HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 1992 17:42:21 GMT
From: robhe@comm.mot.com (Rob Heape)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Cordless Phones Not Safe From Prying Ears
Organization: control_centers
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 299, Message 7 of 9

> What I have read about the phone in a industry magazine claimed the
> phone was scrambled.  It also said there were 65K "security codes" (I
> don't know if these are "security codes" in the same sense as other
> manufactures use the word, or if it means 65K encryption possibilities.)
> Another feature was than it scanned all channels, and uses the clearest
> one.

> I would assume this phone uses analog scrambling, as many of Motorola's 
> land mobile radios do.

All this stuff about scrambling .. bah .. put the TX or RX signal on a
scope and draw your own conclusions, it shouldn't be hard.

As far as digital voice transport ... bahaha

It takes serious bucks to do secure communications, serious is
definetly greater than $250. Probably more like 3 or 5K.


Regards,

Rob Heape

Motorola Control Centers
1301 E. Algonquin Rd.   Schaumburg, Il 60196
Telephone: (708) 538-4134   Internet: robhe@ecs.comm.mot.com
From: johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us (John R. Levine)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Immediate ANI From Your 800 Number
Date: 12 Apr 92 17:47:55 GMT
Article-I.D.: eecs.telecom12.314.8
Organization: I.E.C.C.
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 314, Message 8 of 12

> What companies are currently offering real-time (immediate) ANI on 800
> numbers, and how much more is "a bit more expensive", Pat?

For AT&T Megacom 800, the feature is called INFO-2 and costs two cents
each for the first 60,000 calls per month and 1 cent each thereafter.
You need a Primary Rate Interface (i.e. T-1) to get it.  Megacom is
their second highest end 800 service, handling up to 1800
calls/minute.

This comes from a copy of Tariff No. 2 that they sent as part of a
response to a complaint about charging for 800 calls, in which they
explained that there's never a charge from AT&T for an 800 call (the
mistake with 800-555-5555 excepted) but they can't control what
subscribers do with the numbers they receive.

Something nobody has explained is how outfits that send out bills for
800 calls, e.g. the sweepstakes validator or the expensive fortune
teller, get the names and addresses that correspond to the numbers.
The AT&T tariff says they only provide the number.


Regards,

John Levine, johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnl


[Moderator's Note: There are lots of cross references around which
match the number to a name and address. In addition, I think many of
them have cut a deal with some telco to buy the receivables and handle
them through inter-company settlements between telcos.  Sleazy!  PAT]
From: kenny@world.std.com (Kenneth R Crudup)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Hang-up Pirates
Date: 7 Apr 92 15:51:12 GMT
Organization: Software Tool&Die, (Boston), MA
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 304, Message 5 of 16

In article <telecom12.297.12@eecs.nwu.edu> Dave.Leibold@f524.n250.
z1.FIDONET.ORG (Dave Leibold) says:

> How many out there have problems with callers hanging up the moment
> you answer the phone and say "hello"?

Sure do. Doesn't happen that many times, though.

> Any ideas on what most cases of the hang-up artist are?

Simple. People (namely girlfriends) checking to see if I'm where I
said I'd be. It's too coincidental to be otherwise.


Kenny Crudup, Unix Systems Consultant	kenny@world.std.com
16 Plainfield St. Jamaica Plain, (Boston), MA 02130-3633
Home +1 617 524 5929 	Home Fax +1 617 983 9410
From: Jack@myamiga.mixcom.com (Jack Decker)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: PA Caller ID History
Date: 14 Apr 92 22:21:54 GMT
Article-I.D.: eecs.telecom12.319.3
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 319, Message 3 of 5

The following message is from the Fidonet FCC echo:

 Original From: Don Kimberlin
       Subject: PA Caller ID History

Caller ID is a topic that raises all sorts of emotional controversy.
In Pennsylvania, it ran up against a real roadblock when it seemed to
violate that state's privacy laws.  Most recently, the Pennsylvania
Supreme Court has upheld lower court rulings that Caller ID is in
violation of privacy laws. (It has been said by some reporters that
the Pennsylvania laws are modeled after Federal laws.)

