HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Jim.Redelfs@ivgate.omahug.org (Jim Redelfs)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Hang-up Caller or Bothersome C.O.?
Date: 11 Apr 92 04:47:58 GMT
Article-I.D.: eecs.telecom12.313.4
Reply-To: jim.redelfs%macnet@ivgate.omahug.org
Organization: Macnet Omaha
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 313, Message 4 of 10

Although MOST calls with no caller on-line when answered are likely
generated by a REAL caller, don't dismiss the possiblity that such a
call CAN be generated by the TelCo's Central Office switch.
  
Generated by what we "affectionately" called The L.I.T. Machine, these
"calls" were never a problem until the proliferation of The Cheapie
Chirper phone.
  
"My" Western Electric #2B ESS switch was programmed to perform a Line
Insulation Test (L.I.T.) each night around 10:30pm.  It would run up
and down the idle lines performing a brief loop test.  The resulting
printout was used when things were slack to identify (and maybe even
REPAIR!) existing and potential trouble spots (wet, buried splices --
mostly).
  
The good, old 500s and 2500s didn't give a hoot about this automated
line test, but the chirpers raised hell.  They would chirp and squawk
(briefly) as the test equipment manipulated the loop.  This is in the
same league as using a pulse dial phone to make a call in one room and
hearing the cheapie phone in the other room emit a sharp "chirp" with
each pulse across the pair.
  
I received infrequent but regular reports from customers that they
were getting bogus calls in the middle of the night.  Further
questioning on my part (what time does it usually occur, was it REALLY
a FULL ring [or two], etc.)  determined if they were being bothered by
the L.I.T. or a REAL caller.
  
In a couple of cases, I was actually successful in having a telephone
number EXCLUDED from the program so that the hapless customer would be
bothered no longer.  Most of the other affected subscribers, when
informed of the REASON for the "trouble", were willing to either live
with it or use it as the excuse they'd been waiting for to DUMP that
phoney telephone!

Since the 2B was replaced with a #5 ORM (Optical Remote Module), the
problem has not recurred.


JR  Tabby 2.2  MacNet Omaha  402-289-2899  macnet.omahug.org  (1:285/14)
From: steve@wattres.San-Jose.CA.US (Steve Watt -- KD6GGD)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Call Detail Recorder
Date: 10 Apr 92 07:16:31 GMT
Article-I.D.: eecs.telecom12.313.7
Organization: Steven Watt, Consultant   San Jose, CA, USA
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 313, Message 7 of 10

In article <telecom12.297.11@eecs.nwu.edu> HAMER524@Ruby.VCU.EDU
(Robert M. Hamer) writes:

[ looking for an SDMR box ]

> Direct, and they claim they don't carry such a thing.  Does anyone
> know where I can buy one?

If you're good with a soldering iron, there was one presented in the
last two issues of {Radio-Electronics} (I think).  The company that
was selling kits is:

Digital Products Company
134 Windstar Circle   Folsom, CA     95630

The kit (called "Digi-Call") records outgoing number dialed, and
duration of call.  It recognizes both tone and pulse dialing.  It also
allows incoming calls to be billed to an account by pressing "*nnnn"
(n = any DTMF digit) during the call, and it creates a record with the
duration and account number of the call.  It's a nifty piece of
hardware.  Runs with an 80C51, a wall blob, and a battery backup.  The
only "glitch" that I've found is that you can NOT leave it hooked up
to the RS232 port of your computer if you want it to watch the phone
line.  This "glitch" is well-documented, and has to do with keeping
the line impedance high.  RS232 ports have a bad habit of being
grounded.

There are a few minor patches to be made to the board (at least as of
the one I received last month), but they aren't hard to do.  A few
blue wires wandering around.  One major patch (because of a supplier
surprise) that requires cutting a trace also came through.  However, I
received that patch without having to ask for it.  I'm impressed with
the quality of the kit, overall.

