Hacker Chronicles 2 (Alt)/The_Hacker_Chronicles_Volume_II-CD2.iso/td2/td14_144.txt

Text File | 1995-01-03 | 28.5 KB | 709 lines

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 24 Mar 94 02:29:00 CST    Volume 14 : Issue 144

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    AT&T Cellular Privacy System (David R. Arneke)
    Re: BT Phone Numbering (Linc Madison)
    Re: BT Phone Numbering (Carl Moore)
    Re: BT Phone Numbering (Richard Cox)
    Re: New Area Code 630 (Carl Moore)
    Re: New Area Code 630 (Steven H. Lichter)
    Re: New LA Area Code (James Taranto)
    Re: New LA Area Code (Arthur Rubin)
    Re: New LA Area Code (Rich Greenberg)
    Re: New Area Code For Los Angeles (Steven H. Lichter)
    Lots of L.A. Area Codes (Lauren Weinstein)
    Area Code 917 (was New LA Area Code) (Carl Moore)
    Re: Who Paid For My 550? (David Crane)
    Re: Who Paid For My 550? (Mark Earle)
    Specs For CDPD, Embarc, RAM, Ardis Wanted (Bill McMullin)
    Re: Cellular Phone Hacking (Russell E. Sorber)
    Re: MS-Kermit Keyboard Commands (Frank da Cruz)
    World's Least Necessary 800 Number (Mark Colan via Monty Solomon)

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] (David R Arneke)
Date: 23 Mar 94 13:11:22 GMT
Subject: AT&T Cellular Privacy System


AT&T SECURE COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS NEWS RELEASE

FOR MEDIA INQUIRIES:
David Arneke, AT&T
910 279-7680 (office)
910 273-5687 (home)
!darneke (ATTMAIL) or [e-mail] (Internet)

AMERITECH CELLULAR PRIVACY SERVICE USES AT&T TECHNOLOGY

     GREENSBORO, N.C. -- Ameritech Cellular Services in Chicago has
become the first cellular telephone system in the country to offer
voice privacy service using the AT&T Advanced Cellular Privacy System.

     Ameritech launched its Enhanced Voice Privacy service in Chicago
this month.

     "This technology adds to the productivity and value that
Ameritech cellular service provides to its customers," said Thomas A.
Brooks, AT&T Paradyne senior vice president, Secure Communications
Systems.

     "And, by helping the carrier provide value to the cus- tomer,
AT&T cellular privacy technology adds value to the carrier as well."

     The AT&T technology scrambles the cellular telephone's
over-the-air signal.  The signal is descrambled at Ameritech's
cellular switch, transmitting a conventional phone signal to the
recipient.

     If the scrambled over-the-air signal is intercepted, the
eavesdropper will hear only a chirping sound.  AT&T's advanced privacy
technology renders the over-the-air signal unintelligible.

     The system already is in wide use in Japan in the cellular system
of one of the two major Japanese telephone companies.

     The AT&T Cellular Privacy System offers cellular users a variety
of benefits.

     -- Its technology is small enough and light enough to be
embeddable in today's small, portable phones.

     -- The system features an unmatched combination of high voice
quality and an advanced level of privacy.

     -- It is applicable to all three types of cellular telephones --
portable, transportable ("bag phones") and mobile (car phones).

     The system has two components.  The AT&T privacy unit attaches to
the phone and scrambles the phone's signal.  Voice privacy modules are
available for several brands of cellular telephones, among them AT&T
models, including the AT&T Privacy-Capable Portable Telephone 9000;
the Audiovox 3200 series; Mitsubishi models using the Model 1200
transceiver; the Motorola 2600; the NEC 3800B and 4800; the Oki 800
series; and the Toshiba 3200 series.

     Modules for other brands and models are in development.

     The Mobile Telephone Office Switch (MTSO) unit is installed at
the cellular carrier's switch and descrambles the signal.

     Because the privacy system scrambles only the over-the-air
portion of the call, no matching unit or special equipment is required
at the receiving phone.

