Hacker Chronicles 2 (Alt)/The_Hacker_Chronicles_Volume_II-CD2.iso/td2/td14_101.txt

Text File | 1995-01-03 | 20.9 KB | 531 lines

TELECOM Digest     Wed, 23 Feb 94 15:26:00 CST    Volume 14 : Issue 101

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    GSM FAX Transmission (Lars Kalsen)
    Lowest Number in the NANP? (Dave Levenson)
    Has Anyone Heard of Filex? (Bob Malik)
    Modulation Techniques (Fil Parong)
    Calling 800 Numbers in USA From UK (Julian Thornhill)
    Intern's Pay in Telecom (Ramaiah V. Narla)
    Re: Why Caller-ID Instead of ANI? (Les Reeves)
    Re: Phone Number History (David Breneman)
    Re: Vermont Gets Ready For NNX Area Codes (Bob Goudreau)
    Re: Digital Cellular Phones  (Bob Goudreau)
    Re: Paging Available on Cellular Phones (Robert Wilson)
    Re: Area Code Closeness (Robert Casey)
    Re: Caller-ID Question (Jack Coats)
    Orange Card Mailed Out (Carl Moore)
    Another Misprogrammed COCOT (Carl Moore)
    Re: AT&T's New 900 Mhz Cordless Phone (Cliff Sharp)

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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Lars Kalsen)
Subject: GSM FAX Transmission
Date: 23 Feb 94 19:00:17 GMT
Organization: DKnet


Hi outhere,

I am writing on an overview article on FAX-transmission via the GSM
network.  I would like to know if anybody:

- have some references to articles on the subject;
- or books;
- references to products;
- any other information.

If you have any information -- please E-mail me. Or if you have a copy
of an article send it to me by ordinary mail -- or fax on [phone]
02 (denmark).

Greetings from Denmark.


Lars Kalsen
Kingosvej 5 D
9490 Pandrup   Denmark
[e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Dave Levenson)
Subject: Lowest Number in the NANP?
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Westmark, Inc.
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 1994 14:54:09 GMT


According to NJ Bell's automatic intercept service, the number
201-200-0000 is 'being checked for trouble'.  The number 201-200-0001
has been disconnected.  I didn't try any others in that prefix.


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


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Why not try 0002, 0003, etc and let
us know your findings. I wonder if they know the significance of their
number?  What about at the other end of the line, any from the 919-999
range?    PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Bob Malik)
Subject: Has Anyone Heard of Filex?
Date: 23 Feb 1994 12:48:50 GMT
Organization: University of Florida, Gainesville


Does anyone know about a PC communications package called Filex?  I think
the company that makes it is giving out 150,000 copies of it for $10 each.

If you have any info, please send email to:

    [e-mail]


Thanks,

Bob Malik

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

Date: Wed, 23 Feb 94 12:32:58 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Modulation Techniques


Is anyone familiar with PM and BPSK modulation techniques?  Please
reply to [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 23 Feb 94 08:48:14 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Julian Thornhill)
Subject: Calling 800 Numbers in USA From UK


Does anyone know how I might call a US 800 number from the UK? As you
might guess this cannot be done in the normal way. Even being able to
find out the real chargeable number would be a help. Some firms in
their ads only give 800 numbers and it is really frustrating when you
want to call them ...


Julian Thornhill      Email to [e-mail]
Physics Department    Leicester University
University Road       Tel [phone]    FAX [phone]
Leicester LE1 7RH     [phone] (international)


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: We've touched on this several times in
the past year or so. You can attempt to to get through using the "USA
Direct" service of the various carriers, and asking that operator to
connect you. Some will do it, some won't. If you go through AT&T for
example, the called party will be charged for a call from Pennsylvania.
Generally the subscribers to 800 service in the USA do not wish to
receive calls from outside the USA (at least on their toll-free line)
for various reasons, one being that perhaps they are unable/not allowed/
do not wish to sell their products outside this country. Others would
love to sell their products anywhere in the world, but have very stupid
advertising/PR-droids who do not have any idea how telephones work in
other countries.