Anyhow, I've built one of these things, and it seems to work fairly
well.

Oh yeah.  The kit (PC board, parts, and software for PC compatible) is
(if I remember correctly) $169.

Just a satisfied customer.


Steve Watt  KD6GGD     steve@wattres.SJ.CA.US
 ...!apple!wattres!steve  ...!mips!wattres!steve  ...!decwrl!gigo!wattres!steve
From: johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us (John R. Levine)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Incredibly High Mexican Phone Rates
Date: 7 Apr 92 18:25:01 GMT
Article-I.D.: eecs.telecom12.301.3
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 301, Message 3 of 13

A recent message noted that it had cost nearly $50 to fax a three page
flyer to Mexico.  Partly that's because of bad connections, but mostly
it's because calls to Mexico are incredibly expensive.

For example, it cost $1.89/minute for the call to Tabasco.  A call to
Guatemala, which is farther away, is only $1.06.  Indeed, you can call
anywhere else in Latin America, for no more than $1.11.* (These are
all per-minute day rates, after the first minute.)

I note that Mexico is one of the three countries for which the rate
depends on where in the U.S. one is calling from, the other two being
Canada and Cuba.  Are we stuck with some strange ancient treaty that
sets the Mexican rates?


Regards,

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

* - Well, actually, it costs $2.99/minute to call the Falkland Islands
and it's anyone's guess what a call to Cuba costs if you can get
through, but they're peculiar cases since they're not dialable from
the U.S.
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 18:22:57 GMT
From: gbeary@flagg (Greg Beary)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Question About Legal Bugging Techniques
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 306, Message 2 of 12

If you are interested in how widespread legal wire taps are, the Feds
publish stats each year. The 1968 Omnibus Crime Bill that permits
wiretaping also outlines a reporting policy. I forget what they call
the document, but each year there is a report published that shows the
number of wire tap warrants issued by state and by county. If I
remember correctly, they also have to report how many were applied for
and how many were actually issued.

When I last saw the document (in about 1973), Westchester County in
New York was the high runner. Your local D.A.  should be able to tell
you, since they have to report all warrants.


Greg Beary 			 phone:	(303) 541-6561
US West Advanced Technologies	 email:	gbeary@uswest.com
4001 Discovery Drive       	   fax:	(303) 541-6441
Boulder,   CO  80303
From: merlyn@iWarp.intel.com (Randal L. Schwartz)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Cellular One Security??!!
Date: 13 Apr 92 00:35:45 GMT
Reply-To: merlyn@iWarp.intel.com (Randal L. Schwartz)
Organization: Stonehenge; netaccess via Intel, Beaverton, Oregon, USA
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 315, Message 8 of 11

In article <telecom12.310.9@eecs.nwu.edu>, 74066.2004@CompuServe
(Larry Rachman) writes:

>  I've just been informed by Cellular One that I've been 'selected' for
>  a free two-month trial of their voice mail. All I have to do to access
>  it is dial my cellular number 516-528-ABCD, press #, and enter my four
>  digit security code.

> What is the security code? You guessed it, ABCD!  Don't these people
> ever learn??

> I took them up on the freebie, but you'd better believe I'm going to
> change that 'security' code about one nanosecond after the service is
> activated. I wonder how many other users will be as paranoid?

GTE Mobilnet is even worse.  The default password for *all* accounts
is "GTEM" (4836).  Of course, you can't get there without the
cell-phone owner forwarding the phone (there's no landline access,
sigh), but I wonder how many people leave it at the default for
simplicity.

Just another cellphone user,


Randal L. Schwartz, Stonehenge Consulting Services (503)777-0095 
on contract to Intel's iWarp project, Beaverton, Oregon, USA, Sol III
merlyn@iwarp.intel.com ...!any-MX-mailer-like-uunet!iwarp.intel.com!merlyn
From: trebor@foretune.co.jp (Robert J Woodhead)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Sending Faxes Overseas
Date: 13 Apr 92 01:53:02 GMT
Article-I.D.: eecs.telecom12.314.5
Organization: Foretune Co., Ltd.
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 314, Message 5 of 12

peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) writes:

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

I communicate with my office in Wilmington several times a day.  If
what I have to send is a simple message, or perhaps a "binhex'd" file,
then I email.  Otherwise, I fax.