     The AT&T Paradyne Cellular Privacy System was developed by AT&T
Secure Communications Systems, a world leader in the design,
manufacture and integration of encryption and privacy products.  It is
a primary supplier of secure products to the governments of the United
States and other nations as well as corporations around the world.

     For more information, contact David Arneke of AT&T at 910 279-7680.

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

From: [e-mail] (Linc Madison)
Subject: Re: BT Phone Numbering
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 1994 00:36:31 GMT


Bill Buchan ([e-mail]) wrote:

> [in small town in Britain, phone numbers have changed from XXXX to 47XXXX]
> Is BT trying to standardize six-digit numbers outside the
> cities, or is this something to do with the new area codes next year --
> there are only 20000 people in my parent's town, so surely they don't
> need the option of a million phone numbers!

You are correct -- BT is standardizing to six-digit numbers except in
the large cities which have seven-digit numbers and an STD code that
is one digit shorter.  (Currently, either 0XX-XXX XXXX or (0XXX)
XXXXXX; after the renumbering next year, change the initial 0 to 01.)
In essence, the total number of digits will be standardized.  In the
process, some small area codes will be merged.  Most if not all
"convenience dialing" arrangements (e.g., dial 93 + number for a
neighboring town, instead of the full STD code + number) will
disappear.

The new system will make the total length of a British telephone
number 12 digits, from the perspective of the international phone
system: 44 + 1XXX + XXXXXX.  This pushes the limit of agreed
international standards (recommended 11-digit maximum, absolute
12-digit max.), but it allows BT to provide numbering space for
personal phone numbers, fax machines galore, direct-dial Centrex, and
whatever else.  With the new area codes, BT will have a numbering
space as large as North America's.

Even with all this, London is expected to need at least one more area
code split by 2010 or 2015, possibly even 2005.  Personally, I think
they should've put 01 back in use for London, changing 071-XXX XXXX to
01-7XXX XXXX and similarly for 081 to 01-8XXX XXXX, to more realistically
provide for London's growth.  Alternately, they could've used 011 for
London and then 01X for the five cities that are moving from
six-figure to seven-figure numbers next year.  London will need
8-figure numbers early next century anyway, and there's no need to
make everyone's number longer.


Linc Madison   *   Oakland, California   *   [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 23 Mar 94 16:16:16 EST
From: Carl Moore <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: BT Phone Numbering


Well, not quite four years ago, London city code 1 was discontinued
and replaced by TWO new codes (71 and 81), and when I asked (in this
Digest) if this was being done to standardize phone number length,
someone said yes.  So I take it the city code and the local number
(prior to the 1995 "phoneday") are, taken together, to be nine digits
long (omitting the leading 0, which is used on calls within the UK).

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

Date: Wed, 23 Mar 1994 13:31:34 -0800
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: BT Phone Numbering


Bill Buchan <[e-mail]> asked:

> A few years ago British Telecom added a prefix 7 to all the four-digit
> phone numbers in my parents' area.  At the time we assumed this would
> increase the scope of available numbers (ie. 0XXXX-6XXXX & 8XXXX-9XXXX)
> but no such numbers have ever been introduced.  This year they have
> introduced a further prefix 4, so that now all the numbers are in the
> form 47XXXX - why add yet another prefix when the previous one has not
> been needed?

Number changes are planned over a long period of time.  The move from
xxxx to 7xxxx would have *doubled* the available numbers for that area
(previously numbers there were in the range 2000-6999; prefixing with
a 7 meant that numbers could now range from 70000-79999. (In the UK as
in most places, local numbers do not begin with a 0 or a 1, and the
digits 9 (and in many cases 8) are kept for use as routing codes
between exchanges.  So when the only digit left was a 7, the planners
could either fill up with 7xxx, or expand to seven digits by prefixing
all numbers with a 7.)  They didn't need to use any of the other
digits because they had enough numbers in the 7xxxx range.

