HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: 0003991080@mcimail.com (Proctor & Associates)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Advice Needed: Dialback Management
Date: 25 Jul 92 17:37:00 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 583, Message 12 of 15

pete@cssc-syd.tansu.com.au (Peter Alexander Merel) writes:
 
> We know about dialback modems, but it seems they are not as secure as
> we'd like. I'm sure something like I describe must exist, but we don't
> know what it is called or where to get it. Please help.
 
I don't have a virtual solution, but I do have a very flexible
programmable hardware one.
 
The reason that dialback modems are sometimes not secure is that a
cracker can call into the modem and wait for the modem to hang up, and
then remain on the line, playing dialtone back to the modem.  The
modem "thinks" it is dialing on the network, but instead it reaches
the bad guy's modem.
 
This is possible because many central offices will keep the circuit up
for up to about 22 seconds if the calling party remains off-hook after
the called party goes on-hook.  This is a long enough window for the
dialback modem to re-seize the line and start dialing.
 
You can attach an external security device, such as the Proctor
46300F2 Secured System Access Line.  It answers a ringing line, then
expects a security code (up to 14 digits) before ringing into the
modem.  This should be enough security, unless of course someone finds
out what the security code is.
 
When performing dialback, it can call different dialback numbers
linked to different security codes.  To prevent the problem mentioned
above, it can be programmed to wait for a CPC pulse on the line before
initiating dialback, or it can perform the dialback on one of several
separate ports.  Since the dialback can be done on a separate line,
there is no way for a cracker to get through with the dialtone trick.
 
This product can also be used as a secure DISA adaptor (a device that
allows one to dial in and seize another line for outgoing service,
such as a PBX extension), and is available with an internal voice
frequency repeater.
 
Contact Proctor & Associates via one of the email, fax, telephone or
snailmail addresses below for more information.
 

Paul Cook                       206-881-7000
Proctor & Associates       MCI Mail 399-1080
15050 NE 36th St.          fax: 206-885-3282
Redmond, WA  98052-5317  3991080@mcimail.com
Date: 27 Jul 92 02:00:15 EDT
From: Rob Bailey <74007.303@CompuServe.COM>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Miscellaneous Ramblings
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 589, Message 13 of 15

Miscellaneous ramblings about miscellaneous ramblings:

(1) if you sent me an SASE for the Caller*ID->RS-232 schematic, don't
get discouraged: I had to track down the XR2211 datasheets again --
they'll be forthcoming. If, however, two weeks goes by and you still
want them and don't mind wasting $0.58, try me again. And please send
a big SASE (requirement) - this "packet" is pretty thick and I've had
trouble stuffing regular (#10?) envelopes.

(2) I noticed -- like someone else here in c.d.t. -- that my local
COCOT keypad tones do not correspond to the standard DTMF pairs.  Well
... let me rephrase that ... I have perfect-pitch so I know the
frequencies are correct, but they're sort of "out of order", e.g., if
I press "2222222" each press gives me a seemingly random but still
valid (just not necessarily "2") DTMF pair. I'm gonna take my
electronic DTMF box over to confirm what my ear's telling me.

The question: Why? Is this some sort of fraud-prevention mechanism
that I don't understand? Hmmm ...

(3) A random note on Repeat*Call here in West Virginia: when I camp on
a number that's inside my CO (I'm on a 5E) but that has been off hook
long enough for the switch to remove battery voltage, instead of
getting the desired behavior (i.e., call me back when they go back on
hook) or a valid recording (e.g., the phone you're calling is off the
hook and we're not going to waste our time queuing on it), I get
something like "The feature you are trying to activate cannot be
activated because the number is not in your local calling area" -- the
message you get when you really do try to queue a call out of the
area. More interesting: when I try to camp on a number two miles away
but in the DMS-100 switch's area, I get trunk reorder. A telco
employee (who was curious but slightly suspicious when I revealed
knowledge that DMS-100 was a NT product and not AT&T) said she'd
report them as bugs.