 ...Here's a chronology of the rocky road Caller ID has traveled
to its present impasse in Pennsylvania (PUC = Public Utility
Commission; ALJ = Adminstrative Law Judge):

Jan. 1989 - Bell of PA files tariff for Caller ID with no
        blocking provision.

Mar. 1989 - Complaints prompt the PA PUC to suspend Caller ID
        tariff.

Sep. 1989 - PUC's ALJ recommends allowing callers to block
        transmission of their number to avoid violating PA's
        wiretap laws.

Nov. 1989 - PA PUC rejects ALJ's recommendation and allows Caller
        ID with no blocking.

Dec. 1989 - Four parties ask Commonwealth Court of PA to review
        the PUC's decision.  Judge orders stay of Caller ID
        pending resolution.

May  1990 - Commonwealth Court rules that Caller ID violates state
        wiretap laws.

Aug. 1990 - Separate appeals are filed with the PA Supreme Court,
        where they are later consolidated into one case.

Mar. 1992 - PA Supreme Court upholds ruling that Caller ID
        violates wiretap laws.

Who knows what's really ahead for Caller ID in Pennsylvania -- and
perhaps elsewhere, if (as one might expect) other states begin to
follow the Pennsylvania lead?


WM v2.02/91-0073
Origin: AET BBS - (704) 545-7076, 84,000+ Files (6300 megs)(1:379/16)

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

Jack Decker    jack@myamiga.mixcom.com     FidoNet 1:154/8
From: monty@proponent.com (Monty Solomon)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Telephone System Foibles
Date: 14 Apr 92 00:42:23 GMT
Article-I.D.: eecs.telecom12.316.3
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 316, Message 3 of 9

Excerpt from RISKS DIGEST 13.39

 Date: 12 Apr 92 11:52 GMT
 From: TMUG@applelink.apple.com (Tri-Valley Macintosh Users Group,UG)
 Subject: Telephone System Foibles (RISKS-13.38)
 

I recently had two experiences with the telephone systems that leave
me wondering if anyone knows what they are doing.  I tried to make a
call from a pay phone outside a restaurant in Sunnyvale, CA, using my
calling card.  The call wouldn't go through.  The operator (from an
alternative phone service) said that their computer showed I was
trying to make a call from a correctional institution.  I guess to
avoid toll fraud, prisoners aren't allowed to make calling card calls.

In my next phone bill, (from an alternative phone service) there was a
billing on my calling card for two calls made from Ada Mich.  I've
never been there and so had the charges deleted and changed my pin
number.  However after looking at the numbers listed, I found one was
to a friend in San Jose.  I now believe that the alternative phone
service's computers somehow read some local calls as being made from
Ada, Michigan.
 
What I'd like to know is how I can get all my calls misread so my
phone bill will be cut in half?
 
However, even though this seems amusing, it makes one wonder just how
inaccurate the alternative systems are.  If they make these screwups,
how many more do they make that are not detected?


James Zuchelli
From: knauer@cs.uiuc.edu (Rob Knauerhase)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Smart On-Hold Device at Hertz
Date: 11 Apr 92 22:49:29 GMT
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 312, Message 6 of 7

Hertz car rental company has a separate desk for multi-month rentals.
After calling the usual number for Hertz, I asked for the "multi-month
desk" and was connected to a machine which gave me the usual "your
call is important to us" spiel.  However, after that, it said "You
will be connected in less than <pause> two <pause> minutes" and then
went to music-on-hold.

When it said "two minutes" I actually ended up waiting about :45.  The
other time it said "one minute" and I waited 2:35. (OK, so I'm a geek
 -- I timed it both times.  What else am I to do while on hold? :)

I assume the device knows how many people are in the queue and bases
its estimate on that, but I wonder if the standard deviation of
call-durations to the multi-month desk is really low enough to have
this be at all accurate?