You may also find -- if you haven't already -- new numbers starting to
be introduced on that exchange, in the 48xxxx range.

>>  Is BT trying to standardize six-digit numbers outside the cities

In most cases yes: the less dialling codes user have to remember, the
better!  Exceptions are in Northern Ireland, the Lake District, and
some other places.

Obviously the "slot" that had been reserved in the wide area numbering
scheme for that particular exchange, was 47xxxx.  The numbers could
not have changed straight from xxxx to 47xxxx because this would have
caused much misdialling.  It's important, when an exchange *increases*
its number length, to trap all calls to the old number and send them
to an announcement - otherwise callers will dial the old (shorter)
number hoping to get through, and the registers will sit there for,
say, 20 seconds, waiting for the last digit(s).  On that basis the
exchange is going to run out of registers very quickly until the
majority of users stop trying to dial the old numbers, and callers
will find there's no dial tone because other people are just sitting
on the registers.

So if 4751 was changed straight to 474751, callers dialling 4751 would
have the register waiting for two more digits which will never come.
However if it simply changes to 74751, all the digits 2-6 can be
routed to announcements or reorder.  That gets the callers off the
habit of using the old numbers.  The idea of protecting registers like
this is quite new to the UK, as in the days of Strowger (SxS) each
step had in effect its own register, and holding a chain of steps in
error did not have so significant an impact on traffic handling at
that exchange.

>>  or is this something to do with the new area codes next year

Nothing to do with that at all -- that's a separate disaster in its
own right!


Richard D G Cox

Mandarin Technology, P.O. Box 111, Penarth, South Glamorgan, Wales:  CF64 3YG
Voice: 0956 700111 Fax: [phone]  VoiceMail: 0941 151515 Pager 0941 115555
E-mail address: [e-mail] - PGP2.3 public key available on request

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

Date: Wed, 23 Mar 94 16:40:40 EST
From: Carl Moore <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: New Area Code 630


TELECOM Digest Editor notes:

> I've a feeling that once the new-style area codes become official
and fully available for assignment we are going to be seeing a
*massive* influx of them all over the USA. I've a feeling once they
start getting assigned on a regular basis, there will be all sorts of
them almost all at once.

As is the case with any split, keep me posted as to what is going on.
Just today, I have received note of 630 in Illinois and 562 in
California (can't be implemented until the system can handle NXX area
codes, not just N0X/N1X).  References such as the zip/area directory
may have to be limited to landlines, and as far as I can tell from
telecom:

630 might get landlines (that would affect some people who shifted from
312 to 708 only in November 1989);
562 will only be cellular/pager overlay.

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

From: [e-mail] (Steven H. Lichter)
Subject: Re: New Area Code 630
Date: 23 Mar 1994 19:31:35 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)


I would guess it will be another overlay area code like Los Angeles
and the current one in New York City and will be used for cellular and
pagers.


Sysop: Apple Elite II -=- an Ogg-Net Hub BBS
[phone] 12/24/96/14.4 V32/V42bis Via PCP CACOL/12/24

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

From: [e-mail] (James Taranto)
Subject: Re: New LA Area Code
Date: 23 Mar 1994 22:53:52 GMT
Organization: The Bad Taranto


> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well the New York City metro area has quite
> a few now: 212/718/914/907, what else?  Are we counting New Jersey?  PAT]

907 is Alaska.  New York City alone has 212, 718, and 917, and the
metro area, broadly defined, includes part or all of 516, 914, 201,
908, 609, 203, and 717.


Cheers,

James Taranto  [e-mail]


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Yes, thank you, I meant 917 and the
Alaska area code got in there by error.   PAT]

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

Subject: Re: New LA Area Code
From: a_rubin%dsg4.dse.beckman.com (Arthur Rubin)
Date: 24 Mar 94 00:04:46 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]


In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Rich Greenberg)
writes:

> Pacific Bell & GTE just anounced that in 1996, LA will get its fourth
> area code.  562 will overlay the present 213-818-310 areas, and will
> be used for cellular phones and pagers.

