y and Z then
they would have a stronger case in their favor. But in fact, their
literature says just the opposite. Look in the guidebook at the little
boxes checked off which indicate 'collect/credit card calls accepted
to/from this country'. Nearly every country, and certainly all the
verbotin places show the AT&T card as being accepted as payment.

Nor can the credit grantor deny credit under some scenarios and
approve it under other scenarios when the end result would be that a
class of customers against whom discrimination is illegal would be the
persons primarily or exclusively affected. That is just making an end
run around the law, and the courts would rule as such. If AT&T allows
white people with a European ethnic background living in Winnetka, IL
to call the UK using a calling card as payment, they cannot lawfully
refuse to let a Latino person living in the Humboldt Park area of
Chicago call Puerto Rico on the same pre-approved calling card plan.
AT&T might say they disallow all calls to Puerto Rico on a calling
card, but that misses the point. Wealthy people with European ancestry
living in Winnetka have private phones and don't need to run out to
the corner 7/11 and use the payphone. Poor Latinos and Black people do
need to use the payphone. And from the time I take the receiver off
the hook on a payphone and proffer some method of approved payment to
telco, that phone line is leased to me for my use, just like the phone
in someone's home in Winnetka.

Bottom line: people from 'certain ethnic backgrounds' living in the
inner cities get shafted on credit from (the credit grantor) AT&T.
Any other credit card issuer who arbitrarily ruled out certain areas
of cities or certain types of purchases when the result was a large
class of people was primarily affected would get their knuckles
rapped. AT&T deserves no less. VISA and AMEX know how to deal with
fraud where their cards are concerned without discriminating against
credit worthy customers. Why can't AT&T figure out how it is done?
Hopefully they will get slapped around a little on this until they
begin obeying the law like Ma and Pa's corner store has to do when
they issue credit to their customers.   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V13 #5
****************************