Rob Knauerhase           University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
knauer@cs.uiuc.edu       Dept. of Computer Science, Gigabit Study Group
Date: 9 Apr 92 10:22:00 GMT
From: grog@adagio.uucp (Greg Lehey)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Bundespost vrs. AT&T (was 900 Service in Germany)
Organization: LEMIS, Schellnhausen 2, W-6324 Feldatal, Germany
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 307, Message 10 of 10

In article <telecom12.298.7@eecs.nwu.edu> Charlie.Mingo@p4218.f70.
n109.z1.fidonet.org (Charlie Mingo) writes:

>  However, most Germans simply don't realize how bad their phone
> service is.  I have Die Zeit and Der Spiegel for years, and the only
> telecom issues discussed are the cost of international calls, and how
> to bring East German telecoms "up to" the level of West Germany.

Indeed. To use the German proverb, `was ich nicht weiss macht mich
nicht heiss' (if I don't know about it, it doesn't worry me). The fact
is, of course, that telecoms have improved in every Western country
over the last few decades.

> Is there anywhere what DT has stated in writing that a major goal
> of the phone system is to have no record of call detail? Obviously,
> they're installing new capacity in Eastern Germany without regard to
> this issue (to the extent they ever realized it was an issue).

It's not clear whether people are really that worried about it. A lot
of this is initiated by journalists. I suspect that people would be
*very* interested to know who is calling them and to have a detailled
phone bill showing who they (and their teenage daughters) have called.

In any case, the Bundesp*st Telekom are very committed to ISDN, and as
far as I know they have every intention of implementing these details.


Greg Lehey     LEMIS    W-6324 Schellnhausen 2    Germany
Fax: +49-6637-1489   Tel: +49-6637-1488   Mail: grog%lemis@Germany.Eu.net
Claimer: The opinions expressed *are* the opinions of LEMIS
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 07:38:39 GMT
From: spencer@phoenix.princeton.edu (S. Spencer Sun)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Hang-up Pirates
Organization: Princeton Univ. Class of '94
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 309, Message 4 of 8

> [Moderator's Note: The way I deal with silent hang-ups here is to
> simply use *69 to call them back, and when they answer, ask them what
> they wanted. Nine of every ten lie about it and claim they did not
> call, but auto-callback has yet to lead me astray.  These are calls
> from private residences by the way, not DID trunks or back lines on
> PBX systems.   PAT]

I dunno, it seems to me that this might be flaunting a bit.  Barring
untrusting significant others, if the person doesn't call back I'd say
it's a good guess he or she had nothing important to say anyway, so
saying "What do you want" when chances are that the answer is "It was
a wrong number" is just rubbing it in their faces, IMHO.

I think it's generally true though that such hangups are incorrectly
dialed numbers, if it isn't happening with any sort of pattern.


S. Spencer Sun - Princeton Univ. Class of '94 - Dept. of Computer Science


[Moderator's Note: Well, when I call a wrong number, I apologize, I
don't just disconnect rudely. They might try the same.   PAT]
From: carl@malamud.com (Carl Malamud)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: CCITT Standards on Internet
Date: 12 Apr 92 16:30:40 GMT
Article-I.D.: eecs.telecom12.314.12
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 314, Message 12 of 12

This is a complicated situation, so I hope you'll excuse the verbose
reply.

The ITU gave permission at the last INTEROP to put the standards on
the Internet.  A group of volunteers put the CCITT standards up on a
server donated by Sun.

The service was quite successful, with over 21 other servers going
online.  Our machine sent out files to 2000 hosts in over 36 countries
(we had a mail server, so we could reach beyond the core Internet).

It was so successful that the ITU bureaucrats got scared and pulled
the plug on us Dec. 31, 1991, less than 90 days after we started.
Pulled the plug means that they sent me a letter which "cancelled the
experiment."  I forwarded that note on to the other servers under the
theory they should make their own decisions about exposing their
institutions to a possible legal liability.

We haven't quite given up, however.  Two countries have become
standards havens, places where the national body has decided that
*sovereign nations*, not the ITU, have the the authority to decide who
gets the standards in what format and how much they shall pay.  To
avoid controversy, the countries are only distributing standards to
their citizens, thus avoiding any international copyright squabbles.

The proper thing to do at this point is lobby your national
representative, asking (demanding) that they put standards online.  In
the USA, the Office of Technology Assessment (a research arm of the US
Congress) has just issued a study which concludes with a policy
recommendation that the distribution of standards be formally
separated from the production of those standards.  In other words,
ANSI wouldn't set the price.


