A Beginner's Guide to the Internet/INTERNET.ISO/text/telediag/tc13-088.txt

Text File | 1996-05-06 | 22.6 KB | 551 lines

TELECOM Digest     Sat, 13 Feb 93 22:29:00 CST    Volume 13 : Issue 88

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Running Out of Area Codes (Ken Stox)
    Re: Running Out of Area Codes (Robert L. McMillin)
    Re: Running Out of Area Codes (Fred R. Goldstein)
    Number Shortage ... What About "#" Sign? (Elana Beach)
    Re: SMDS Question (Fred R. Goldstein)
    Re: SMDS Question (Lars Poulsen)
    Re: SMDS Question (Pushpendra Mohta)
    Re: Second Line Non-Pub/Unlisted? (John Higdon)
    Re: Second Line Non-Pub/Unlisted? (David Lesher)
    Re: Second Line Non-Pub/Unlisted? (Richard Lucas)
    Re: Second Line Non-Pub/Unlisted? (Joel Upchurch)
    Re: Overseas Directory Assistance (Jim Gottlieb)
    Re: Overseas Directory Assistance (Sven Echternach)
    Re: Exchange Scanning - Enough Already! (Ed Greenberg)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Ken Stox)
Subject: Re: Running Out of Area Codes
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Ken Stox)
Organization: AC Nielsen Co.
Date: Sat, 13 Feb 93 18:14:16 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, Tony Harminc <TONY@VM1.
MCGILL.CA> writes:

> This sounds like nonsense.  Telcos do not divide DA bureaus up
> strictly by area code in most cases.  If a city has several area
> codes, a call to any one should be enough to find out a number in that
> city.  And locally, 411 should do.

I can vouch for that, here in Chicago, the DA bureaus serve the 312
and 708 area codes. I lived in the city for many years and moved to
the burb's some two years ago. An old friend called 312 DA, and was
rather insistent that they must have my listing ( My name is, as far
as I know, unique in North America). DA replied that, in fact, they
did have a listing , but in 708. Needless, thanks to DA, I heard from
an old friend.


#include <std_disclaimer.h>
Ken Stox     Consultant to A.C. Nielsen    [e-mail]

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

Date: Sat, 13 Feb 93 12:00:18 -0800
From: [e-mail] (Robert L. McMillin)
Subject: Re: Running Out of Area Codes


Tony Harminc <[e-mail]> writes:

>> Callers will have to closely pinpoint neighborhoods in making
>> directory assistance requests because of the area-code proliferation.
>> That's already a problem in Southern California, which now has seven
>> area codes and is likely to get many more.

> This sounds like nonsense.  Telcos do not divide DA bureaus up
> strictly by area code in most cases.

They do in LA.  The 213/310 split has been a mess in terms of figuring
out which area code serves which city.  Luckily for most people, 310
covers the coastal areas, so if the city you want to call is near the
beach, it's probably 310.  Inglewood?  Beverly Hills?  Those cities
are roughly halved by the 213/310 area code split.  True, the DA
bureaus aren't split up physically, but a 310 operator will tell you
"that city is in 310, sir" if you ask for a Long Beach number from a
213 operator.  So it is a bit worse, particularly if you're calling
long distance and have to pay for both calls.

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

From: [e-mail] (Fred R. Goldstein)
Subject: Re: Running Out of Area Codes
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA
Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1993 23:44:25 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(adams,john) writes:

> SURPRISE!  (At least I was!)  In yesterday's "New Yawk Times" appeared
> an article stating that SPRINT is now an *owner* (along with the seven
> RECs) of BELLCORE.  I'm personally convinced that this will have
> little to do with me, although I can see a couple of legions of
> attorneys lining up on either side of this issue.

Recall, however, that Sprint Corp. does business as "United Telephone
System", and is the phone company in many parts of the country.  I
think they're trying to by Centel, another big local telco.  (United
Telephone changed its name to that of the long distance company they
bought from GTE.)