> Four area codes in one metro area.  Can anybody beat that?

What's a "metro area"?  I thought 714 and 909 are (partially) in the LA
metro area.


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.

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

From: [e-mail] (Rich Greenberg)
Subject: Re: New LA Area Code
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login:
guest)
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 1994 02:16:04 GMT


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

> Four area codes in one metro area.  Can anybody beat that?

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well the New York City metro area has quite
> a few now: 212/718/914/907, what else?  Are we counting New Jersey?  PAT]

[Original posters note to the TELCOM Digest Editors note:  (whew)]

Well Pat, if you are going to count Nuuuu Joooooisy as part of Metro
New York, then I can throw in 714,909, 805, and mabe a slice of 619.
Total 7.5.

Within the city limits of L.A. there are three and soon to be four NPAs.

And is 907 a split I hadn't heard of or your typo?


Rich Greenberg            Work: ETi Solutions, Oceanside & L.A. CA
310-348-7677
N6LRT   TinselTown, USA   Play: [e-mail]
310-649-0238
Pacific time.  I speak for myself and my dogs only.  Canines: Chinook & Husky


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: 907 was my typo. 917 was intended.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Steven H. Lichter)
Subject: Re: New Area Code For Los Angeles
Date: 23 Mar 1994 19:25:57 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)


There are going to be several options on this, but what it all amounts
to is all cellular users in the 310 area code that 310 area code
numbers after a set date will do so with the knowledge that they will
be changed to the 562 area code.

On this point it should also be noted that the growth in the 310
area code is the fastest in the country.

The above are my comments and have nothing to do with my employer.


Sysop: Apple Elite II -=- an Ogg-Net Hub BBS
[phone] 12/24/96/14.4 V32/V42bis Via PCP CACOL/12/24

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

Date: Wed, 23 Mar 94 16:52 PST
From: [e-mail] (Lauren Weinstein)
Subject: Lots of L.A. Area Codes


Actually, the L.A. metro area eats up more area codes than you can
shake a stick at.  Outside of 213/818/310 and soon 562 which all
include different portions of the city of L.A. (among other areas),
codes such as 805, 714, and the new 909 also are part of the metro
area.  So it's really seven.

Overlay codes are a great idea since they avoid disrupting existing
customers with area code splits.  Local reports are claiming that
regular landline customers may be assigned numbers in 562 before the
year 2000 (not that far off, fun seekers).  This would probably
introduce the practical necessity of 10 digit dialing for all local
calls to be politically feasible, which, as I've pointed out in this
forum before, seems to be necessary for a large proportion of local
calls now given the number of codes already present!


 --Lauren--

P.S.  I haven't seen mentioned here that Pacific Bell is abolishing
toll calls in California!  That's right, no more tolls!  Oh, well,
actually, they're just changing the name.  They won't be "toll" anymore.
Now they'll be called "Local Plus (sm)".  So there'll be local, zum,
and local plus.  A rose by any other name?

 --LW--

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

Date: Wed, 23 Mar 94 16:29:35 EST
From: Carl Moore <[e-mail]>
Subject: Area Code 917 (was New LA Area Code)


TELECOM Digest Editor notes:

> TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well the New York City metro area has quite
> a few now: 212/718/914/907, what else?  Are we counting New Jersey?  PAT

I think you mean 917 instead of 907, which is in Alaska.  Besides, how
do you arrive at area code 914 being included in the area being
overlaid?  The only previous information I received said that 917 was
overlaid on 212 and 718.  If the inclusion of 914 is correct, let me
know when it was done.  (914 includes Westchester, and 516 is found in
Long Island suburbs.)

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

From: [e-mail] (David Crane)
Subject: Re: Who Paid For My 550?
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 1994 19:18:26 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> Jim Cluett <[e-mail].
COM> writes:

> Can anyone explain the economics of the $50 Motorola 550?  The 550 is
> selling locally at a discount department store for $50. Motorola can't
> build 'em for that. The department store is acting as an agent for
> both an A and a B carrier, but I don't think they can recover enough
> from a year's contract to make up the difference. Who's subsidizing
> this? It's probably me, but I don't quite see how.