Carl
From: eli@cisco.com
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Cat Named George, 3 Way Calling, Speed Calling 8, Speakerphone
Date: 7 Apr 92 17:10:35 GMT
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 304, Message 13 of 16

Thanks for the pointer.  Commstar is listed in the recent service
option list that I received, but the Commstar features were not
listed.  I'll RTFPB one of these days ... ;)


eli
From: peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Sending Faxes Overseas
Date: 10 Apr 92 13:02:44 GMT
Article-I.D.: eecs.telecom12.308.2
Organization: Taronga Park BBS
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 308, Message 2 of 11

Let's see. Three full pages. I'll assume it's all text, at about 8
point (which is typical). That's 9 lines per inch, about 14 cpi. 11K
per page of text At 230 CPS (typical 2400 baud modem transfer) that's
51 seconds per page. You'd have gotten off for under $6 using email
instead of FAX.

At 9600 baud, it'd have all gone in the first minute. $2.

Wake up, folks, FAX is a massive botch. Work for better email services
instead of screwing around with broken-as-designed technology.


Peter da Silva. Taronga Park BBS.  +1 713 568 0480 2400/n/8/1.
From: bernhold@qtp.ufl.edu
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: No Calling Card Surcharge if no Choice of LD Carrier?
Date: 13 Apr 92 21:01:39 GMT
Article-I.D.: eecs.telecom12.317.7
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 317, Message 7 of 8

I presently have AT&T (with Reach Out America plan) as my 1+ carrier.
I will soon be moving into university housing, where I don't have a
choice of LD carrier.  I would like to continue on AT&T ROA, but I
don't care to pay the calling card surcharges.

Seems to me I once read here about an AT&T program that would let me
avoid the surcharges on the grounds that I didn't have any other way
to access them.  If this is so, does anyone know the name of the
program?  I called AT&T, but the rep was unaware of any such plan.

Any other ideas would be appreciated too.  My phone will be on the
university's switch and their LD carrier is MCI.  Internal
(university) calls require the last five digits, 9 + local number for
off-campus, and 8 + number + six-digit code for LD calls.


Thanks,

David Bernholdt			bernhold@qtp.ufl.edu
Quantum Theory Project		bernhold@ufpine.bitnet
University of Florida
Gainesville, FL  32611		904/392 6365
From: rfarris@rfengr.com (Rick Farris)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Caller*ID Stops a Telemarketer
Date: 8 Apr 92 19:18:51 GMT
Organization: RF Engineering, Del Mar, California
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 304, Message 2 of 16

In article <telecom12.298.10@eecs.nwu.edu> dgdhome!ddavis@uunet.UU.NET
(Don Davis) writes:

> 2. the size of the Call*Block list as provided by the Telco may be
>    inadequate (assuming that Dave's usage pattern is reasonable).
>    The ability to maintain this list in your own equipment, and to
>    directly control the ringing of your telephones might also be a
>    Good Thing, if it can be done practically.

What an awesome thought!  Have a pop-up application that you activate
when you pick up the phone.  A simple keystroke puts the caller on
your bad-list, and from then on (in conjunction with a call diverter),
your phone will never ring again for calls from that number.

And if it is a telemarketer, you can have some sort of voice mail
thingy that asks them to wait for a second, and then ties them up for
five minutes or so before dumping the line!


Rick Farris  RF Engineering POB M Del Mar, CA 92014  voice (619) 259-6793
rfarris@rfengr.com     ...!ucsd!serene!rfarris      serenity bbs 259-7757
From: bruce@pixar.com (Bruce Perens)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Demand U.S. Sprint Allow Unionization
Date: 12 Apr 92 06:05:15 GMT
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 315, Message 3 of 11

Pat,

Since you have published "Demand U.S. Sprint Allow Unionization", I
suggest you allow someone to speak against that point.

Unions turn people into commodities. Instead of an individual, with a
unique set of qualifications and skills, you become a faceless
"communications worker".

I'm sure many Sprint workers are terrified of the Union. They won't
fight it, because they know that they can come to harm if they are
identified as anti-union.

