HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 92 16:11:55 -0800
From: Doug Faunt N6TQS 415-688-8269 <faunt@cisco.com>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Looking For Small-Handset Cordless 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 922, Message 10 of 10

How about putting a handle she can grip on a normal cordless phone?
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 93 02:40:13 -0500
From: shri%unreal@cs.umass.edu
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Format of ZIP Code Bars on Envelopes
Organization: UMass, Amherst MA + Temporal Sys & Computer Networks Bombay India
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 13, Issue 6, Message 3 of 10

In article <telecom13.3.6@eecs.nwu.edu> dcg5662@hertz.njit.edu writes:

> The barcode starts and ends with a tall bar. The check digit is the
> number that would be required so that the sum of all digits plus the

  Curious enough to hunt for another factoid ... does anyone know what
fraction of the entire snail mail in the US is generated by business
and how much by Aunt Agatha ?

  Should give some insight into how much mail the automatic sorters
actually can ever benefit from. And if the dreams of USPS to read
human handwriting are so important? And if the "tele-sorter" (aha ...
that makes it related to TELECOM Digest :-) experiment, where the
sorter machines will project image of letters to a sorter clerk via
telecom and the clerk punches button from miles away to send the
letter to the right bin, is likely to be significant.?

Also, Is there a summary of several bar codes ftp-able somewhere ?


shrikumar ( shri@legato.cs.umass.edu, shri@iucaa.ernet.in )
Date: 2 Jan 93 11:36:23 EST (Sat)
From: johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us (John R. Levine)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Good Opportunity For Fraud
Organization: I.E.C.C.
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 13, Issue 3, Message 1 of 12

> [Zounds! The whole calling card number is on the mag stripe.]

I think you will find that historically with telco calling cards there
hasn't been a distinction made between a "non-secret" part, the first
ten digits, and a "secret" part, the last four.  In years past when
calling fraud wasn't such an issue, the check code was so simple that
the operator could validate it as the call was placed by checking a
little cheat sheet.  If a calling card number was compromised, the
telco would issue an entirely made up number in which the fourth digit
was a 1.

The only use to date that I have found for the mag stripe on a calling
card is in the card reader phones found mostly at airports, which read
the whole calling card number and stuff it down the line at the
appropriate time as you're making a phone call.  These phones are
already hard enough to use, and I suspect that if they read ten digits
from the card and asked you to enter the other four by hand, nobody
would use them at all.

If you are concerned about the security of your calling card, leave it
at home.  Every phone I've ever seen that reads calling cards also
lets you punch in the number by hand.  Admittedly, then you have to
look out for shoulder surfers, but I guess this again proves that
there's no free lunch.


Regards,

John Levine, johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnl
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 92 09:16:48 EST
From: lvc@cbvox1.att.com (Lawrence V Cipriani)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Legality of City Ordinances Against Junk Calls?
Organization: Ideology Busters, Inc.
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 927, Message 2 of 14


Some Ohio cities [e.g., Bedford] have ordinances against telephone
solicitations.  What is the legality of such an ordinance?  Does
federal or Ohio state law preempt this ordinance somehow and allow
telephone solictations in spite of city ordinances?  And what are the
jurisdictional issues?  So this small city has an ordinance; the
marketer is in another city, or even another state.  The solicitors
probably just shrug and go on to the next phone number.


Larry Cipriani, att!cbvox1!lvc or lvc@cbvox1.att.com


[Moderator's Note: Well, it is a lot like the soon-to-be and ex-cons
in the Chicago City Council passing an ordinance saying Chicago is a
'nuclear free zone ...'  .. about as stupid as they come. We can no
more keep bombs from landing here than Bedford, OH can keep people out
of their jurisdiction from ringing their telephones or citizens in CA
or PA can keep people out of state from seeing their phone numbers.
Maybe the Bedford authorities had nothing better to work on that day.  PAT]
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992  17:05:56 EST
From: Paul Robinson <FZC@CU.NIH.GOV>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: A "Sound Mark" and What it Means to You
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 927, Message 3 of 14

When some person or organization creates a word or phrase which they
use to identify their product or service, the U.S. Federal Government
will allow them generally to register that word or phrase if it is
used in interstate commerce.

