HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 06:54:47 -0600
From: rickie@trickie.ualberta.ca (Richard Nash)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: 800 Numbers Restricted by NYTel?
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 757, Message 7 of 13

Laird P. Broadfield wrote:

> In <telecom12.733.6@eecs.nwu.edu> jbutz@homxa.att.com writes:

>> Blocking 800 is sometimes done for fraud prevention.  One example is
>> street drug dealers.  They often use payphones as their "office
>> phones."  Clients usually contact their dealers through a pager, and
>> paging companies often use 800 numbers.  This may not be a big issue
>> any longer, since most pagers display the caller info.  Payphones in
>> high crime areas often have both calling card blocked, and 800
>> blocked, about the only thing callers can do is to drop in coins or
>> call collect.

> Wandering a little from the subject, but I'm confused by this.  Who
> exactly is being "defrauded"?  The 800 carrier gets paid by the paging
> company, which is happy to do so because they are paid by the paging
> customer for the service they provide.

> I'm missing something here ...

Reading the above description of using a payphone for illegal
activities doesn't include anything on how a payphone is used
fraudulently. The fraud occurs when telecommunications services are
obtained by intentional methods which prevent one or more of the
telecom providers from collecting their share of revenue. This
fraudulent activity tends to occur in high crime areas. Certian
telecom services (such as 800, credit cards) are most commonly
targetted for fraud use.


Richard Nash   Edmonton, Alberta Canada T6K 0E8
UUCP:       trickie!rickie@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 14:55:23 -0500
From: Charlie.Mingo@p4218.f70.n109.z1.fidonet.org (Charlie Mingo)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Cellular Frequencies
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 739, Message 14 of 17

rick@ricksys.lonestar.org (Richard McCombs KB5SNF) writes:

> So with the PRO 34 sometimes you can hear the cellular calls even when
> you aren't trying.

> [Moderator's Note: The legal catch is, you aren't trying. That's why
> there is the loophole in FCC regulations about hearing something
> versus deliberatly tuning; and repeating what you hear, etc. ...]
  
   I think the Moderator is confusing his loopholes.  The FCC
regulations about "deliberately tuning" or "repeating what you hear"
relate to the Communications Act of 1934, which govern unauthorized
interception of radio transmissions generally.

   The Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 only makes it a
crime to "intentionally intercept[ or] endeavor to intercept" a
cellular call.  Thus, unintentional cellular intecepts could never be
punishable.

   I don't know whether tuning to a band where you know cellular calls
will improperly be broadcast would count as "intentional"
interception, or just "knowing" interception.
Date: Sun, 04 Oct 1992  16:57:21 EDT
From: FZC@CU.NIH.GOV
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: About the Internet White Pages
Reply-To: TDARCOS@MCIMAIL.COM
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 759, Message 5 of 14

I received the following clarification.  Based on this, it looks like
I just "slid under the wire" in getting MY name registered with NIC.


Paul Robinson     TDARCOS@MCIMAIL.COM

 == Forwarded Mail ==

 From: rcarter@gizmo.nic.ddn.mil ( Page Carter (Network Solutions))
 Subject: Re: About the Internet White Pages
 To: tdarcos@mcimail.com
 Date: Thu, 1 Oct 92 15:12:03 PST
 Cc: rcarter@gizmo.nic.ddn.mil ( Page Carter (Network Solutions))

Paul, I just saw your message in TELECOM Digest, and things have
changed in spite of what RFC 1202 says. The following message was
recently posted on the commercialization-privatization-of-the-Internet
list by Stephen Wolff, director of the NSF:

"DISA has the NIC under contract to serve the DDN.  They have
augmented the contract to supply **some** services to the rest of the
Internet community; this augmentation is paid for by NSF by
transferring funds monthly to DISA.

"When we were negotiating the terms and conditions (and cost) of this
augmentation, we said "Don't register hosts, and don't register
people."  One reason was to save a little money, but the primary
reason (as has been alluded to already on this list) is that without
central **control** over which hosts and which people use the Internet
no one but a fool would accept the (centralized) **responsibility** of
keeping such a "registry" up to date.  Only a decentralized directory
("registry" sounds too big-brother-ish) of people makes sense.

"DARPA and NSF have jointly supported the Field Operational X.500
(FOX) experiment, with participation of USC-ISI, SRI, Merit, and
Nysernet/PSI.  This work has been regularly reported to IETF, and a
number of IDs and RFCs have been issued.  The experiment is still
rather small-scale, as together with the European X.500 trials still
(I believe) fewer than a million people are registered worldwide.  For
a sample, telnet to wp.nyser.net and login as fred.

"Recently, the NSF conducted a competitive solicitation for
Registration/ Information/Directory services for the NREN program and
the Internet.  This process has nearly run its course, and we hope
soon to be able to offer much more comprehensive whois/white_pages
service than ever before.  Stay tuned."