The cellular phone company is subsidizing it.  In fact, they are
usually free, so $50 is a rip-off.  You cannot buy one without signing
a one-year contract for cellular service, or similar high-priced
"option".  Most folks don't mind because they need the service to use
the phone but I dare you to go in and tell them you dropped your old
one in a sewer grating and all you want is a new piece of hardware
programmed like your old one.

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

Date: Wed, 23 Mar 94 15:31:55 CST
From: [e-mail] (Mark Earle)
Subject: Re: Who Paid For My 550?


Here's roughly, in one market, how the cellular phones are sold for
$1, $50, or .99, or free, but always with "activation extra, programming
fee may be required, credit approval required" you get the idea.

The agent gets some percent of your bill. Three years ago, when there
were few agents (more risk -- will these things really sell?) the
agents paid a franchise fee (about $45,000) and then received 10% of
the customer's gross bill, forever.

Newer agents now pay almost nothing for a franchise fee.  Essentially,
their cost to join covers training and programming books, jigs, cables,
etc. But, they get a much smaller percent of the gross, and it's for a
limited term.

So, anyhow, wholesale, a phone costs, let's say, $300.  Average BASE
phone bill under a qualifying plan is $40/month.  10% of (40 x 12=$480/yr)
= $48. PER phone activated, the carrier gives the agent a fixed fee --
typically, $250.  So, the $300 phone is paid for. The agent is
gambling several things:

 1. You'll stay on longer than one year;
 2. You'll use more than $40/month in services.

Newer agents get less than $48, but still get the $250 acttivation.

Both new and old agents charge you $25 "activation fee" and a $25
"programming fee" which is mostly profit; and they may charge other
fees.

Other things they gamble on are that you'll buy extra batteries,
cases, antennas, etc, all at considerable mark-up. Also, lately,
phones have gotten cheaper.

Finally, most one year contracts carry an enforcable clause which
states if you turn off service before the year is up, you pay the
remaining monthly fees in a lump sum. So the agent comes out even or
slightly ahead.

In reality (I know an 'older agent') it's a safe wager. Most customers
spend $80 or more/month; most stay on more than a year; most buy many
accessory items; and most have account changes (i.e, go from the $40
plan to the $50/month plan, etc) so the agent makes lots of $. It's
sort of like Las Vegas.  You may win, but overall, the house (agent)
does.

Of course, the cellular carrier doesn't do too badly either; they
don't have to deal that much with the public, the agent being their
buffer.

Who would have believed / predicted the growth of this market two or
three years ago?


[e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 23 Mar 1994 15:13:55 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Bill McMullin)
Subject: Specs For CDPD, Embarc, RAM, Ardis Wanted


Would anyone know where I could find the specifications and/or
communications protocols for communicating with CDPD, Embarc, RAM, and
Ardis terminals?


Bill McMullin

InterActive Telecom   Ph: 902-832-1014
1550 Bedford Hwy.     Fx: 902-832-1015
Sun Tower Suite 304   Em: [e-mail]
Bedford, Nova Scotia  B4A 1E6

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

Date: Wed, 23 Mar 94 14:42:44 CST
From: [e-mail] (Russell E. Sorber)
Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Hacking
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group


In article <[e-mail]> Bob Zigon <bobz@truevision.
com> writes:

> Is this the right newsgroup to ask questions about Cellular Phone
> Hacking?  If not, could you please suggest a newsgroup? If this is the
> right group, are there any ftp sites that contain documents about how
> cellular phones work? How to clone phones?

> Bob Zigon     Sr. Software Engineer   Truevision, Inc.