As technology changes, so do ways of doing things.  The U.S. Patent
and Trademark office, for decades, has allowed those whose identifier
for a service which consists only of a {sound} to register it as a
mark.  Some famous registered sounds include a "roar of a lion" for
motion pictures, and the notes "g","e", and "c" struck on a xylophone
as a mark for radio broadcasts.  There are a few others.

And you can add another one: a "glissando" series of notes followed by
the spoken "AT&T" as a mark for telephone service.

For those interested in specifically using AT&T, {this} is the sound
to listen for.  Some places, I have read in this forum, pull all sorts
of stunts to hide that they are an alternate operator company.

There is a specific advantage.  This sound is federally registered.
If someone else "fakes" this sound, that constitutes servicemark
infringement against AT&T, but more importantly, it constitutes {wire
fraud} against someone who uses that system being deceived into
thinking they are using some other company than the actual provider.
As a result of this fraud, the customer could have the charge for the
call removed, or even sue them not only for the cost of the call, but
for punitive damages.

If you think this is overreacting, consider how these trademark owners
would react if a store chain took its own cola product and packed it
in cans marked "Coca-Cola" or "Pepsi".


Paul Robinson -- TDARCOS@MCIMAIL.COM
These (uninformed) opinions are mine alone; no one
else is (stupid enough to be) responsible for them.
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 06:42:49 GMT
From: sasbge@unx.sas.com (Gantt Edmiston)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: CID Device Recommendations Wanted
Organization: SAS Institute Inc.
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 924, Message 5 of 11

Lo and behold, CID is coming to North Carolina!  Actually, it's
already available in some areas but in Raleigh, NC, it will be
available Jan 30.  I called an signed up and now I have to find some
CID devices.  Can someone point me to sources for CID equipment?  I
have the Hello Direct catalog, BTW.  I also hear the Northern Telecom
will be making a ~$20 CID device in 93.

I know it's been asked before, but I am also interested in a device
that would output RS232 CID info to my PC.  Email and I will post a
summary.  Thanks.


Gantt Edmiston - SysAdmin  SAS Institute Inc.   Quality Assurance - V416
           Cary NC 27513 919-677-8000 x6091  sasbge@unx.sas.com
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 02:09:59 -0500
From: Joe.Bergstein@p501.f544.n109.z1.fidonet.org (Joe Bergstein)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Consulting Contracts
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 923, Message 3 of 9

I would like to know if any TELECOM Digest readers are willing to
share copies of consulting contract forms (and any letters of agency
forms).  Specifically, I am performing a service as a
telecommunications consultant, whereby I am providing advice,
expertise, guidance, soliciting information and proposals from
vendors, helping client in equipment, vendor, and service selection,
performing network and equipment configuration. Work may possibly
include recommendations for software changes to PBXs, voicemail
systems, bridges, routers, etc.  Are telecommunications consultants
often issued an LOA (letter of agency) by the client so that they can
act on client's behalf in dealing with LECs, IXCs, and CPE vendors? Or
is this uncommon?

I have incorporated.  I am looking for contract forms which focus on
scope of work, yet limit liability.  I am particularly concerned about
liability issues (a mistake or error on my part causes client to
suffer losses due to network outage, for example).

Any help or advice in this area would be appreciated.

BTW, a lawyer whom I know advised me that a tightly written contract
was a much better form of liability protection than 'errors and
omissions' insurance.

Thank you.


Joe Bergstein     Fidonet:    1:109/544.501
Internet:   Joe.Bergstein@p501.f544.n109.z1.fidonet.org
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 92 13:13:12 PST
From: dab@wiretap.spies.com (Dave Bonney)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Suggestions Wanted For Phone Device to Restrict Toll Charges
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 926, Message 2 of 10

In <telecom12.919.14@eecs.nwu.edu> <rpeou@atena.mit.edu> asked for
help .... but didn't give enough info for a thorough analysis...
 
