home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- 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: kstox@admips2.naitc.com (Ken Stox)
- Subject: Re: Running Out of Area Codes
- Reply-To: kstox@admips2.naitc.com (Ken Stox)
- Organization: AC Nielsen Co.
- Date: Sat, 13 Feb 93 18:14:16 GMT
-
-
- In article <telecom13.85.5@eecs.nwu.edu>, 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 kstox@naitc.com
-
- ------------------------------
-
- Date: Sat, 13 Feb 93 12:00:18 -0800
- From: rlm@indigo2.hac.com (Robert L. McMillin)
- Subject: Re: Running Out of Area Codes
-
-
- Tony Harminc <TONY@VM1.MCGILL.CA> 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: goldstein@carafe.dnet.dec.com (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 <telecom13.85.7@eecs.nwu.edu>, jadams@vixen.cc.bellcore.com
- (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 goldstein@carafe.tay2.dec.com
- k1io or goldstein@delni.enet.dec.com voice:+1 508 952 3274
- Standard Disclaimer: Opinions are mine alone; sharing requires permission.
-
- ------------------------------
-
- From: elana@agora.rain.com (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: goldstein@carafe.dnet.dec.com (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 <telecom13.79.6@eecs.nwu.edu>, scm3775@tamsun.tamu.edu
- (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 goldstein@carafe.tay2.dec.com
- k1io or goldstein@delni.enet.dec.com voice:+1 508 952 3274
- Standard Disclaimer: Opinions are mine alone; sharing requires permission.
-
- ------------------------------
-
- From: lars@spectrum.CMC.COM (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 <telecom13.79.6@eecs.nwu.edu> scm3775@tamsun.tamu.edu (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: lars@CMC.COM
- CMC Network Products / Rockwell Int'l Telephone: +1-805-968-4262
- Santa Barbara, CA 93117-3083 TeleFAX: +1-805-968-8256
-
- ------------------------------
-
- From: pushp@nic.cerf.net (Pushpendra Mohta)
- Subject: Re: SMDS Question
- Date: 13 Feb 1993 18:12:12 GMT
- Organization: CERFnet Dial n' CERF Customer Group
-
-
- In article <telecom13.79.6@eecs.nwu.edu> scm3775@tamsun.tamu.edu (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: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon)
- Reply-To: John Higdon <john@zygot.ati.com>
- Organization: Green Hills and Cows
- Subject: Re: Second Line Non-Pub/Unlisted?
-
-
- barnett@zeppelin.convex.com (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 | +1 408 264 4115 | FAX:
- john@ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | 10288 0 700 FOR-A-MOO | +1 408 264 4407
-
- ------------------------------
-
- From: David Lesher <wb8foz@SCL.CWRU.Edu>
- Subject: Re: Second Line Non-Pub/Unlisted?
- Date: Sat, 13 Feb 93 19:09:05 EST
- Reply-To: wb8foz@skybridge.scl.cwru.edu (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.......
-
-
- wb8foz@skybridge.scl.cwru.edu (301) 56-LINUX
-
- ------------------------------
-
- From: rlucas@bvsd.Co.EDU (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 <telecom13.79.5@eecs.nwu.edu> ddl@burrhus.harvard.edu (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 (rlucas@bvsd.co.edu, and former USW service rep)
- Debate Coach, Fairview HS, Boulder, CO
-
- ------------------------------
-
- Subject: Re: Second Line Non-Pub/Unlisted?
- From: upchrch!joel@peora.sdc.ccur.com (Joel Upchurch )
- Date: Sat, 13 Feb 93 18:06:53 EST
- Organization: Upchurch Computer Consulting, Orlando FL
-
-
- ddl@burrhus.harvard.edu (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
- joel@peora.ccur.com {uiucuxc,hoptoad,petsd,ucf-cs}!peora!joel (407) 859-0982
-
- ------------------------------
-
- From: jimmy@tokyo07.info.com (Jim Gottlieb)
- Subject: Re: Overseas Directory Assistance
- Reply-To: jimmy@denwa.info.com (Jim Gottlieb)
- Organization: Info Connections, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo, Japan
- Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1993 13:55:14 GMT
-
-
- jrichert@krefcom.GUN.de (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
- <jimmy@denwa.info.com> In Japan: <jimmy@info.juice.or.jp>
- Fax: +81 3 3865 9424 Voice Mail: +81 3 3865 3548
-
- ------------------------------
-
- From: echterna@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE (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: edg@netcom.com (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: +1 408 283 0511 | edg@netcom.com
- 1600 Stokes St. #24 | Work: +1 408 764 5305 | DoD#: 0357
- San Jose, CA 95126 | Fax: +1 408 764 5003 | KM6CG (ex WB2GOH)
-
- ------------------------------
-
- End of TELECOM Digest V13 #88
- *****************************
-