Fax has the advantage that, as it is a lowest common denominator, it
can send _anything_.  If I need to send a copy of a letter I got in
the mail, or some sketches, back to the US, I have three choices.

1) Mail it.  One week, and about $1 + .25c a page.
2) Fax it.  30 seconds a page, about 50-75c a page (at night).
3) Lesse.  Buy a scanner.  Scan the documents into the computer.  Do
   OCR on the text.  Reformat everything into a file.  Compress the
   file, then expand it back into printable characters (binhexing),
   then log onto my mailserver and send it.  The emailing is damn
   near free, but the hassle ain't worth it.

Fact is, email currently can't do it all.  Yes, fax is bitwise
inefficient, but it does have the advantage that it works and can send
just about anything that can go on paper.

The future:

What I want to see, and what I would pay reasonably serious bucks for,
is a machine that is all of the following:

	A Photocopier
	A Scanner
	A Fax Machine
	A Postscript Printer (at least 600dpi)
	A High Speed Modem

And that understands both direct-connect modeming and how to send
email -- So I can write a letter on my Mac, digitally sign it, and say
"deliver to this address/phone number" and the machine would
automatically deliver in the best/fastest/cheapest manner possible.

In the meantime, I will render unto email what is emailable, and unto
fax what is not.


Robert J. Woodhead, Biar Games / AnimEigo, Incs.  trebor@foretune.co.jp
From: nigel.allen@canrem.com (Nigel Allen)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Metropolitan Fiber Systems and the Great Chicago Flood
Date: 14 Apr 92 00:00:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: eecs.telecom12.319.5
Organization: Echo Beach, Toronto
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 319, Message 5 of 5

Metropolitan Fiber Systems, the bypass carrier that started in Chicago
and has since expanded elsewhere, got its start by running fiber optic
cable in the coal tunnels beneath Chicago -- the same ones that were
flooded on Monday.

Has the company's Chicago network been wiped out, or did it survive
the flood? I assume that the fiber itself would survive, but that any
electronics immersed in the flood waters would be destroyed, unless
very well waterproofed.


Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario/Detroit, MI
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044


[Moderator's Note: I have seen not a word about them in the papers
but I rather suspect they were totally wiped out. Certainly the
electonics would be gone, and I don't have much optimism about the
fiber. The heavy force of water, traveling very fast as it pushed its
way through the tunnels would have probably destroyed everything in
its path. And the tunnels still being full of water, no one is able to
say with any assurance what condition things will be in down there
when people can safely inspect them. They had only been able to enter
a small area Wednesday for the purpose of of barricading the area
where the water was entering. Perhaps Don Kimberlin or someone else
who is familiar with their service could get some information for us
on this.   PAT]
From: trickie!rickie@uunet.UU.NET (Richard Nash)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Overwite Caller ID Memory Registers
Date: 4 Apr 92 19:20:15 GMT
Article-I.D.: eecs.telecom12.319.2
Organization: Not an Organization
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 319, Message 2 of 5


  Is it possible to send Bell202 FSK to the called parties' CID unit
while they are off hook?  If so, by transmitting a steady stream (with
proper CID protocol), it would be possible to 'fill up' the CID
registers with perhaps your calling number, or maybe all zeros
(000-000-0000) if you wanted to 'mask' the calling number.  Or does
the unit only capture data while the line is on-hook?