This comes up so often here, I am wondering: if I were to install a
couple lines here which people could call from all over the world for
the specific purpose of being reconnected to an 800 number, would anyone
be interested in using it if they had to pay $10 per month and use a
passcode to make the call (once they were connected through me)?   PAT]

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

From: Ramaiah V Narla <[e-mail]>
Subject: Intern's Pay in Telecom
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 1994 12:04:09 EST


I applied with the North American Telecommunications Association
(NATA) for practical training after my master's studies in
telecommunications. I received an offer, over the phone, of a summer
internship -- $10 for an 8-hr day (allowance/pocket money for meals and
transport only, according to the official). The work involved market
research and report generation in the international and national
telecom areas.

[Of course, I declined the offer respectfully -- it's just not practical].

Anyway, what I'd like to know is: is that how interns are taken up? So
badly paid? In the telecom industry, particularly?  And, could an
institution such as NATA be as resource-starved? (The official said
they only pick up two interns each summer and pay them each just $10/day,
due to resource crunch).

Any feedback will help me understand the telecom policy and research job
market better and my thanks in advance for it.


Ram Narla   [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Les Reeves)
Subject: Re: Why Caller-ID Instead of ANI?
Date: 23 Feb 1994 09:38:27 -0800
Organization: CRL Dialup Internet Access  [phone]  [login: guest]


Scott Baer ([e-mail]) wrote:

> Now, directly to my question, what is the (10XXX) PIC code for Cable &
> Wireless?  I would like to test this claim that C&W passes the
> identity of the caller to the called party's Caller-ID display box.

The PIC code for C&W is 10223.  However, they *do not* accept calls
from casual (non pre-subscribed) customers.


Les   [e-mail]       Atlanta,GA

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

From: daveb@jaws (David Breneman)
Subject: Re: Phone Number History
Date: 23 Feb 94 17:40:32 GMT
Organization: Digital Systems International, Redmond WA


David Breneman (ME) (daveb@jaws) wrote:

> My parents waited over ten years for a private line in the 206-858
> exchange.  Finally, somebody moved into the neighborhood (never found
> out who) who would leave his phone off the hook at night.  If you
> picked up the phone, you could hear him snoring!  When my parents
> complained repeatedly about the danger of this situation, the phone
> company (Island Empire, now Pacific Telecom) finally relented and gave
> them a private line, but charged $1.25 per month per mile for the
> distance between their house and the central (crossbar) switch in Gig
> Harbor (Washington -- near Tacoma).  This was about 1979.

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: They should have called their party line
> neighbor during the day and told him to quit doing that. Yes, you could
> call your party line neighbor on the phone even though the logical way
> of thinking was that if you went off hook, the line would become busy so
> how would you reach him ... during manual service days, if you simply
> asked for the other side of your party line (let's say you were 1234-J
> and party was 1234-W) then the response from the operator was 'line
> is busy', the same as if you asked for your own number by accident, and
> people would sometimes do that. The operator did not look at who was
> *calling* unless there was a billing function involved, she looked at
> who was *being called*; the (cord) tip to (jack) ring test would 'test
> busy' and that was her report ... bing! she was gone to handle another
> call. So you tipped her off by saying 'calling my party line, 1234-W',
> and she would say to hang up, let her ring it and pick up the phone
> again in maybe twenty seconds. She could then ring on the line (yours
> and party's would both ring) and if party answered she told them to
> hold on a couple seconds until you picked up again.

On our phone system, you could call somebody on your party line by
dailing their number, waiting for the busy signal, hanging up, then
allowing their phone enough time to ring and picking your receiver
back up.  Unfortunately, it was something like a 12 party line, and we
had no idea who the guy was -- and the phone company naturally wouldn't
tell us.  The dial-the-number-and-hang-up feature was especially
useful in that you could ring your *own* phone that way, too.  Just
the ticket when an annoying salesman or Jehovah's Witness came to
call.

> Anyway, your parents should have called the snorer, and with the music
> of J.S. Bach's "Sleeper's Awake" playing sweetly in the background given
> him a piece of their mind.

My dad tried a police whistle on a couple of occasions without much
luck.  Apparently this guy was a heavy sleeper.