Fred R. Goldstein   [e-mail]
k1io             or [e-mail]   voice:[phone]
Standard Disclaimer:  Opinions are mine alone; sharing requires permission.

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

From: [e-mail] (Elana Beach)
Subject: Number Shortage ... What About "#" Sign?
Organization: Open Communications Forum
Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1993 14:06:04 GMT


Extreme newbie talking here ... I hope this is an interesting thought
for discussion, because it isn't easy being green!  :-)

ANYWAY ... in the various discussions of the number shortage, I never
have seen this possibility I am about to discuss, and I wonder if it's
because it's not workable, or just because no one thought of it yet.

Could the # sign be used in any permutation to help alleviate the
number shortage ... i.e. have it replace the leading "1" for
long-distance phone calls or whatever?

The * is already used as a leading character for things like *67, etc,
so that is out.  However it seems to me that the #, being so utterly
unused, could be used in SOME interesting fashion to rethink our way
through the number shortage problem.  To my non-tech mind, it seems
for example that to replace the leading 1 with the # will at LEAST
free up the leading one for something else.

Then there's combinations of #* (#N*, #*N, etc.) that could mean
different things when used with the regular numbers.

With any luck, this attempt at an idea just might be a creative spark
to get your minds going on a new line of thought.  Maybe it will help
someone out there to come up with a creative solution they would not
have thought of otherwise.


E.


Moderator's Note: The problem lies in your statement about '# is so
utterly unused ...'; this is not true. It is frequently used. There
are many switches which handle 'custom calling features' the opposite
of the way you describe, for example using 72#, 73# and so forth,
rather than with an asterisk on the front. The # -- sometimes known as
an octothorpe -- is also used to indicate the end of a dialing string,
or carriage return when the number entered is shorter or longer than
the expected seven or eleven digits. The use of # at the end of such
non-standard dialing strings avoids the need for the caller to wait
while the equipment times out. For example, 0# gets the operator much
faster than just 0, since before fetching the operator, the equipment
is going to wait several seconds to see if you intend to go further
with your dialing, such as 0 + area code + number. Your use of # tells
it not to wait any longer. When calling the number to which a calling
card is assigned, one need only enter the four digit PIN rather than
the entire calling card number. The equipment knows how to interpret
what you have entered (first four digits of fourteen, wait for ten
more, or four of four proceed with processing now) because you insert
the # at the end. This is ditto on international calling, since the
number of digits we dial varies from one country to the next, depending
on the length of the country code (one, two, or three digits usually),
city code (one, two or three digits) and the local number (four to
seven digits usually). Typically you can cut 20-30 seconds off the
dialing time on an international call by hitting # at the end of your
dialing. So the 'mostly unused' # really has a big job.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Fred R. Goldstein)
Subject: Re: SMDS Question
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA
Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1993 23:11:12 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Sean Malloy) writes ...

> He was talking about applications, and mentioned that one would be the
> interconnection of LANs within a metropolitan area.  I thought about
> it for a while, and alarm bells started to go off in my head.  Putting
> LANs on a public-switched network?  Doesn't that open up all sorts of
> security issues?

No.

> I asked the speaker about this, and he danced around the issue.  I got
> frustrated, and decided that security wasn't his bag.  But the
> question remains.  What sort of precautions are taken to prevent
> unauthorized users from getting into the LAN?  Passwords?  That's
> proven to be incredibly effective on the net (heh).  Besides, it'd add

> overhead.  Some sort of callback?  That reduces the advantages of
> being switched ...

SMDS is a packet-switched service.  No more, no less.  Unlike X.25,
it's connectionless, so it actually melds more easily with LAN traffic
(LANs are connectionless) than X.25 or Frame Relay, both of which of
course involve connections.

