TELECOM Digest Fri, 18 Feb 94 12:51:00 CST Volume 14 : Issue 90 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Harrassing One-Ring Calls (puma@netcom.com) Re: Harrassing One-Ring Calls (Jack Hamilton) Re: Harrassing One-Ring Calls (Bob Niland) Re: Harrassing One-Ring Calls (Anthony E. Siegman) Re: Don't Trust The Phone Company (Mark Brader) Re: Internet Costs and Software Are Free (Nick Sayer) Re: Internet Costs and Software Are Free (Chaim Frenkel) Re: More Information on the Economics of Dial-Back Services (Tan Ken Hwee) Re: More About INTERNET Connections (Linc Madison) Re: AT&T Says They Can't Resolve My Calls' Origin (L. W. Westermeyer) Re: AT&T Says They Can't Resolve my Calls' Origin (Ed Ellers) Re: A Small Town in Wyoming (Robert Casey) Re: Seeking Information Regarding UPT Standards Draft (Ed Garcia Lopez) 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: * telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu * 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: ptownson@townson.com. ** Article submission address only: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu ** 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 18 Feb 1994 06:14:48 -0800 From: puma@netcom.com (puma) Subject: Re: Harrassing One-Ring Calls TELECOM Digest Editor noted in response to Bill Llewellyn (thinker@ rahul.net): >> is the poor man's self-help to peace and quiet on the telephone. Oh, I >> know the ACLU and the Socially Responsible People don't approve of it, >> but then, I don't approve of them either. PAT] > The ACLU has no policy one way or the other on Caller ID. The ACLU > concerns itself only with Bill of Rights issues, and more specifically > First Amendment rights in test cases. In California where Caller ID > is not in use, rape crisis centers were a driving force among groups > against Caller ID. They're concerned that (as an example) a woman > calling to order a pizza could be harrassed by unwanted calls if the > pizza dude thought her voice was arousing. Here in Wisconsin (where the PSC has approved CallerID but it's not implemented yet) the pizza places use a centralized number and ANI for information on last orders, callback, etc. Before they had that, they would just ask for your number anyway, so I don't see where CallerID would be a factor. puma@netcom.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Because when they merely ask for your number, you can lie about it and give a phalse number not your own. PAT] ------------------------------ From: jfh@netcom.com (Jack Hamilton) Subject: Re: Harrassing One-Ring Calls Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest) Date: Fri, 18 Feb 1994 14:50:33 GMT jfh@netcom.com (Jack Hamilton) wrote: > I think you're misrepresenting the position of the people who were > opposed to Caller IDd in California. I was opposed to it, or at least > to the way I understood it was to be implemented. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Just as your right to to swing your arms > around ends when your fist reaches my face, likewise your right to > privacy ends when you cause my telephone to ring. If you want to live > in your own private little world, no one is stopping you, but when you > choose to interact with others, how can you sit there and say you have > the right to approach them or call them anonymously? Where are their > rights to be left alone? Like with pizza drivers, their rights don't > seem to matter, eh? The pizza stores could say "I'm sorry, you've disallowed Caller-ID, so we won't deliver to you", or they could choose the intercept service that says something like "non-id's calls to this number are not accepted." Again, you are misrepresenting the position of the people opposed to Pac Bell's offering. I'm not opposed to Caller-ID, I'm just opposed to making a lot easer for other people to get my number than it is for me to keep them from getting it. I'm paying for my phone too. The choice should be easy for both parties, not just one. Jack Hamilton USMail: POB 281107 SF CA 94128 USA jfh@netcom.com Packet: kd6ttl@w6pw.#nocal.ca.us.na ------------------------------ From: rjn@hpfcla.fc.hp.com (Bob Niland) Subject: Re: Harrassing One-Ring Calls Date: Fri, 18 Feb 1994 05:45:46 GMT Reply-To: rjn@csn.org Organization: Colorado SuperNet Richard Barnes (rbarnes@crl.com) wrote: > We had this happen a while back, and frequently at night. We had to > call the phone company several times, and finally talk to a supervisor > (we got incorrect information from everyone else). The supervisor > said it was the phone company's test equipment. If it happens only once a night, usually at the same time, my understanding is that it may be what I once heard described as "Line Insulation Test". It is an out-of-band (voltage and/or frequency) ring signal. I doubt that any CLID arrives with the signal. On a properly designed and manufactured telephone, it should have no noticeable effect (esp. no ring). It will cause many cheapo phones to "chirp", and will definitely cause Radio Shack "Fone Flasher" neon lights to flash. We have disabled ringers on the bedroom phones, and use the lights to ID which line is being called when the phones down the hall ring at night. We've grown accustomed to the once-a-night flash-flash as the test sequences through our two lines. Solutions: - replace cheapo phones or disable their ringers - get used to it on Fone Flashers Regards, Bob Niland 1001-A East Harmony Road Suite 503 Internet: rjn@csn.org Fort Collins CompuServe: 71044,2124 Colorado 80525 USA ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Feb 1994 11:04:50 -0800 From: Anthony E. Siegman Subject: Re: Harrassing One-Ring Calls Organization: Leland Stanford Junior University > I think you're misrepresenting the position of the people who were > opposed to Caller ID in California. I was opposed to it, or at least > to the way I understood it was to be implemented. > The problem was that it was going to be difficult for callers to turn > off identification. We wanted a way to turn off Caller ID "permanently" > ...