The World of Computer Software/World_Of_Computer_Software-02-387-Vol-3of3.iso/t/tc13-114.zip/TC13-114.TXT

Text File | 1993-02-20 | 20KB | 491 lines

TELECOM Digest     Sat, 20 Feb 93 02:34:00 CST    Volume 13 : Issue 114

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: What Would Be Required to Compile 'Secret #' FAQ? (Terry Kennedy)
    Re: What Would Be Required to Compile 'Secret #' FAQ? (Kevin Wang)
    Re: The War on Pagers (Mark Steiger)
    Re: The War on Pagers (Guy Hadsall)
    Re: The War on Pagers (Brad Hicks)
    Re: The War on Pagers (Graham Toal)
    Re: The War on Pagers (Bob Frankston)
    Re: The War on Pagers (John Nagle)
    Re: The War on Freedom (Alan T. Furman)
    Re: California Caller-ID (Jeffrey Jonas)
    Re: California Caller-ID (Steve Forrette)
    Re: Pacific Bell, Caller ID, and PRIVATE (Arthur Ruubi)
    Re: Pacific Bell, Caller ID, and PRIVATE (Richard Nash)
    Re: Pacific Bell, Caller ID, and PRIVATE (John Temples)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Terry Kennedy)
Subject: Re: What Would Be Required to Compile 'Secret #' FAQ?
Date: 19 Feb 93 23:48:14 EST
Organization: St. Peter's College, US


In article <[e-mail]>, TELECOM Moderator notes:

> [Moderator's Note: One of the things you'd have to contend with is the
> frequency with with which 'ringback' and in particular 'hear your
> number' code numbers are changed. 'They' do not like people outside
> the telco to know these or use them, thus the routine varies from
> community to community, and sometimes from month to month. You would
> have a lot of changes in your list on a regular basis.   PAT]

  Well, 958 is popular in this area (New York/New Jersey). I think it
may have been a Bellcore recommendation at one time. Most of the other
older styles, like 55x-your# for ringback and 200-xxx-yyyy for your
number were phased out as the prefixes were needed for expansion.
Also, they were set up based on mechanical switches, while the newer
stored-program switches can do all of this with a single number.

  For example, recent 1A generics can be configured with a single
number in the reserved space, usually on the first exchange a switch
serves, which can be used to return the calling number, determine loop
distance, open a line for a brief interval, calculate loss, generate
test tones, etc. - far more info than was available with the old
methods, and more accurate and faster as well. However, these numbers
require a dialed pass- word and have additional restrictions on
security-related features like verify. With such a system, a single
test number can serve fifty thousand to well over a hundred thousand
lines.


Terry Kennedy        Operations Manager, Academic Computing
[e-mail]    St. Peter's College, Jersey City, NJ USA
[e-mail]    [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Kevin Wang)
Subject: Re: What Would Be Required to Compile 'Secret #' FAQ?
Organization: The Outland Riders
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1993 20:57:17 GMT


In comp.dcom.telecom [e-mail] writes:

> In article <[e-mail]> Chris Taylor <[e-mail]>
> writes:

>> RINGBACK:    445<your number>
>> HEAR YOUR NUMBER:
>>        958

> Maybe I was asleep or something ... could someone tell me why these
> services would be useful?

If you *MUST* figure out your lines at home, I just dial the operator
and ask "is this xxx-yyyy or aaa-bbbb?" and they verify it for me.
They can't officially just give it out, but the will verify it for
you.


Kevin Wang

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

From: [e-mail] (Mark Steiger)
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1993 14:04:58 -0600
Subject: Re: The War on Pagers
Organization: The Dark Knight's Table BBS:  Minnetonka, MN (Free!)


[e-mail] (Jeff Hibbard) wrote:

> Although text in the actual bill passed makes it clear the intent was
> to forbid cellular phones and pagers, all of the above actually
> applies to "communication devices", which the law defines as anything
> designed to receive or transmit radio signals outside of the
> commercial broadcast band.  For example, if I let my son take my Radi
> Shack "Time Cube" (which can only receive WWV) to show-and-tell, they
> could confiscate it, fine me $10,000 and lock me up for a year.

Sure hope they don't have any Ham Radio clubs there ... could be a
killer if they want anyone to do any demonstrations ...