However ...
 
-> We have a problem with people dialing long distance on our phone.
 
   1.) There are mechanical locks that can be used to physically lock
the dial pad.
 
   2.) There are 'Toll Restriction' devices that can be used to
disallow leading '0' , '1', and/or '10xxx' type calls.  Some of these
have an 'overide code' that can be used for 'authorized' calls.
 
   3.) New England Telephone (I'm assuming you're at MIT in
Massachusetts) and most other local operating telcos, offer Toll
Restriction and/or Call Screening services for a nominal monthly
charge.  Contact your local telco for details.

[Note: USOC = Universal Service Order(ing) Code]

  USOC DHL - Operator screening to deny originating toll calls
  USOC DH2 - Screening to deny 1+ and 411. (1+800 allowed.)
  USOC DHP - Operator screening to deny terminating (collect) toll calls.
 
For 2.) above, you might try contacting 'TEK COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES INC.'
They advertise their 'Call Manager' as being able to:

   Restrict all combinations of 10xxx, 976, 900, 555, 411, 1+, and 0+;
     as well as local calls.
   Prevent fraudulent use of equal access codes.
   Restrict both Rotary (DP) and Tone (DTMF) dialing.
   Restrict all outgoing calls if desired.
   Restrict a specified number if desired.
   Able to restrict any or all prefixes.
   Capable of executive overide with PIN.
   Fully programmable by Touch Tone phone.
   Pricing: $69.00 for single line unit.
	    $89.00 for two line unit.
 
   TEK can be contacted at 6 Progress Drive, Manchester, CT 06040
 
   [Disclaimer: The above is from their ad.  I have not personally
   tested their claims or the limitations of this unit.]
 
And for 3.) above, please be aware that these tariffed offerings work
in conjunction with shared databases.  And if the long distance
carrier (or AOS) doesn't participate, then all bets are off. (Major
Carriers DO participate.)
 
Regards, and Good Luck!
 
[ --->	 Dave Bonney   <--->   Telephone +1 (508) 692-4194   <--- ]
[ A Telecommunications Professional Now Unemployed In Westford MA ]
[       No Employer, No Disclaimer.    Just My Own Thoughts.      ]
[ Inquiries To MCIMail 422-4552 or Internet <d.bonney@ieee.org>   ]


[Moderator's Note: I've had Billed Number Screening on all my lines
for quite some time and like it.  Collect or third number calls billed
to my lines are automatically denied, per the data base.   PAT]
From: Bob_Frankston@frankston.com
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: AOS Payphones @#$%%%$#
Date: 27 Dec 92 12:06:00 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 921, Message 4 of 10

Unlike the Moderator, I've got some sympathy for the problems that
COCOTs have.  People who rent out their homes or condos have similar
issues with loaning their phones to others.

Given these issues and the problems with the current phone network,
are there any protocols, perhaps in ISDN, that can be used to flag a
line as being a "loaned" phone that accepts no billing.  Not only
would this block 900 numbers but it could also be used to flag telcos
that there is no recourse to the owner of the phones for credit card
fraud.  Perhaps some carriers would block such calls or, treat them
like they would calls from their own coin phones, find some other way
to recover their costs such as going after the called party.  It would
also deal with new services such as 0-700 which sometimes bills back
and sometimes doesn't.
Date: Sun, 03 Jan 93 15:20:23 EST
From: Tony Pelliccio <PJJ125@URIACC.URI.EDU>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Problems with Payphones at WPI (NET/A
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 13, Issue 7, Message 8 of 13

I think if you read the card on the phone it says that all COIN calls
are handled by AT&T and all credit card calls are handled by another
company.  That really baffles me, I mean, if it's a New England
Telephone payphone, with access to AT&T on coin calls, then why use
someone else to handle credit card calls?
 
Theory: NET wants to make some bucks ... sooo ... I'll bet if you
traced down the company that handles those cc calls it'd come right
back to NET.