Richard Nash     	    Edmonnton, Alberta Canada T6K 0E8
UUCP:                     trickie!rickie@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca
 

[Moderator's Note: Sorry, it is not possible to do what you suggest.
The data is only sent when the called party is still on hook. If they
go off hook before the second ring, the Caller-ID data is lost.  PAT]
From: andys@ulysses.att.com (Andy Sherman)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Consumer Action, AT&T, Sprint, and 800 Rebilling
Date: 14 Apr 92 12:24:20 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 318, Message 4 of 7

[ Submitter's Note: I assume that this means that forces of reason on
high have prevailed and no market-critter will in future suggest that
800 customers do politically incorrect billing things from 800
numbers. ]

Taken from an AT&T announcement:

Consumer Action (CA) has joined forces with AT&T and Sprint to fight
misuse of toll-free 800 numbers.  Today, each organization is calling
public attention to the potential for abuse of toll-free numbers and
to describe the steps they are taking to protect consumers who call
800 numbers.  According to CA Director Ken McEldowney, "The problem we
are fighting is the use of 800 numbers to bill for 900-type
information services.  There have never been charges for making calls
to 800 numbers.  However, in the past month we have heard of phone
services in which callers to 800 numbers were charged on phone bills
or look-alike phone bills for information received over the phone."


Andy Sherman/AT&T Bell Laboratories/Murray Hill, NJ
AUDIBLE:  (908) 582-5928
READABLE: andys@ulysses.att.com  or att!ulysses!andys
What? Me speak for AT&T?  You must be joking!
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 92 19:19:55 -0800
From: mmt@latour.Berkeley.EDU (Maxime Taksar)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: The Case for Competitive Dial Tone
Reply-To: mmt@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Maxime Taksar)
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 299, Message 6 of 9

In article <telecom12.284.2@eecs.nwu.edu>, pdh@netcom.com (Phil
Howard) writes:

> davep@u.washington.edu (David Ptasnik) writes:
> I'm not against competition for dial tone per se, I against letting
> there be a choice between good and bad areas.  If things were set up
> with selectable areas such that to get in, one has to serve
> everywhere, then I can go for it.  Put Paxton in the same area as
> Chicago, then every choice of dialtone available in Chicago is
> available in Paxton.

How about requiring any telco wanting to compete in a given LATA to
serve any customer anywhere in the LATA?

Judging from the way California's LATAs are arranged, I imagine that
this would work quite well.  Here, someone wishing to serve the SF Bay
Area would have to serve all the way to Eureka.


Maxime Taksar  KC6ZPS   mmt@Berkeley.EDU
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 92 14:12:10 CDT
From: Patton M. Turner <pturner@eng.auburn.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Need Source For Old PBX (Mitel) Parts
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 306, Message 3 of 12

Try {Telecom Gear}.  They are the want ads of telecommunications.  I
think a subscription runs around $15, if it hasn't gone up recently.

The address is:

Telecom Gear
Prestonwood Place
15400 Knoll Trail
Dallas, TX 75248

Fax   (214) 233-5514
Tel   (214) 233-5131
 

Pat Turner KB4GRZ  pturner@eng.auburn.edu
From: pdh@netcom.com (Phil Howard )
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: All Circuits Are Busy
Date: 5 Apr 92 23:58:52 GMT
Article-I.D.: eecs.telecom12.305.4
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 305, Message 4 of 7

pacdata!jimh@UCSD.EDU (Jim Harkins) writes:

> The other night I set up my computer to rapid dial the number for U2
> tickets.  I set it to hang up immediatly on busy, and wait 5 seconds
> when not busy so I would have time to pick up the handset.  This
> didn't work as well as expected.  The problem was that about every 4th
> call gave me that recorded voice "We're sorry, all circuits are busy
> blah blah".  What I want to know is, what causes this to happen?
> Shouldn't I have just gotten a busy signal all the time?  Would have
> been much more convienant for me.

You would have gotten that recording even if you were calling some
other number across those same trunks.  Your local switch did not know
that the number you were calling was busy, and to have signaled busy
would have been misleading (and I would complain strongly about).