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It is against the law to clone cellular
> phones. Illegal activities are not condoned here, although you might
> find a newsgroup here and there on Abusenet where they talk about such
> things in lurid detail. There is an alt group for phreaks (or do you
> pronounce it freaks?) but I forget its name. The Telecom Archives has
> some stuff on cellular phones (use anonymous ftp lcs.mit.edu, then 'cd
> telecom-archives') and some stuff on toll fraud but nothing specifically
> on how to clone cellular phones. Probably someone reading this will know
> the name of the alt group and tell you what it is.   PAT]

Wait ... before Bob goes running off to another newsgroup, how about
if he provides documents or other information on how to best steal
goods or services from HIS company? If there is no way to steal from
Bob's company electronically, perhaps there is an unlocked door or an
unguarded loading dock where the stealing can be done the old fashioned
way?  Please post details.  <sarcasm off>


Russ Sorber
Software Contractor  -    Opinions are mine, Not Motorolas!
Motorola, Cellular Division   Arlington Hts., IL  [phone]


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Ah, but they never think of it that
way, Russ. Your comments remind me of the cartoon a few years ago
showing this teenage fellow sitting at his computer looking at the
blank screen with kind of a bewildered look on his face. His mother
is standing there talking to his father and she says, 'during the
night, a major corporation broke in through his modem; wiped out and
formatted his hard disk ...'. Generally they do not even consider it
stealing and they have all kinds of ways to philisophically skirt
around it with one rationale or another.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Frank da Cruz)
Subject: Re: MS-Kermit Keyboard Commands
Date: 23 Mar 1994 23:18:00 GMT
Organization: Columbia University


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

> I am running MS-Kermit on my 386 PC, connecting to a VAX 8550 cluster
> running VMS.  The VAX is running All-In-One Office Automation Package
> and WPSPLUS editor.  The WPSPlus requires the use of certain keys on
> the PC-Keypad for some of its editing and curso n control features.
> MS-Kermit doesn't seem to want to send those control sequences to the
> VAX.  It just sends the numeric keypad characters.  I am running
> MS-Kermit in the VT320 emulation mode.  Is this just something not
> supported by MS-Kermit, am I miss ing a file, or have I set something
> up wrong?

MS-DOS Kermit (current version = 3.13) will send anything you want it
to send, but you have to tell it.  The default key mappings are listed
in Appendices I and II of "Using MS-DOS Kermit".

One of the unique features of Kermit is that the special DEC keys
(editing and arrow keys, F keys, PF keys, numeric keypad keys, etc)
are identified by "verbs", whose actions are context-dependent --
which terminal is being emulated and which mode it is in -- and which
can be assigned to the PC keys of your choice.

Since most Kermit users do not access applications that make heavy use
of the DEC VT220-and-above keyboard, not all of these verbs are
assigned to PC keys by default.  If you had glanced at the READ.ME
file that comes on the MS-DOS Kermit diskette, you would have noticed
a VT300.lNI file, which does, indeed, make a full mapping for you.

This full mapping is, of course, only one of many possible ones.  Some
people prefer to map keys by position, others by keytop legend, etc.
Also included on the distribution diskette is a TSR called GOLD.COM,
which allows Num Lock to be used as the DEC Gold Key.


Frank

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

Date: Wed, 23 Mar 1994 16:33:16 -0500
From: Monty Solomon <[e-mail]>
Subject: World's Least Necessary 800 Number


Forwarded FYI:

 Date: Wed, 23 Mar 94 14:27:24 EST
 From: [e-mail] (Rod Holland - Sun BOS Software)
 Subject: where was this last week, when we needed it?


Topic: Nomination: world's least necessary 800 number
Author: Mark Colan
Category: MCI seems to have lost it's mind.

(from the big net in the sky:)

In case you haven't seen or heard this yet, MCI has created the
wackiest, most useless 800 number around.  I can't describe it except
to say you must call:

        1-800-969-4874 [1-800-WOW-IT'S-HOT] (from a touchtone phone).
Very Pink, and yet Slackful.  I call on my speaker phone and let the
dulcet tones fill my office with ... oh, you'll see ... and it's FREE!

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

End of TELECOM Digest V14 #144
******************************


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

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