I will write to Sprint supporting the independent workers, and urging
them to resist the union. I hope many others do so, as well.


Bruce Perens

I speak for myself, not for anyone else, especially not my employer.
I don't allow anyone else to speak for me!


[Moderator's Note: There's your piece, and you won't get any arguments
from me. I've never belonged to a labor organization, and would
probably resign my employment and seek work elsewhere rather than be
forced to join one. I realize that is not an option for everyone. As
there are two sides to every coin, I am happy to print the CWA news
items sent here and related stories, but I can't imagine them doing
anything worth my time to join. I'll grant you unions have improved
working conditions for many people over the years. Not me, though.  PAT]
Date: Wed, 08 Apr 1992 17:27:27 -0500
From: Phillip.Dampier@f228.n260.z1.fidonet.org (Phillip Dampier)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: CWA Election Results
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 303, Message 3 of 11

CWA CONVENTION DELEGATES RE-ELECT BAHR; ELECT EASTERLING AND
SECRETARY-TREASURER

Here is a rundown of today's CWA union election, taken from reports on
site from the CWA Convention in Miami Beach, Florida.

Re-Elected:         Morton Bahr by acclamation as President of
                    the Union for a 4-year term.

Elected:            Barbara J. Easterling, the first woman ever
                    to serve the role of Secretary-Treasurer.

Other Voting:

Victor Crawley, St. Louis, MO    - VP of five state District 6.
Sue Pisha, Denver, CO            - VP of 14-state District 7.
Janice Wood, Los Angeles, CA     - VP of three state District 9.

All other CWA officers were re-elected without opposition, and
delegates have changed the terms of office from three years to a one
time four year term.  In 1996, terms will revert to three years.
From: Jack@myamiga.mixcom.com (Jack Decker)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: 800 Number Scammery
Date: 16 Apr 92 23:19:09 GMT
Article-I.D.: eecs.telecom12.321.1
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 321, Message 1 of 16

This message originally appeared in the Fidonet FCC echo:

 Original From: Don Kimberlin
       Subject: 800 Number Scammery

Another of the several forms of fraud being conducted by telephone
these days is a "switch" scheme on 800 numbers.  Since the public is
well-lulled into "knowing that all 800 calls are free," inventive
scammers have found several ways around it.

One reported recently in {Telephone Engineer & Management} magazine
concerned an outfit that advertised an 800 number to attract
college-aged males, then turned out to be a porno call place.  It used
(apparently) the interstate Caller ID service that MCI has been
quietly selling with its 800 service, to trap the number of the
calling party, then a second trick to get the porno service billed
back to the caller by the originating local phoneco.  The calls showed
up in the freely exchanged settlements between phonecos as calls to
the town of "Entertain, Kansas."  That "crack" in the phoneco billing
mechanism may have been plugged, but who knows what other ones have
opened?

Another appears in the May, 1992 edition of {Seventeen} magazine, a
publication purchased by America's most notorious group of telephone
addicts, teen-age girls.  On page 16, the following notice appears:

                         TO OUR READERS

        "In our March issue we featured an ad promoting a _free_ call
to an 800-number advice line for girls and guys: `Dating Etiquette of
the 90's.'

        "Before accepting this ad, we asked to see the script -- what
callers would hear when they dialed the 800 number.  What we read was
fine -- just advice on dating etiquette.  After we reviewed the
script, the recording was changed without our knowledge, and callers
were informed that further advice was available by making a toll call.
As this was inconsistent with our understanding, we requested that the
advertiser delete the reference to the toll call from the message.
Our request was refused.

        "It was only after careful evaluation of the product that we
accepted this ad, and we did so in good faith.  We are outraged and we
apologize.  Please be assured that the best interests of our readers
are always our first consideration regarding anything we publish in
SEVENTEEN.

                        -The Editors

Looks like the inventiveness of telephone scammers knows few
bounds, and it is tripping up all sorts of well-intended business
around the nation ...


WM v2.02/91-0073
* Origin: AET BBS - (704) 545-7076, 87,000+ Files (6300 megs)(1:379/16)

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

Jack Decker   jack@myamiga.mixcom.com    FidoNet 1:154/8