[Moderator's Note: Not so. Payphones do get randomly assigned to
various LD carriers, but AT&T is the only LD carrier in a position to
collect coins, due to their prior relationship with the Bells. I am
told no one else wants the coin business; thus it stays with AT&T.
None of the other carriers seem to think it is worth thier time to
develop and install the needed equipment.  That is the reason you
always see AT&T handling the call where coins are concerned even if
the default carrier for all other types (credit card, etc) is some
other LC company.   PAT]
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1992  16:09:26 EST
From: FZC@CU.NIH.GOV>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: AT&T Adds Service Charge on Credit Card DA Calls
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 920, Message 10 of 11

Found on Page B6 of the December 24, 1992 {Washington Post}:

NOTICE TO AT&T LONG DISTANCE CUSTOMERS

On December 22, 1992, AT&T filed tariff revisions with the Federal
Communications Commission which would institute credit card and
operator-handled service charges on interstate Directory Assistance
calls.  As of February 5, 1993, the effective date of the proposed
change, customers will be billed service charges of $.80 for Directory
Assistance calls billed to a calling card and $1.88 for Directory
Assistance calls placed with the assistance of an AT&T Operator.
These service charges will apply on all Directory Assistance calls
between states, to Canada and between the 809 area code and the U.S.
and are in addition to the existing tariffed rate for Directory
Assistance.

Locations within the 809 area code are Anguilla, Antigua, Bahamas,
Barbados, Bermuda, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Dominica,
Dominican Republic, Grenada, Jamaica, Montserrat, Puerto Rico, St
Kitts-Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Trinidad and
Tobago, Turks and Caicos Islands, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. 


Paul Robinson -- TDARCOS@MCIMAIL.COM These opinions are AT&T's alone.
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 00:38:16 GMT
From: dave@westmark.com (Dave Levenson)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Consumer Reports on Cellphones
Organization: Westmark, Inc.
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 919, Message 4 of 14

In article <telecom12.911.9@eecs.nwu.edu>, richg@hatch.socal.com (Rich
Greenberg) writes:

[regarding {Consumer Reports} on Cellular Telephones]

> Reccomended reading.  The only nit I might pick with it is that
> the sketch showing a car, two towers, the cellular switch, the local
> CO etc pictures parabolic dishes on the towers.  :-)

Actually, cell sites are often located at considerable distances from
the MTSO and from landline facilities.  This means that they often
have dish antennas on the same tower that supports the UHF telephony
antenna.  Of course these dishes are for microwave links to the MTSO,
and not for communication with nearby mobile units.


Dave Levenson		Internet: dave@westmark.com
Westmark, Inc.		UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave
Warren, NJ, USA		Voice: 908 647 0900  Fax: 908 647 6857
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 19:02:22 GMT
From: ridder@zowie.zso.dec.com (Hans)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: All Circuits Are Busy Now ...
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation - DECwest Engineering
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 13, Issue 2, Message 5 of 12

In article <telecom12.925.2@eecs.nwu.edu> John Higdon <john@zygot.ati.
com> writes:

> BTW, some AT&T tech called yesterday to tell me that the blocking that
> I experienced on Christmas Day was the result of my local telco, not
> AT&T. Yeah, right. And just whose recording is "408-2T"?

The recording I was getting when trying the big three carriers was
"206-2T".  It sounded the same on each carrier.  Wouldn't that make
you think it was an LEC issue?


Hans-Gabriel Ridder <ridder@rust.zso.dec.com>
DECwest Engineering, Bellevue, Washington, USA
Any opinions expressed are not those of my employer, honest.
Date: Sun, 03 Jan 1993  04:41:10 EST
From: FZC@CU.NIH.GOV
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Internet and Easylink
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 13, Issue 6, Message 8 of 10

In last year's TELECOM Digest 12-928, a user named dnewcomb@whale.st.
usm.edu (Donald R. Newcomb) was overheard discussing "EasyLink and
Internet?":

> I have long understood that sending email between EasyLink and
> Internet was out of the question.