Mark Steiger, Sysop, The Igloo BBS [phone]
Internet: [e-mail]    Fido: 1:282/4018  Simnet: 16:612/24

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

Organization: The American University - University Computing Center
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1993 09:42:34 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: The War on Pagers


Most of the national paging concerns have self-imposed rules for new
paging subscribers outside of normal credit proceedures.  These rules
hinge on AGE > 18 and EMPLOYMENT > 6 months.  WHY?  Because of the
national studies and outcries from government and the public have
pointed towards these groups as "problems".

As competition in the paging/wireless industry had increased in 1983,
the "value" of the new subscriber had increased dramatically.  Most of
the newcomers to the industry started cannibalizing market shares by
offering pagers to any new customer.  Right or wrong, they need new
customers to cover the high overhead costs of developing a paging
system.

What you see now as the paging industry is comprised of (in my
opinion) 80% or more cash power companies, including the Bell
companies that have remained.  These companies *still* need customers,
and sometimes reduce there standards to survive.  By the way, the
average price of paging service pre-1983 was $35 (Telocator
publication) and as of 1992 was $9.  The start ups like PageNet,
PagePlus, FirstPage, and a few others began with "junk bonds" or at
elast risk investment plans.  The market has driven the price *way*
down; but its THE market and the US is a free market system. Survival
of the fittest.

Just my $.02.


Guy Hadsall

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

From: mc/G=Brad/S=Hicks/OU=[e-mail]
Date: 19 Feb 93 19:08:25 GMT
Subj: Re: The War on Pagers


Look, it would take only a very, very minor change to these laws to
make them perfectly reasonable.  Change the law so that (a) =students=
are banned from wearing/carrying communications gear, and (b) all
other people are banned from school grounds unless they have a
legitimate reason to be there, as determined by the local
principal/administrator, and even then, NO LOITERING.

I am at a total loss to imagine what legitimate need a high school
student or younger has for to have a pager or cellular phone with him
or her at school.  They are there to learn, period.  Never mind the
drug angle; if that cellular phone or pager rings during classroom
hours, it is an impediment to learning -- and not just for the person
who has it.

If you need to get a message to a student at a school, call the
school.  They know where the student is and can relay a message as
quickly or as slowly as it requires.  (If they don't know where your
child is, then you have an even bigger problem.)  If a student in
school needs to make a telephone call, he or she can either wait until
after school or ask the office for permission; I am hard-pressed to
think of any legitimate use that can't wait for one or the other.


J. Brad Hicks     Internet: mc![e-mail]
X.400: c=US admd=ATTMail prmd=MasterCard sn=Hicks gn=Brad

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

Date: Fri, 19 Feb 93 21:48:54 GMT
From: Graham Toal <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The War on Pagers


[e-mail] (Maxime Taksar) said:


> Just about every public school in the Bay Area that I know of forbids
> pagers (and, I assume cellphones), and I think that anyone under 18 is
> forbidden to carry a pager *anywhere*.

Whereas over here in the wake of a child-kidnapping, parents are being
*encouraged* to buy pagers for schoolchildren, so that if they're late
picking them up, they can give instructions, and the children are told
never to go with anyone unless they've been messaged by their parents.


G

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: The War on Pagers
Date: Fri 19 Feb 1993 19:47 -0400


Sounds like time to do a story on the good uses of pagers. It's worth
noting that all the baby places sell pagers.  When the {Boston Globe}
did an article on traveling with technology a few weeks ago, they
missed the whole topic of mundane use of technology in his
concentration on business use.

My son wants a pager partially in imitation of me.  But it would also
be a great way of letting him roam free but still be contactable.  If
he is expecting me or his mother to pick him up from school, how else
can we tell him that we're late?  Pairing this with personal 800
numbers (especially when they are the same as the home phone number so
even preschoolers can call home from anywhere) provides a very
effective means of staying in touch. While it would be nice to give
each kid a pocket phone for safety, a pager is a more appropriate
technology in terms of cost and size.

Next, we've got to figure out why airlines are so scared of portable
PC's and cellular phones with dead batteries.  Or are they just being
nice when I board a plane and want to make sure that I've got a
charged battery when I take such a device onto the plane?