(much deleted)... This is a good message, and matches my impression of why Caller-ID went down in CA. Pac Bell insisted it be done "their way" or not at all, and the latter prevailed. ------------------------------ From: msb@sq.sq.com (Mark Brader) Subject: Re: Don't Trust The Phone Company Organization: SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, Canada Date: Fri, 18 Feb 94 02:31:43 GMT > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: ... This is where having > Caller-ID *and* 'return last call' both on the line would be useful. > That way one could see the actual number placing the call even if the > return trip led somewhere else. ...] Or it would be useful to be in a place where "return last call" worked that way in the first place, as it does here. > Maybe there ought to be a dialing code for the purpose of 'do not forward'. > That is, the person placing the call would dial some two-digit code (such > as for blocking or do not disturb) which meant 'absolutely ring number > such and such'. ... Telco ... would ... ring that number or respond with > a voice intercept, ... if the number was being forwarded. ...] You know, I think there's a good idea there ... ------------------------------ From: nsayer@quack.kfu.com (Nick Sayer) Subject: Re: Internet Costs and Software Are Free Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'. Date: 18 Feb 1994 04:31:46 UTC > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Regards the viciousness of email (and > in this regard, many Usenetters are as vicious as they come) So are many niggers, gooks, chinks, honkies, and bitches, Pat. Anyone different is just not the same. No, I don't really think that way. I'm just trying to make a point. Nick Sayer N6QQQ @ N0ARY.#NOCAL.CA.USA.NOAM +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest' PGP 2.2 public key via finger [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Ah, but the category of Usenetter transcends all those ugly terms you mention above. One can be any of those people and be a participant on Usenet and none of those people are in and of themselves inherently nasty or bad. But there is something about being hidden behind a keyboard typing things as we do which brings this medium closer day by day to the epitomy of Citizen's Band Radio at its heyday in the late 1970's and early 1980's, with all its viciousness and hostility. In the 1960-70 era, only a few people had CB radios ... and it was a rather elite crowd. But they were very helpful, kind and intelligent people. Then Johnny Cash popularized a song about CB and the whole world got in on it. Was that a good idea? Well, in theory yes, but before long the nasty people dominated it and ruined it for everyone. All the accusations made about the Internet and Usenet now were made about CB back then: it was used to spread racial propoganda; it was used by pedophiles to lure children to their homes; it was used by prositutes at truck stops seeking customers; it was used by religious fanatics who would preach the most bizarre sermons for hours on end ... and more. Update the technology and re-write the complaints a little -- bingo, you have Usenet. Usenet is simply CB Radio all over again with Big Men dominating the scene who type what they please knowing there will be no real repercussions for the most part. But because with CB the transmission was generally limited to a few miles, and every community had its own obnoxious CB'er whose impact was generally limited to the community while Usenet's transmission goes over a wider territory, the 'obnoxious affect' works a little differently also. Of course I speak with the bias of a city person who operated a *large, very powerful* CB. An antenna 100 feet in the air overlooking a large lake is going to pull in trash -- oops, I mean signals -- from everywhere, and I did. So I got to listen to all of Chicago and quite a bit of Illinois on my CB in those days and toward the end it was bad news. Finally over a period of several months, maybe a year or more people just kept dropping out the way they had earlier dropped in. I turned on my CB the other day for the fun of it and heard little or nothing on any of the channels. I forsee the same thing on Usenet: for a while longer it is going to grow and grow and grow. Those 'make money fast' chain letters will start appearing almost daily. News traffic will grow much larger. More and more newspaper articles will appear telling people about Internet and how to use it. Then large numbers of people will start burning out from all the reading they do and the abusiveness of the whole thing and start tuning out. The commercial ventures will keep on posting stuff but the ordinary user will grow weary and quit reading news as often. There won't be any such thing as the long-forcasted 'death of the net'; it will just keep evolving until a few years from now an old timer who returned for a visit would not recognize it and for the average person, communication via Usenet becomes a futile exercise. PAT] ------------------------------ From: chaim@toxicavenger.fsrg.bear.com (Chaim Frenkel) Subject: Re: Internet Costs and Software Are Free Date: 18 Feb 94 04:06:37 GMT Organization: Nonlinear Knowledge, Inc. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I've always felt the same way where this > Digest was concerned. It is purely my contribution to the world to help > stamp out ignorance where the operation of telephone networks is concerned. > At least it began that way ... now I think I am a victim of my own success > where the Digest is concerned as the volume of traffic and the size of > the mailing list has increased far beyond what either Jon Solomon or I > expected or considered possible. Part of this of course is due to the > general increase in Internet usage; part perhaps due to my own efforts to > gateway the Digest to so many places. At that I was successful, and now > the mail is pouring in at such a volume that even a cursory examination > of much of it is difficult. And that is not good. I wish I could read > every peice of mail and use every peice of mail I receive, but until the > time comes that I can support myself independent of other outside jobs > -- if that time ever comes -- and work on the Digest eight or nine hours > per day -- which could easily be done now if resources were available -- > then I have to do what I can. I wish I lived high enough in the "Maslow > Hierarchy" to be able to afford it. PAT] Have you considered some sort of sub-sysop as done on various BBS's? Assign the next article that is ORIGINAL to the next sysop, record the thread and continue to route any followup to that thread to the same sysop. Overall editorial content would then be yours. You might want to review only the initial message to give some editorial guidance to the sysop. Etc. Etc. Chaim Frenkel On contract at: chaim@nlk.com chaim@fsrg.bear.com Nonlinear Knowledge, Inc. Bear Stearns & Co., Inc. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I've thought about it, and probably would then have them edit their articles and send them back to go into the finished, published issue. One problem with this is the additional delay it would cause in getting stuff out. To some extent, c.d.t.t. has been helpful; believe it or not, I am actually getting more stuff now than I did before c.d.t.t. I don't know what I would do if I had all that stuff still coming in as well. :( It appears however that at least some of the problem is ending. The Digest has been awarded a grant which will partially fund me. The grant -- a very generous one I might add -- will come in the form of a monthly stipend to help offset costs. It is coming to me from an organization to which telephone companies all belong, so in effect all telcos will be contributing. I intend to announce this in more detail within the next week or two. While I won't be in a position to sing 'Happy Days are Here Again', neither will I be quite as concerned about the phone and other utility bills. It looks like the gas heating bill for January is going to cost me about $500. (brr and shiver, in more ways than one.) :( PAT] ------------------------------ From: law00057@leonis.nus.sg (Tan Ken Hwee) Subject: Re: More Information on the Economics of Dial-Back Services Date: 18 Feb 1994 13:44:05 GMT Organization: National University of Singapore Gowri Narla (narla@mace.cc.purdue.edu) wrote: > and your frequent callers by prior arrangement. Your long distance > caller lets your phone ring twice and hangs up. He does this twice and > you know who's calling. Obviously, you DIAL-BACK. Likewise, another > party is identified by, say ... two sets of three rings. And so on. > Inconvenient? Yes. But for someone who's used to seeing the pits of > telecoms, it's ok. Well ... another way I thought of but never tried was to use the Country Direct number, get to the operator of the target country and ask to make a collect call to Mr. Fictitious at xxx-xxxx. The people at xxx-xxxx would then know that I am trying to call them and can call me back. Different names -- different people. Of course, the party at the target country has to *refuse* to accept the collect call. [ This might be subject to strange snags. I found out after calling Singapore Direct genuinely a couple of times from America, that the operator could recognise my voice! ] Ken Hwee TAN National University of Singapore [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Not only that, what you propose is pure and simple fraud. Now where do you draw the line between conveying a voice message through an operator with no intent to pay for it versus delivering a message by causing someone's phone to ring with no intent to pay for it? Well, I sell arbitrage call-back, so I say the latter is legal and the former is illegal! :) But if it were not for AT&T selling their own answering machines with the 'toll-saver feature', I'd have a hard time justifying my method as well. PAT] ------------------------------ From: lincmad@netcom.com (Linc Madison) Subject: Re: More About INTERNET Connections Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest) Date: Fri, 18 Feb 1994 10:44:04 GMT Lars Poulsen (lars@eskimo.CPH.CMC.COM) wrote: > After my article about Internet conenctions, I have received many > generic questions about connecting to the Internet. Here are some answers: > 3) You mentioned a PC or Mac e-mail client called Eudora. Can you tell me > more? > Eudora exists in a Mac version (which I have used with MacTCP) and in a > PC/Windows version. It used to be NCSA freeware, but the author moved to > QualComm who have decided to take it commercial. The older version is > still available by FTP from ftp.qualcomm.com. Small correction here: the freeware version of Eudora is still around and being updated. Version 1.4.2 is in beta testing currently, with release expected in March (according to the Eudora mailing list). The commercial version is also beta'ing an update (v. 2.0.2) in parallel. The commercial version adds some convenience features not provided in the freebie. Linc Madison * Oakland, California * LincMad@Netcom.