> I wonder if the guy even knew he was on a party line or if he was
> just plain inconsiderate

Probably just ignorant.  This was about the time the California
Invasion started in Washington.  I'm sure most of these folks had no
idea what a party line was or did.

Later the phone company got even with all of us -- when they switched
from the crossbar system to an electronic one, about 1980, everybody
got *new* phone numbers (206-851), and all of the old numbers (206-858)
were assigned to new customers.  That's what you get for complaining. :-)


David Breneman                     Email: [e-mail]
System Administrator,              Voice: 206 881-7544  Fax: [phone]
Product Development Platforms
Digital Systems International, Inc.     Redmond, Washington,  U. S. o' A.

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

Date: Wed, 23 Feb 1994 12:45:32 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Bob Goudreau)
Subject: Re: Vermont Gets Ready For NNX Area Codes


John Levine writes:

> A flyer in my latest phone bill reveals that Vermont's new toll
> dialing plan is 1-802-NNX-XXXX...
> Personally, I find the new plan to be a big pain in the neck, since,
> due to a peculiarity of exchange boundaries, it'll require that I dial
> most free local calls within our town with 11 digits.

Please explain these two statements.  If it's a "free local call" (within
the same area code, no less), then it's not a toll call, so why is "Vermont's
new toll dialing plan" relevant here at all?

Do you currently dial these calls as eight digits (1 + 7D)?  If so,
why?  What is Nynex up to?  Are there any other places in the NANP
where local intra-NPA calls require more than seven digits to dial?


Bob Goudreau   Data General Corporation
[e-mail]  62 Alexander Drive
[phone]   Research Triangle Park, NC  27709, USA


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Around where my office used to be on
Howard Street in Chicago, everything I called locally had to be dialed
as 1-708-seven digits because it was fifty feet north of me which at
that point was the end of 312 and the start of 708.   PAT]

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

Date: Wed, 23 Feb 1994 13:39:47 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Bob Goudreau)
Subject: Re: Digital Cellular Phones


In article <[e-mail]> david boettger <boettger@bnr.
ca> writes:

>> Careful.  I think that when Alex says "all digital", he means exactly
>> that -- a cellular system that using nothing but digital signaling.
>> Dual-mode systems, which combine support for the old (analog) AMPS
>> system with support for one of the new digital systems (TDMA or CDMA)
>> are *not* all-digital.

> If you're going to use this definition, there are no "all digital"
> cells in commercial operation; there are merely cells which have some
> channels dedicated to digital traffic and some which are dedicated to
> analog traffic ....

Correct.  That is *exactly* the point I was trying to make, and which
I suspect Alex was also trying to make when he said "It is difficult
for me to imagine an all digital cellular network" in North America in
the near future.  I.e., the installed base of AMPS equipment is not
something that can be easily wished away.  I suspect that dual-mode
systems will exist for quite a while, even in Canada.


Bob Goudreau  Data General Corporation
[e-mail] 62 Alexander Drive
[phone]  Research Triangle Park, NC  27709, USA

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

From: [e-mail] (Robert Wilson)
Subject: Re: Paging Available on Cellular Phones
Date: 23 Feb 1994 14:11:48 -0500


The Fujitsu PCX cellphone has a voice chip which when the unit is set
to pager mode will answer the incoming call, tell the party you are
unable to come to the phone, and logs up to five numbers.

This feature works well for call-screening as you can "pick-up" if you
wish as the caller is leaving his/her number.


Rob

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

From: [e-mail] (Robert Casey)
Subject: Re: Area Code Closeness
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 1994 19:24:03 GMT


I had thought/heard that the semi-random distribution of area codes in
the USA was done to avoid confusion of numberically close area codes
with geographically close areas.  Especially in the same state.  "was
that area code 402 or 403 for Yerksville, South Dakota, Can't remember
which my friend said", vs. if the two area codes are much different,
"he said 70 something, lets see, that has to be 702 according to the
phone book map".

Phone companies tend to do the same thing with phone exchanges inside
the same area codes.

The phone company's got your number!