But the SMDS network only delivers packets to the destination address
(E.164 format) in each packet.  So if anybody on the same SMDS sends
you a packet, you might receive it, but you don't have to return the
favor.  You will not receive anybody else's traffic, and they won't
get yours.  If you're really paranoid about somebody else maliciously
addressing packets to you, then I suppose you could set up a Closed
User Group too.

Think of it as being like a shared LAN in which the phone company
provides bridges that block all traffic UNLESS it's addressed to the
destination.  (That's the opposite of 802.1 bridges which assume it's
all private and thus pass everything unless they know not to.)


Fred R. Goldstein   [e-mail]
k1io             or [e-mail]   voice:[phone]
Standard Disclaimer:  Opinions are mine alone; sharing requires permission.

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

From: [e-mail] (Lars Poulsen)
Subject: Re: SMDS Question
Organization: CMC Network Systems (Rockwell DCD), Santa Barbara, CA, USA
Date: Sat, 13 Feb 93 07:35:20 GMT

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Sean
Malloy) writes:

> I was at the symposium for Broadband Networks last week, and watched
> with some interest a presentation by a gentleman from GTE on SMDS.

This is turning out to be the surprise of the decade. GTE actually is
going seriously after SMDS, and they have even installed a
GTE-to-PacBell SMDS gateway. I hear that they are way ahead of the
Baby Bells in this effort.

> He was talking about applications, and mentioned that one would be the
> interconnection of LANs within a metropolitan area.  I thought about
> it for a while, and alarm bells started to go off in my head.  Putting
> LANs on a public-switched network?  Doesn't that open up all sorts of
> security issues?

Attaching to a public network, inherently is a security issue.
Fortunately, we have tools to address this issue and set a security
policy adequate to our needs for each site. Lots of people attach over
phone wires, and many routers let you install packet filters to
implement your policy.


Lars Poulsen, SMTS Software Engineer    Internet E-mail: [e-mail]
CMC Network Products / Rockwell Int'l    Telephone: [phone]
Santa Barbara, CA 93117-3083        TeleFAX:   [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Pushpendra Mohta)
Subject: Re: SMDS Question
Date: 13 Feb 1993 18:12:12 GMT
Organization: CERFnet Dial n' CERF Customer Group


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Sean
Malloy) writes:

> I was at the symposium for Broadband Networks last week, and watched
> with some interest a presentation by a gentleman from GTE on SMDS.

> He was talking about applications, and mentioned that one would be the
> interconnection of LANs within a metropolitan area.  I thought about
> it for a while, and alarm bells started to go off in my head.  Putting
> LANs on a public-switched network?  Doesn't that open up all sorts of
> security issues?

You take standard precautions: You secure your gateways and you secure
your hosts. You may get firewall machines or encryption devices. There
is a plethora of literature on this.

SMDS solves some of this problem by creating "closed groups" At your
request, the access points to the SMDS network can have filters
designed to exchange traffic with selected SMDS hosts only. (PacBell
does this, I am sure GTE does the same.)

The access points also check to see the source SMDS address coming in
to the network is the same as one preassigned to that port, so it is
difficult for people to fake their SMDS addresses.

However, your data is with the phone company .... :-)  So, if you are
forced to be paranoid: Encrypt.

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

Date: Sat, 13 Feb 93 10:19 PST
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Second Line Non-Pub/Unlisted?


[e-mail] (Paul Barnett) writes:

> This is indeed specific to the local telephone company.  In Mpls-St.
> Paul, which is served by US West, you HAVE to publish the number, or
> pay an extra charge.

That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard of. So, if I wanted to
avoid paying unlisting charges on my residence lines, the phone book
would look something like this (?):

Higdon John ------------- 264-4115 (the number I normally list)
Higdon John ------------- 266-4400
Higdon John ------------- 266-4401
Higdon John ------------- 266-4402
Higdon John ------------- 266-4403
Higdon John ------------- 266-4404

[etc., etc., and on and on for sixteen lines]

Some of the businesses in town might take up an entire page! Just how
thick is the phone book for Mpls-St. Paul?