It's not; Pat sends us TELECOM Digest to our Easylink Mailbox every
day.  Easylink autoforwards all of our mail to our fax machine at no
charge, so as a result, we get TELECOM Digest delivered to our fax
machine automatically and it costs us nothing except fax paper.  (It's
a plain paper machine, so it's only a couple of cents a page.)

Last week I figured out how to send a message FROM an Easylink
subscriber TO Internet.  I used it in order to subscribe to some
Bitnet lists.  I'll mention both ways for anyone interested.

To send to someone's Easylink address, you must know the *exact*
Easylink number.  This is an eight-digit number which always begins
with 62.  Then you have to know the gateway, which is complicated,
then the splitting scheme, then the addressee.

What you are doing is translating an Internet RFC822 address into a
CCITT X.400 address (or back).

There are two ways to get to someone's Easylink address.  One is via
MCI Mail and the other through AT&T Mail.

To go through MCI Mail, you'd use the following:

 g=firstname%s=lastname%dda.eln=62xxxxxx%4356996@MCIMAIL.COM
          or
 s=firstname_lastname%dda.eln=62xxxxxx%western_union@MCIMAIL.COM
          or
 g=firstname%s=lastname%dda.eln=62xxxxxx%western_union@MCIMAIL.COM

All of these are identical; 4356996 is Western Union's gateway account
on MCI Mail.  This is how Pat sends us the TELECOM Digest.

To go through AT&T Easylink (Western Union is a subsidiary of AT&T),
you'd use the following:

wu/s=firstname_lastname/dda.eln=62xxxxxx@mhs.attmail.com
         or
mhs!wu/g=firstname/s=lastname/dda.eln=62xxxxxx@attmail.com

In all of these, the two things which are mandatory are s=name and
dda.eln=62xxxxxx, and you can optionally use the g= format for first
name.  If you want a blank in the middle of the name, you insert an
underline _ which is why it is there.

To _send_ from Easylink is much harder.  It consists of sending an IPM
(their name for X.400) message to the ATTMAIL ADMD, with an id of:

          ID-!i!n!t!e!r!n!e!t!!hostname!!user

Where an address of user@hostname is translated into the UUCP style
hostname!user.  For example, this account becomes:

          ID-!I!N!T!E!R!N!E!T!!FZC!!CU.NIH.GOV

This is required because the ID of "internet" has to be in {lower
case} in order for AT&T mail to forward to it.


Paul Robinson -- TDARCOS@MCIMAIL.COM
These opinions are mine alone
Date: 31 Dec 1992 01:37:47 GMT
From: slr@cco.caltech.edu (Steve L. Rhoades)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Info Needed on Toshiba Key System
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 928, Message 4 of 13

I recently became the proud (?) owner of a Toshiba Key Telephone
system with the following components:

HKSU701 is the model on the KSU.  By looking at the unit, it appears
to be capable of handling six CO lines and sixteen stations.

I also have nine Toshiba stations, model EKT6010-H.

Does anyone have an idea of what the market value of this equipment
is?  Anyone want to buy it?

Replies via Email, please.


Steve L. Rhoades            | Voice: (818) 794-6004
Post Office Box 1000        | 
Mt. Wilson, Calif 91023     | Internet: slr@cco.caltech.edu
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 05:43:29 GMT
From: ash@sumex-aim.stanford.edu (David Ash)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Good Opportunity For Fraud 
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 13, Issue 5, Message 7 of 9

In article <telecom13.3.1@eecs.nwu.edu> johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us
(John R. Levine) writes:

> The only use to date that I have found for the mag stripe on a calling
> card is in the card reader phones found mostly at airports, which read
> the whole calling card number and stuff it down the line at the
> appropriate time as you're making a phone call.

On this topic, has anyone ever found any use at all for the mag strips
on the calling cards issued by MCI and Sprint?  As far as I know, even
the card readers which allowing billing to these carriers won't allow
the physical use of the card?


David W. Ash    ash@sumex-aim.stanford.edu 
HOME: (415) 497-1629  WORK: (415) 725-3859