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Hey, there was a time in the early days
of area codes (late 1950's and much of the 1960's) when the same prefix
was not assigned in two adjoining area codes. That was done to allow
for 'community dialing' across state lines, where area codes always
change. That is, '659' showed up in Whiting, Indiana. It did not show
up in 312, 815 (since a tiny bit of the south end of 815 touches 219)
nor in 317 nor in 216. The main consideration was the 219/312 closeness
where until about 1970 or so, anyone in the extreme upper northwest
corner of 219 (Hammond, East Chicago, Whiting, Munster) could call any
number in 312 as seven digits only. Ditto in reverse. But once you
got into (or past, I cannot remember which) Gary, Indiana going east
then you had to dial 312 to reach Chicago. Then one day they announced
that the little northwest corner had a choice: either they could being
dialing 312 to reach Chicago, or 1+7 digits to reach elsewhere in the
northern Indiana 219 area. Telco made the choice to go with the latter
leaving Hammond/Whiting, etc hooked to Chicago for calling purposes.

With the change in telcos in the late 1970's (northwest Indiana was
taken away from Illinois Bell and turned over to Indiana Bell) the
requirement of dialing not just 312, but 1-312 (!) to reach Chicago
was added, and the 1+7D for the rest of 219 was dropped.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Jack Coats)
Subject: Re: Caller-ID Question
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Amoco
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 1994 08:41:10 CST


There was an article in one of the popular electronics type magazines
(check your local library) in the last couple of months on how to
build your own caller-id display machine.  It would be easy to modify
it (it uses a PIC micro processor) to have a serial output instead or
also, that could feed your PC or whatever.  The data, if I remember
right, is 1200 baud.  You can get a couple of codes other than just
the number too.  One is if you are out of the area where the codes are
available (seems silly to me, if the phone company can figure out how
to charge collect calls), and another code if the caller has the
Caller-ID blocked.


E-mail: [e-mail]   Fax: [phone]   Voice: 713/366-7120

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

Date: Wed, 23 Feb 94 15:11:57 EST
From: Carl Moore <[e-mail]>
Subject: Orange Card Mailed Out


I have received the Orange Card (although the account has been active
for a long time) There is a slight problem: My address changed in the
meantime, and the card (mailed from the Harrisburg, Pa. area with the
address of Spring Park, MN 55384) reached me through the mail-forwarding.
The billing for calls made on that card is already being sent to my new
address, but Orange Communications still does not have my new address.

This is the letter I got, dated 10 Feb.:

Dear Orange Card Customer:

Please find enclosed your permanent Orange Calling Card.  Please note
that your authorization number has not changed and that the PIN number
you are currently using will stay the same also.

The procedure for using the card is listed on the back of the
permanent card and you will note that it is has [sic] not changed.

Thank you for your patience during our delay in sending your permanent
Orange Calling Card.

We appreciate your business!

Sincerely,

Orange Communications, Inc.

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

Date: Wed, 23 Feb 94 8:29:36 EST
From: Carl Moore <[e-mail]>
Subject: Another Misprogrammed COCOT


A COCOT I saw on a trip I just took across Vermont had (usual)
roblems with 10xxx access code (I used 1-800-321-0288 instead of
10288) and also had this problem with use of the Orange Card:

I was able to call 1-800-(Orange Card Number), get the resulting tone,
then punch in the ten-digit code and the ten-digit number I was
calling, then get the next burst of tone, but then got "DISCONNECTED"
on the display I saw.

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

From: indep1!clifto (Cliff Sharp)
Date: Tue, Feb 15 08:40:30 1994
Subject: Re: AT&T's New 900 Mhz Cordless Phone


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bruce
Laskin) writes:

> (Most wireless home phones put out no more than 0.5mw.)

   I suspect you mean 0.5W.  500 microwatts, used with the el-cheapo
receivers in most wireless phones, would give an effective range of
about three feet...  provided there was absolutely no interference.

   However, I remember something about Part 15 transmitters (other
than spread-spectrum) being limited to 100 milliwatts.  My really
really el-cheapo wireless (49 MHz / 1.7 MHZ) put out about 50 to 70
milliwatts on a good charge day.


Cliff Sharp    WA9PDM

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

End of TELECOM Digest V14 #101
******************************


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

Downloaded From P-80 International Information Systems 304-744-2253