> However, you could specify a different name for the listing, and
> some people invent strange names.

So is there an entire page of 'Rover'?


John Higdon  |   P. O. Box 7648   |   [phone]     |       FAX:
[e-mail] | San Jose, CA 95150 | 10288 0 700 FOR-A-MOO | [phone]

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

From: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Second Line Non-Pub/Unlisted?
Date: Sat, 13 Feb 93 19:09:05 EST
Reply-To: [e-mail]  (David Lesher)
Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers - Beltway Annex


I've always found it interesting that second through n-th lines can be
non-pub for free. After all, it exposes one of the BOC's "BIG LIES".

Years ago, The Seven Dwarfs claimed that non-pub cost extra because
they suffered under the weight of those 411 calls; all caused by your
n.p. number.

Then they succeeded in getting DA charges tariffed -- Bingo -- another
profit center! So the tripe they now peddle is that n.p. numbers cause
them oh_so_much trouble. The classic explanation was the comedian who
said it's "because they have to push the rest of the numbers in the
book up one place ..."

Of course the REAL reason that additional unlistings are free is
simple.  To do otherwise would REALLY cost Ma's kids.

Consider:

  EVERY number in every Centrex would have to be listed. Think about
  your local megacorporation or worse, state university.

  The #1 largest user of n.p. numbers is, of course, not NSA or even
  teleslime. Rather, it's the BOC's! Think how zealously She guards
  those "secret" numbers to reach someone who understands something and
  might help you out! [re: PAT's recent story about CNID and calling the
  switch back ...] Now just suppose your local directory listed them
  all.

Hmmm, maybe I should petition the PSC.......


[e-mail]        (301) 56-LINUX

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

From: [e-mail] (Richard Lucas)
Subject: Re: Second Line Non-Pub/Unlisted?
Organization: Boulder Valley School District
Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1993 01:08:08 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dan
Lanciani) writes:


> I recently ordered a second line in my name and at the same
> address as my existing line.  For some reason I thought one could get
> non-published or unlisted (I forget) status at no extra charge for
> each line beyond the first.  Did I imagine this?  The business office
> was quite certain that I would have to pay extra.  I suppose the
> answer is specific to NET land ...

     There are two possible ways of requesting the second line. If you
requested that it be billed with the main number, the service order
would need to contain a line specifying the AML (Additional Main
Listing) details. Omit that and the second line won't be listed. There
should be no charge to omit the AML. The second option is to bill the
line by itself.  In that case the USOC would be NP3 rather than NPU,
and would generate no charge. At least in Colorado we had the rule you
remember. The basic procedures date back to pre-Divestiture days and
as such may not be NET-specific.


Rick Lucas ([e-mail], and former USW service rep)
Debate Coach, Fairview HS, Boulder, CO

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

Subject: Re: Second Line Non-Pub/Unlisted?
From: upchrch![e-mail] (Joel Upchurch  )
Date: Sat, 13 Feb 93 18:06:53 EST
Organization: Upchurch Computer Consulting, Orlando FL


[e-mail] (Dan Lanciani) writes:

> I recently ordered a second line in my name and at the same
> address as my existing line.  For some reason I thought one could get
> non-published or unlisted (I forget) status at no extra charge for
> each line beyond the first.  Did I imagine this?  The business office
> was quite certain that I would have to pay extra.  I suppose the
> answer is specific to NET land ...

My first line is published. When I got my second line it wasn't
required to be listed. For all I know I might have to pay extra to
have it listed. I notice there are a lot less sales calls coming in on
the second line. I've entertained the notion of using the second
number as my primary contact with people I know and putting my modem
and fax on the first line and have a answering machine take calls on
that line.

The nice part was that since both numbers are billed together AT&T
didn't charge any extra to have Any Hour Saver on both lines.