In other words, the NIC will no longer register individuals unless
they are contacts for registered domains or networks.

Hope this clarifies the situation.


Page Carter, NIC Staff
Date:  4 Oct 92 18:18:20 GMT
From: lairdb@crash.cts.com
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: A Good Way to Play a Micro Tape Over the Phone?
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 759, Message 12 of 14

In <telecom12.749.2@eecs.nwu.edu> aa571@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Gail M.
Hall) writes:

> Here is the situation.  I have a call-in dictation system that doctors
> can use to call in to dictate their reports for me to type.

[...]
> Normally this is a very unsatisfactory process because the machine
> they use is very "low-fi" and then with the relatively low fi from the
> phone line, what we end up with is a mess.

No solutions, but an idea for some of you analog types out there; I've
thought about this exact situation in the past, and wondered if it
would be feasible to play the tape through the phone, through some
sort of direct interface, but at a substantially higher speed.
Sixty-to-one would be nirvana, but 15-to-one would make a more than
acceptable product.  (Come to think of it, this might be a digital
question after all.)


Laird P. Broadfield     lairdb@crash.cts.com    ...{ucsd, nosc}!crash!lairdb
From: jamesd@techbook.com (James Deibele)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Internet White Pages
Date: 2 Oct 92 01:35:57 GMT
Organization: TECHbooks of Beaverton Oregon - Public Access Unix
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 754, Message 8 of 13

FZC@CU.NIH.GOV writes:

> [Moderator's Note: I received a few others like this regards the
> Internet White Pages message. The information is repeated below.  PAT]

> RFC 1202 states that ANYONE with an Internet Mail address is entitled
> to have that address listed in the Internet white pages, provided they
> send in an application to the registrar with their E-Mail address.

There's been an ongoing discussion of this on the com-priv (think
that's right) mailing list, which is devoted to the commercialization
of the Internet.  The NIC doesn't want to register anyone except
people who are responsible for administering hosts because of the
overhead involved in keeping the database up-to-date.  If you insist,
they'll do it, but they don't really want to.  (Somebody from NIC said
it's less trouble to enter somebody than to argue with them. )

This was once much simpler than it is now.  It's been asserted several
times that the Internet is still growing exponentially, which is
probably true.  With millions of people out there, it's like trying to
keep the New York City or Chicago phone books up-to-date.

Discussion now is about the prospects of anyone being able to provide
an accurate directory of Internet users -- where would it be, who
would pay for it, how could you update it as needed, how could you
stop people from playing games with other peoples' listings, etc.


jamesd@techbook.COM    Voice: +1 503 223-4245 
PDaXs gives free access to news & mail. (503) 220-0636 - 1200/2400, N81
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 92 10:20 PDT
From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Hurricane Iniki Repair Efforts
Reply-To: John Higdon <john@zygot.ati.com>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 739, Message 8 of 17

TIMOTHY.K.HONG@gte.sprint.com writes:

> In times like this, the whole state will pull together like one big
> "Ohana" (family).  GTE Hawaiian Tel is a part of that "Ohana", like
> all the other businesses in Hawaii.

I could not agree more. But this is "Hawaiian Telephone" showing
through and, IMHO, is the case in spite of the GTE influence. Long
before GTE entered the picture, islanders have been very proud of
their telephone company and that pride remains even today.

Having worked and played in the islands, I have many times felt the
frustration at being an outsider. It seemed that all rules and
regulations were aimed at protecting the locals. But whatever
responsiveness may be observed during the cleanup and repair after
hurricane Iniki is to be credited in major part to the Hawaiian spirit
and tradition.

I cannot credit GTE for actions that result from the strength of the
Hawaiian people.


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: lauren@cv.vortex.com (Lauren Weinstein)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Favorite Intercepts
Date: 2 Oct 92 02:25:00 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 753, Message 18 of 18

Greetings.  There's no question about my all time favorite telco
intercept recording.  In the early 70's, a Culver City, CA (213-836
plus other prefixes at that time) intercept drum failed and resulted
in the playback:

"I am sorry.  This is a recording."

It ran that way for months.


 --Lauren--
From: dbw@crash.cts.com
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: AT&T Wants $3 For International DA
Date: 30 Sep 92 05:11:53 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 752, Message 1 of 15

Greetings,
 
My father is trying to resolve a problem with ATT international DA.
He tried using the service to get a number in Tokyo.  Three times he
tried but eventually was disconnected after about 45 seconds; three
times he was charged $3.  What is the bargain of paying $9 for not
getting a number?  Calling up the AT&T billing number only results in
his being told that a supervisor will return his call, which is never
returned.
 