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

From: [e-mail] (John Nagle)
Subject: Re: The War on Pagers
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1993 07:29:25 GMT


Motorola recently introduced a line of decorator pagers, neons and
clear, aimed at the high-school market.


John Nagle

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: The War on Freedom
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 93 15:55:47 PST


"No person shall...be deprived of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law..."
         -- Amendment V to the U.S. Constitution, deceased

As there is no way I could even scratch the surface of a topic like
forfeiture without trial while staying inside the boundaries of the
TELECOM Digest, I present instead an annotated set of pointers:

The International Society for Individual Liberty is now organizing a
coalition to challenge the massive escalation of forfeiture without
trial now being conducted by governments, courts, and police forces at
all levels.

Collaborating groups are: The Drug Policy Foundation (which produces
the PBS series "America's Drug Forum"), the Institute for Justice (a
civil-rights litigating group like the ACLU, focusing on free
enterprise and property rights issues), and F.E.A.R (Forfeiture
Endangers Americans' Rights, founded by forfeiture victims).

For more information, contact ISIL at [e-mail]
Telephone [phone]; snailmail 1800 Market St., San Francisco, CA
94102.

The investigative report "Presumed Guilty: The Law's Victims in the
War on Drugs" which originally appeared in the Pittsburgh Press, 11-16
August 1991, and was reprinted in other newspapers over the following
weeks, is a good starting place to find out about this situation.
Reprints cost $5 for the full series of articles.  A book called
_Spectre of Forfeiture_ by Judy Osburn explores the legal "rationale"
of this blatant repudiation of the Bill of Rights.  Both are available
by mail order from ISIL.  Those interested in discussing this suject
online can try alt.politics.libertarian on Usenet, or the Internet
mailing list Libernet (subscription requests to
[e-mail]).


Alan T. Furman   [e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 19 Feb 93 11:34:42 EST
From: [e-mail] (Jeffrey Jonas)
Subject: Re: California Caller-ID


Steve: I'm mailing this to TELECOM because I don't seem to be
explaining myself clear enough.  I hope you don't object to making
this public, particularly since we've been quite polite and I want to
ask others to clarify or correct me.

TELECOM:  Please help me clarify the situation and correct any
of my misconceptions.

    -- start of e-mail

Steve Forrette <krfiny!uunet!wrq.com!stevef> posted an article in
TELECOM asking about caller-id from California callers.  TELECOM
readers have noted that all calls from CA are delivered either as "out
of area" or "private" (sometimes arbitrarily either for the same
caller) due to Pac Bell's (mis)interpretation of the ruling banning
caller-id.

Steve e-mailed me:

> If I subscribe to CO-based "block blocking", then this prevents me
> from receiving any calls from anyone in California under the present
> state of affairs.  Considering that all of my family and many of my
> friends live in California, this is not a workable solution for me.

I replied that my understanding is that "PRIVATE" calls can blocked,
traced and returned with call block, etc.  "PRIVATE" means that your
CO got the number but won't let you get it, but you may access it as a
"black box".  You can use call block with the "add last number to the
list" option but it won't read it back to you when you perform list
maintenance.

"Out Of Area" calls can't be traced or blocked or anything because no
number was received (the call was not SS7 all the way).

Oh yes, if call trace, call return or call block is not available at
the recipient's CO, that's the real obstacle.

If I am correct, then why does Steve fear blocking all of California?

Steve wanted CPE (Customer premesis equipment) to perform call
screening.  Hmm, he knows to use the CPE acronym but one of us is
certainly confused about caller-id!

> Caller ID can be a useful tool in screening out the garbage,
> especially if you have block blocking, or a CPE-based device that will
> cause PRIVATE calls to not even ring.

I have been thinking about CPE based caller-id processing.  There's a
real problem with call block.  Let's say I get a call and caller-id
identifies it as a call I am blocking.  What can I do?

 - not answer the phone?  Even if the CPE doesn't ring the phones, I
cannot get a dial tone until the caller hangs up, and nobody else can
call me since the line is busy.  That's denial of service: I can't
call out and nobody else can call in while an annoying call is in
progress.

 - go off hook and on hook.  That can take 5-20 seconds to clear the
line.  I still am denied use of the phone line for a while.  If the
pest keeps redialing me, it would be difficult for me to make calls or
receive calls.