> By the way, I managed to make 400 calls in about an hour and a half.
> Never did get tickets tho :-( Oh well, I'm sure a broker will sell me
> good seats for $200 or so.

Fewer people got through to the other numbers they were calling during
that hour and a half.  This is a major reason this practice of dialing
should not be allowed.

What if an elderly person was not feeling well, and was calling
relatives to report this, and was not able to get through and later
that day died of a heart attack?

Actually I believe that places like ticket sellers should operate
things on an entirely different system.  There should be an open call
in period, where applications for a random drawing for the tickets be
made when it expected to sell out.  Mail in applications should also
be accepted, as well.  The period should always be at least a week and
end at least another week before the event, allowing time for the
drawing to take place at the selected people to be mailed their
tickets or come pick them up.

Getting tickets and such on a first come first served basis is just
not appropriate when demand exceeds supply like that.

The Dayton Hamvention operates this way for their flea market spaces.
They do not accept phone calls; everything is sent by mail.  The open
period is well over a month long, and a random drawing is used for the
non-commercial spaces.

Maybe we should start charging commercial phone customers for busy
signals received because their number is busy.


Phil Howard  ---  KA9WGN  ---  pdh@netcom.com
From: pvh@apple.com (Pete Helme)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Who is the Best Bay Area Carrier?
Date: 7 Apr 92 00:04:40 GMT
Article-I.D.: eecs.telecom12.300.2
Reply-To: pvh@apple.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 300, Message 2 of 11

OK, I'm sure this has been thrashed on here before, but what are
opinions on the best cellular carrier in the San Francisco/Silicon
Valley Area?

Thanks,


pete    pvh@anarchy.apple.com    pvh@apple.com
From: 0003209613@mcimail.com (Sandy Kyrish)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Call for America's Libraries
Date: 8 Apr 92 02:07:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: eecs.telecom12.301.9
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 301, Message 9 of 13

I know this isn't a telecom topic per se, but I hope PAT will
acknowledge its importance and mobilize the humongous Digest
readership towards its goal.

April 5-11 is National Library Week.  You can voice your support for
continued public funding of public libraries by calling
1-800-530-8888. (Hearing impaired: 800-552-9097). An operator will ask
you to respond to a statement endorsing public libraries and will ask
if s/he can include your name in a letter to elected officials
encouraging continued library funding.  The number is nationwide so
CALL and keep library funding from the budget axe.


[Moderator's Note: Consider it done, and I second your request. I've
been active as a volunteer for the Chicago Public Library reading
service for visually impaired persons for many years. Please call.  PAT]
From: K_MULLHOLAND@UNHH.UNH.EDU (Kath Mullholand, UNH Telecom, 862-1031)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: 976-Type Exchanges
Date: 13 Apr 92 11:58:55 GMT
Article-I.D.: eecs.telecom12.317.8
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 8 of 8

The following is a list of 976 exchanges.  The list was printed in the
recently published book called "Toll Fraud and Telabuse" and I've
copied it from an AT&T customer advisory:

 NPA  NXX           NPA  NXX
(202)-915          (507)-960
(206)-960          (508)-940
(207)-940          (512)-766
(208)-960          (516)-540,550,970
(212)-540,550,970  (518)-540,550,970
(215)-556          (602)-676,960
(301)-915          (603)-940
(303)-960          (605)-960
(307)-960          (607)-540,550,970
(308)-960          (617)-550,940
(315)-540,550,970  (703)-844
(401)-940          (716)-540,550,970
(402)-960          (718)-540,550,970
(410)-915          (719)-898
(412)-556          (801)-960
(413)-550,940      (804)-268,844
(504)-636          (817)-892
(505)-960          (914)-540,550,970

Source: Haugh, Burney, Dean, Tisch (1992).  "Toll Fraud and Telabuse"
           (Vol. 1, p. 340).  Oregon: Telecommunications Advisors, Inc.


kath mullholand         university of new hampshire         durham, nh