(If your mail bounces use the address below.)
Joel Upchurch/Upchurch Computer Consulting/718 Galsworthy/Orlando, FL 32809
[e-mail] {uiucuxc,hoptoad,petsd,ucf-cs}!peora!joel [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Jim Gottlieb)
Subject: Re: Overseas Directory Assistance
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Jim Gottlieb)
Organization: Info Connections, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo, Japan
Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1993 13:55:14 GMT


[e-mail] (Jan Richert) writes:

> Sometimes you can reach the US directory assistance from Germany by
> dialing +1 XXX 555 1212 ... but sometimes you get a message "Your call
> cannot completed as dialed"

I believe this is because your call may be carried on any of a number
of carriers to the U.S.

For example, I sometimes try to call California 976 numbers from here
in Japan.  Regardless of what carrier I pick to handle the call on
this side, I enter the U.S. via AT&T, MCI, or Sprint on a seemingly
random basis.  If I land on AT&T, my calls to 976 go through.
Otherwise I might hear "MCI does not complete calls to 976 ..." or a
similar one from Sprint.

This could be rather confusing to a casual caller.

I suspect that certain carrier(s) pass overseas calls to DA while
others don't.


Jim Gottlieb               Info Connections, Tokyo, Japan
<[e-mail]>       In Japan: <[e-mail]>
Fax: [phone]              Voice Mail: [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Sven Echternach)
Subject: Worldwide Directory Assistance
Organization: Technische Universitaet Muenchen, Germany
Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1993 14:24:34 +0100


> [Moderator's Note: Yes and no. No, you are not supposed to dial
> international DA direct (no, people in other countries cannot dial
> 555-1212 in this country -- I don't think), and yes, it can be done in
> ...]

Yes, you can reach 555-1212 from most countries in the world!  It is
just one of these undocumented features AT&T doesn't tell us.

Just call up the AT&T USA Direct Access Number from most countries.
AT&T publishes them daily in {USA Today} and other newspapers.

If you get an operator, like from Germany, tell her you want (npa)
555-1212, where npa is the NPA of the number you want to have.

They won't ask you for your calling card because it is a toll free
call.

Unfortunately, some AT&T Operators don't know about this, but keep on
asking for your Calling Card (in 20% of the cases), so hang up and try
again then.


Regards,

Sven


[Moderator's Note: First of all, 'USA Direct' is a different matter
than simply calling from some other country to the USA. With USA
Direct you actually get an AT&T operator in the USA. In the latter
case, the local telecom operator handles the call according to the
rules in that country. And in any event, if they (AT&T operators or
the operators in your country) are giving it to you for free, that is
a much better deal than we who are stateside get: we have to pay about
60-65 cents for each call to npa-555-1212.    PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Ed Greenberg)
Subject: Re: Exchange Scanning - Enough Already!
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1993 13:06:02 GMT


> [Moderator's Note: What is wrong with your theory, Nigel, is that a
> carpet cleaning company or health club -- or even a persistent bill
> collector -- would not call (was it?) 165 times each night. You don't
> sell memberships or cleaning services at midnight. In any event, I
> don't think there is legislation at the federal level.   PAT]

Actually, the way I read the scenario, they might.  Consider that if
the business has the entire prefix assigned to it, but is using only,
let's say, 5,000 out of the 10,000 numbers assigned, and somebody
scanned the whole exchange, then they would get 5,000 calls on their
DID trunks that would result in intercept from their switch.

Now, typically, the company holding onto so many empty DIDs doesn't
get them all turned on, but enables them by the 1000s group.  As long
as the telco has numbers to spare, this works, but eventually growth
in the area puts pressure on this and you need to either pay for your
numbers to reserve them, or give 'em up.


Edward W. Greenberg  | Home: [phone] | [e-mail]
1600 Stokes St. #24  | Work: [phone] | DoD#: 0357
San Jose, CA  95126  | Fax:  [phone] | KM6CG (ex WB2GOH)

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

End of TELECOM Digest V13 #88
*****************************