That's why the CO based call block has a 'home turf' advantage.  You
can use the "add last call to call block list" command and even
"private" numbers can be blocked and not only never ring your phone
again, but they cannot even get near your lines (can't even know if
your phone is busy or not).

CPE cannot block private numbers, CO based call block can.  CPE uses
the line even for unwanted calls, CO based call block does not let the
call get that far.


Jeffrey Jonas    [e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 19 Feb 93 14:12:54 -0800
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: California Caller-ID


Call Trace, Call Block, etc. are NOT acceptable recourses to most
annoying calls.  What are you going to do, call the police and tell

them "Hey, this chimney sweep just called me - throw the bum in
jail!"?  Nor is Call Block going to be effective, as the same chimney
sweep is not likely to call you back again.  Again, Call Trace and
Call Block are not effective against telemarketers and many other
sorts of annoying calls.  They only work in cases where the same
person calls you many times.  A "private" call should tell you that
the person calling has specifically requested anonymity, and not that
they have done so OR live in California.


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]

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

Subject: Re: Pacific Bell, Caller ID, and PRIVATE
From: a_rubin%dsg4.dse.beckman.com (Arthur Rubin)
Date: 18 Feb 93 18:09:55 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Arthur Rubin)


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

>> [Moderator's Note: If they blocked out the number with XXXX on my
>> bill, I would persist that since I was paying for the call, I was
>> entitled to know the number; then not pay for it until they revealed it.

> You're lucky you don't live in France.  (Or perhaps the French are
> lucky that you live in the U.S.)  French phone bills never show the
> last digits of the phone numbers in the call detail, due to privacy
> concerns.  This includes direct dial calls.  The theory is that the
> digits that they do show are adequate to document the amount that
> they're charging you.

Convenient for hackers, or telecom personell using your phone line for
their work.  (I had several calls to a number in PacBellLand a few
years ago, which turned out to be an internal work reporting number.)


Arthur L. Rubin: [e-mail] (work) Beckman Instruments/Brea
[e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] (personal)
My opinions are my own, and do not represent those of my employer.
My interaction with our news system is unstable; please mail anything
important.

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

Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1993 09:17:35 -0700
From: [e-mail] (Richard Nash)
Subject: Re: Pacific Bell, Caller ID, and PRIVATE


Steve Forrette <[e-mail]> writes:

> It seems that telcos (such as Pacific Bell) which do not yet offer
> Caller ID in their regions, and are marking all calls that leave the
> LATA as PRIVATE so that they don't show up in other areas, are
> creating a major impediment for the usefulness of Caller ID.  What if
> a users in another area subscribes to "block blocking," whereby their
> telco will reject any call that's market PRIVATE.  This will prevent
> any incoming calls from anyone in California!  Similarly, I would
> imagine that a great deal more people who have Caller ID boxes choose
> to ignore calls that come in as PRIVATE.  How are you supposed to
> differentiate between people who have specifically requested that
> their numbers be blocked (who I most certainly DON'T want to talk to)
> from those who just happen to live in a state who's PUC knows what's
> best for its citizens (many of whom I do want to talk to)?

Easy! Demand that Californians have the right of not having their
calls blocked with blocked blocking.  Demand that the telcos must
insert a tag number to be used instead of marking as PRIVATE.  ACB and
AR would utilize this tag number to look up the real number to be
used. Just think of all the new telecom headaches that could be
created! :)


Richard Nash    Edmonton, Alberta Canada T6K 0E8
UUCP:        [e-mail]

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

From: jwt![e-mail] (John Temples)
Subject: Re: Pacific Bell, Caller ID, and PRIVATE
Organization: Private system -- Orlando, FL
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1993 03:01:02 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mark
Rudholm) writes:

> Their biggest complaint is with the requirement that unpublished
> numbers will default to the per-line-blocked state.  Of course, the
> customer can have her/his line's blocking status set any way they
> choose.

Perhaps PacBell should offer free blocked-call blocking on all lines
by default.  This would certainly discourage people from choosing per
line blocking, since it would be very inconvenient to call almost
everyone.


John W. Temples -- Preferred:  [e-mail]    (jwt![e-mail])
                -- Alternate:  [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V13 #114
******************************