[Moderator's Note: An incomplete DA call billed in error should be
handled no differently than any other AT&T call which fails to go
through or aborts prematurely. Usually credit is given instantly by an
AT&T operator or by the business office later. Why was there a need to
get a supervisor involved in the first place I wonder?   PAT]
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 20:22:14 GMT
From: cavrak@emba-news.uvm.edu (Steve Cavrak)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Help Needed Using FTP Correctly
Organization: University of Vermont -- Division of EMBA Computer Facility
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 741, Message 3 of 9

From article <telecom12.738.3@eecs.nwu.edu>, by Paul Thompson
<THOMPSOP@VAXA.CIS.UWOSH.EDU>:
 
> I have run into problems FTPing files which contain multiple
> periods (i.e. READ.ME.FIRST) into a VAX system which only
> appears to accept the FILENAME_AND.EXTENSION;VERSION format
> typical of VAXs.  Is there some FTP command which I am not
> aware of which will convert incompatible file nameing schemes
> on the fly?  
 
Since FTP is not native to VAX/VMS, third party vendors offer FTP
programs with a variety of ideas about what is the correct way to do
this.

One way is to try the "get" command in the form:

	ftp> get "remote.file.name" (as) "local-file.name"

i.e., explicitly stating the local file name for every file.  (I know,
"boring.")

The other is to look at what comes out -- the Wallongong product takes
the first period and then "quotes" each of the following into the file
extention.  This gives you a second opportunity to rename the files by
some nice scheme.

It's going to be fun to watch how this behaves in Open/VMS.


Ciao,

Steve
Date: Mon,  5 Oct 92 08:41:27 EDT
From: egg@inuxy.att.com (Edwin G Green)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: AT&T Public Phone 2000
Organization: AT&T
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 762, Message 5 of 16

roy%cybrspc@cs.umn.edu  (Roy M. Silvernail) writes:

> You say "when equipped with a keyboard" ... are there installations
> that do not include keyboards?  What might be the rationale?  (I have
> only seen the keyboard-equipped model, and not in Minnesota.)

Yes, there are installations that do not include keyboards.  Which
features are turned on or provided in each installation is dictated by
the agent (airport authority, hotel, airline, etc.) and local
regulatory agencies.  I guess some agents just want a fancy
credit-card phone and are uninterested in the keyboard and TTD
capabilities.

If you are interested, I can provide you with the locations of MN
installations (if any exist).  (I suggest we use email since specific
information like that is probably of limited interest to the rest of
this group.).


Edwin G. Green    AT&T Bell Laboratories     Indianapolis, Indiana, USA
INH 1E-506        17-845-3659      egg@inuxy.att.com
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 92 09:28:03 CDT
From: tjrob@ihlpl.att.com (Thomas J Roberts)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: N0N/N1N Exchanges and 1+ Dialing
Organization: AT&T
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 746, Message 2 of 11

In article <telecom12.744.5@eecs.nwu.edu>, by wariat!catfood@
usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu:

> Within area codes which contain N0N or N1N exchanges, is it always
> required to dial all ten digits of numbers within the area code?  If
> not, how can the switching network distinguish between (for example)
> the following two calls made from Manhattan:

> 1-818-xxxx (In-area, calling 818 exchange);
> 1-818-www-xxxx (Calling 818 area code).

> I don't see how this distinction is possible without a ten-digit
> dialing requirement.

My home phone number in area code 708 is 406-XXXX. There is NO PROBLEM
 -- any phone I have ever used within 708 could reach it using only
seven digits -- NO +1. Outside of 708, I need to dial 1-708-406-XXXX
(actually, there may still be some old exchanges which don't want that
initial "1" preceeding the ten-digit address). Note that the initial
"1" is the "country code" for USA/Canada/parts-of-the-Caribbean; in
some literature it is called an "access code", but outside North
America it is clearly a country code. Within 708, I doubt there will
ever be an office code corresponding to a nearby area code (708, 312,
815) -- the confusion would be too great.

People who think that an initial "1" indicates "toll call", or "long
distance call" are people who have never lived near an area code
boundary, or people who have not kept up-to-date. An initial "1" now
indicates "an area code other than the one of this telephone", no
more, no less. Some "area codes" are really "service codes" (e.g.
700,800,900,710, ...), and do not correspond to any geographical area.
Some old exchanges may not yet interpret the initial "1" this way, but
it clearly the way things are going.

By permitting N0X/N1X office codes within an area code, the number of
addresses within the area code is increased by 25%. Given that there
are only a handful (three?) of unassigned area codes left, and given
the fact that many areas are exhausting the available address space,
this is the only way to avoid running out of telephone addresses while
keeping old equipment operational (many old North American switches
have VERY limited dialing-plan capabilities).

The initial "1" is strictly a dialing plan issue; billing is
completely separate. Again, some old exchanges may not yet interpret
things this way.


