NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/comp/dcom/telecom/13214

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-24 | 3.6 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!seismo!lll-winken!telecom-request
From: [e-mail] (Steve Forrette)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Apartment Security Stupidity
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 23 Jan 93 02:21:25 GMT
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA
Lines: 59
Approved: [e-mail]
X-Submissions-To: [e-mail]
X-Administrivia-To: [e-mail]
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 13, Issue 39, Message 3 of 12

> [Moderator's Note: It might also be wise if the phone at the door
> (a) was non-pub in directory listings, (b) had a number not generally
> known except to people in management who need to know it, and (d) was
> set for one-way service, outgoing local calls only in the event
> someone did learn the phone number. To prevent the line from being
> used for social conversations from the lobby to an apartment or
> excessive units from being charged if it is a metered line, you might
> also consider a timer which would disconnect the line after 30 seconds
> or so of it going off hook.

The entry phone where I used to live was an armored type that
connected to a POTS line and dialed your regular phone number.  It
disconnected the call after 60 seconds.  One day, I was looking for
some phun, so I decided to investigate further.  I took my cordless
phone and pocket dialer down to the entry phone.  I punched in the
2-digit code assigned to me, and when my cordless phone rang, I
answered the call then immediately hang up.  The entry phone did not
detect the CPC pulse, and after 20 seconds or so, there was dialtone
on the entry phone.

Although the pad was disabled, I could use my pocket dialer to dial
anywhere I wanted (by the time I dialed the call and it was set up,
there was only 25 seconds or so for the called party to answer and
talk before the phone's timer expired and it hang up; but I could do
this over and over if I wanted to).  I did not think to try to call
900 or 976 numbers.  Pacific Bell does not offer any sort of toll
restriction, except for Centrex customers (at least to my knowledge),
so I could place toll calls.  I called the local ANAC number, and
discovered the number for its line.  Then, I called the entry phone
from my cordless phone to see what would happen.  The "in-use" light
came one while the call was ringing, but it did not ring, and you
could not pick up the line while the in-use light was on.  So, this
unit apparently was designed to share the line with other such units,
or other devices.

Also, I'd like to take issue with the Moderator's opinion on which
type of system is the "better" kind.  I much prefer the stand-alone
unit that uses a POTS line to dial the residents' regular phone
numbers.  One reason is that if a computer is using the line, I don't
want the CPE-generated "call waiting" to interrupt.  If I specifically
disable call waiting via *70, I don't want the call interrupted,
period.  Also, the POTS line units will honor any call forwarding I
have enabled.  Several times, I would have visitors arrive and call up
to my unit.  I had my line forwarded to my cellular number, so I'd
answer their call from my car.  I could then tell them that I'm just a
few minutes away, and will be there shortly, or whatever the case was.
The hard-wired units won't honor call forwarding, so the caller would
get the answering machine, and may leave even though I was almost
home.


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: See my response to Dave Levinson earlier in this
issue. This is really an applications problem each person has to solve
for themselves. A stand-alone unit may or may not be better for your
needs, depending.   PAT]