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Feb 94 10:52:18 CST From: L. W. Westermeyer Subject: Re: AT&T Says They Can't Resolve My Calls' Orgin If your office has a PBX with digital trunks to the LEC CO, unless it is an ISDN circuit, it is my understanding that the CO only receives the billing telephone number (BTN). The BTN is a *bogus* number used by the LEC for billing purposes. Voice: (314) 553-6010 SLWWEST@UMSLVMA.BITNET (Bitnet) Fax: (314) 553-6007 SLWWEST@UMSLVMA.UMSL.EDU (Internet) Mailing Address: University of Missouri - St. Louis 8001 Natural Bridge Road St. Louis, MO 63121 USA ------------------------------ From: Ed Ellers Subject: Re: AT&T Says That They Can't Resolve my Calls' Origin Date: Fri, 18 Feb 94 15:55:57 GMT Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice) Eric De Mund writes: > AT&T calling card calls from my office in California to my parents in > New York results in a telephone number other than that of my desk > phone appearing on my AT&T calling card bill as the calls' origin. > When I telephone that number, I get an internal recording telling me > that that number isn't in service. (I work for a DOE/UC laboratory in > Berkeley.) I suspect that the telecom people where you work have told the telco to set that one number to appear for any calls dialed out of your facility. With DOE involved (would this be LBL by any chance?) I wouldn't be at all surprised that they'd want to prevent actual DID numbers getting out by accident. ------------------------------ From: wa2ise@netcom.com (Robert Casey) Subject: Re: A Small Town in Wyoming Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest) Date: Fri, 18 Feb 1994 05:26:40 GMT In article paulb@teleport.com (Paul Buder) writes: > I lived in Acton, Massachussetts back in the late 70's. They had five > digit dialing there. The adjacent towns were local calls. The > calling pattern was 5 digits for Acton, 7 for adjacent towns, 8 (1+) > for the rest of 617 and 11 for everywhere else. This was possible > with Acton as 263 and Concord as 369 for example because there were no > numbers in Acton of the form 263-69XX. I may have the prefixes wrong, > it's been a long time. At about this same time ('79, '80), I used to live in the Binghamton, NY area. One night, I somehow stumbled onto the fact that I could make some phone calls with less than seven digits. Spent a little time figuring out what shortened code would get me what exchange. The phone book made no mention of these short cuts. I had never heard of being able to make calls with less than seven digits before, I grew up in northeast NJ in NPA 201 where all calls are seven digits. Some of my friends who grew up in Binghamton told me that the shortcuts were common in the 60's, but had thought that they were gone when I found them. Binghamton is in 607. ------------------------------ From: edgar@tidos.tid.es (Eduardo Garcia Lopez) Subject: Re: Seeking Information Regarding UPT Standards Draft Organization: Telefonica I+D Date: Fri, 18 Feb 1994 13:18:48 GMT vempati@bnr.ca (b.vempati) writes: > Is it possible for me to get hold of some information regarding UPT > (Universal Personal Telecommunications) standards that are in the > process of being drafted? Below you'll find a list of ITU-T and ETSI drafts. ITU-T drafts Q.76 Service procedures for UPT- Functional modelling and information flows (study group 11) F.851 Universal Personal Telecommunication - Service Description (study group 1) F.850 Principles of UPT (study group 1) COM XI-R267 Nov 92 Annex 10 List of open terminology used by WP XI/5 (includes many UPT terms) ETSI Draft Reports ETR NA-70201 Network Aspects: UPT General Service Description ETR NA-70202 Network Aspects: UPT Service Requirements on Charging, Billing and Accounting. ETR NA-70203 Network Aspects: UPT Service Requirements on Security Mechanisms ETR NA-70204 Network Aspects: UPT Terminal and UPT access devices ETR NA-70205 Network Aspects: UPT Subscription and UPT service profiles ETR NA-70206 Network Aspects: UPT user procedures and states ETR NA-70207 Network Aspects: UPT Man-Machine interface ETR NA-70208 Network Aspects: UPT Service requirements on numbering, addressing and identification. ETR NA-70209 Network Aspects: UPT Service Requirements on protection of third parties ETR NA-70210 Network Aspects: UPT Suplemmentary Services. ETR NA-70401 Network Aspects: General UPT security architecture. DTR NA-71101 Network Aspects: UPT Phase 1: Service Aspects: Guidelines DTR NA-71305 Network Aspects: UPT Phase 1: Network functionalities for charging billing and accounting. Eduardo Garcia-Lopez Telefonica I+D; Div. 4110; C/Emilio Vargas, 6; E-28043; Madrid; Spain e-mail: edgar@tid.es, Tel: +34 1 337 4894, Fax: +34 1 337 4529 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V14 #90 *****************************