Tom Roberts	att!ihlpl!tjrob		TJROB@IHLPL.ATT.COM
AT&T Bell Laboratories		(I do not speak for the company)
From: andrew@frip.wv.tek.com (Andrew Klossner)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Cellular Phones With Deals Attached
Date: 30 Sep 92 20:28:41 GMT
Reply-To: andrew@frip.wv.tek.com
Organization: Tektronix Color Printers, Wilsonville, Oregon
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 751, Message 2 of 14

> does this seem reasonable if you were planning to use the
> particular carrier anyway ..."

Sure.  I would go so far as to say that you should *never* buy a cell
phone without getting a subsidy from a carrier.  They paid $300 of my
phone's cost in exchange for my agreement to a one-year contract.

> "what is the maximum number of nams you've seen for a single
> telephone."

The OKI 900 has five.


Andrew Klossner  (andrew@frip.wv.tek.com)


[Moderator's Note: You say the cell company 'paid $300 of the phone's
cost' but some of us believe the prices of cell phones are
artificially inflated so the cell company can then 'offer them at a
cheaper price.'  In other words, cell phones do not come close to
costing $200-300 to manufacture and distribute (which allowing for
markup would then get the $400-500 retail price were it not for the
cell company offering to 'knock off $300 ...'). Cell phones may cost
$20-30 to manufacture. Like all other electronic items, the cost is
but a tiny fraction of what it was when they first came out nearly a
decade ago. You should be able to buy a good cell phone for $100 or
less regardless of signing up with anyone or not. Cellular One in
Chicago owns a number of dealers including Leader Communications, a
company for whom I have no love lost.  PAT]
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 02:19:51 GMT
From: jmalloy@itsmail1.hamilton.edu (Joseph Malloy)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: BU Phone Rates Go Up -- Advice Sought
Organization: Hamilton College - Clinton, NY
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 757, Message 1 of 13

In article <telecom12.749.3@eecs.nwu.edu> navsaria@bass.bu.edu (Dipesh
Navsaria) writes:

> Over the summer, Boston University had contracted with New England
> Telephone to modernize BU's phone system.  The results of the deal
> were as follows:

[details omitted]

> I ask, what sort of ludicrous mess is this?  I absolutely refuse to
> pay extra to help subsidize these uneeded services or the modernization
> ...  it appears BU has a habit of making massive changes without 
> consulting the people who will be paying for it in the end.

You mention that the current rate for this phone is $14/month and
while I can understand your objections to having to take this (pretty
good) rate (i.e., you have no choice) despite the included special
features (call waiting, three-way, etc), I must say it sounds like a
good deal.  And if you can't access a LD carrier other than AT&T, it's
quite possible illegal.

OTOH, your beef isn't with NEtel, in my opinion, but with the
university administration who made these decision.  After all, NE Tel
didn't (presumably!) force themselves on the university!

I do envy your rates and features, though!  A plain touch tone line
here (NYTel in the boonies) is about $24/month ...


Joe
From: johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us (John R. Levine)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Ridiculous Prices
Date: 1 Oct 92 15:59:27 GMT
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 753, Message 14 of 18

> [A] 540 number, with a $225/minute charge.

Only in New York City would regulators let a telco try to collect
$225/minute.  Sheesh.

On a slightly related note, what's the most expensive real phone call
one can make in the U.S.?  My candidate is Inmarisat satellite phones,
at $10/minute via AT&T or a low, low $9.99 via MCI or Sprint.

And how does Inmarisat plan to compete with Iridium, whose rates have
been proposed down in the $1/minute range?


John Levine, johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnl
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 92 16:36:57 -0400
From: Jon Solomon <python@athos.rutgers.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Sigh! Telecom Engineers Digest on Hold For Now
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 736, Message 10 of 10

I am forced by my situation to put the Telecom-Engineers Digest on
hold.  Perhaps someone else wants to start this up?

I can't afford the phone bill to dial uip and do the Digest.


jsol


[Moderator's Note: It sounded like a great idea, Jon. I'm sorry you
can't complete the project.   PAT]
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 92 18:35:03 GMT
From: mwgordon@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mike Gordon)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Two-Line Switching Device
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 757, Message 9 of 13

> They sense an incoming call on either line (it takes the two-line --
> RJ14? -- input and sends output to an RJ11 ... RS also has the 2xRJ11
> to one RJ14 cords). Outgoing calls are placed on the line that most 
> recently received an incoming call.

   Does anyone know of a way to modify this device so that you can
select which line you want to call out on?  I'm thinking of a button
for each line that would send a momentary voltage on that line's input
to trick the switch into thinking that there was just a call on that
line, and flip to it.


Mike Gordon  99681084@uwwvax.uww.edu