(4) One of my customer's had a rash of the "answering machines calling
people" syndrome which I rather quickly figured out: person "A" calls
person "B". "B" is on the phone, so "A" queues a Repeat*Call on "B"s
extension. At 4:00, "B" hangs up and immediately leaves the office for
home. By this time, "A" has left for home, too. When the PABX finally
comes through and does the triple-ring cadence on "A"s line to let
them know "B" has gone, "A"s answering machine picks up, causing the
PABX to ring "B", whose answering machine also picks up. Result: when
"A" gets in in the morning, "B"s OGM is on his machine, and when "B"
gets in, "A"s OGM is on his machine. People actually thought (PhD
chemists -- mind you) that this was something sorta supernatural going
on!

More to follow later ...


 ...de Rob WM8S      74007.303@compuserve.com
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 10:29:40 CDT
From: "Kevin Mitchell, x4485, 708-452-9585" <kam@hermes.dlogics.com>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Named Prefixes
Reply-To: kam@hermes.dlogics.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 589, Message 12 of 15

Pat:

We design computer typesetting software here. 266 really stands for
COMputer. So, my number is COMputer-4485 :).


Kevin A. Mitchell     (312) 266-4485
Datalogics, Inc       Internet: kam@hermes.dlogics.com
441 W. Huron          UUCP: ..!uunet!dlogics!kam
Chicago, IL  60610    FAX: (312) 266-4473


[Moderator's Note: A clever takeoff on this is a gay bar on Halsted
Street in Chicago which has commandeered 312-871 and renamed it 
"TRick-1" ... maybe someday I will COMe by your office to visit.  PAT]
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 92 14:41:22 CDT
From: varney@ihlpf.att.com (Alan L Varney)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Is Not 100% SS7 Needed For 1-800 and the Like?
Organization: AT&T Network Systems, Lisle, IL
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 597, Message 7 of 10

In article <telecom12.593.1@eecs.nwu.edu> vixen!jadams@uunet.UU.NET
(26070-adams) writes:

> While full SS7 deployment will enhance the performance of 800 and
> similar intelligent network services, it is not a requirement.

> ... while the LECs run all the way from hardly any SS7 to well over
> 90% of their signalling on SS7....

> The FCCs 86-10 docket plays a major role in expediting SS7
> deployment.  Can (obvious proprietary issues here) anyone share
> current SS7 deployment stats?

   Hi Jack -- nice summary.  The following stats are from {Telephony},
July 20, 1992, from an article called "The race to deploy SS7", by
AT&T's own Karen Archer Perry.  I'm leaving out some good stuff, so
you'll be encouraged to subscribe :)

                  SS7 deployment
  RHC/LEC       (% of access lines)    Future Plans
  -------       -------------------    ------------
  Bell Atlantic 90% ; 85% CLASS(sm)
  BellSouth     80% ; 60% CLASS
  Ameritech     41%                    60% by 1994
  SW Bell       21% (1991)             66% by 1994
  NYNEX         13% (mid-1991)         89% by 1994
  Pacific Bell  50%
  U S West      30%                    54% by 1994
  GTE           26%                    41% by '93, 65% by '95
  Other independents are also mentioned.

    {Telephony} seems to be doing a pretty fair job of covering SS7
issues lately.  The July 13, 1992, issue covers the TRIP '92 National
ISDN demonstration project and the North American ISDN Users' Forum
(NIUF) involvement in ISDN.  They will soon have a catalog with
details of the top 17 ISDN applications from NIUF members.  See
'Telephony' for details.


Al Varney - just MY opinion.
From: djb@mailer.cc.fsu.edu (David Brightbill)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Wires of Mystery
Date: 27 Jul 92 13:54:18 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 589, Message 3 of 15

Every time I drive from my home in the swamps of North Florida to
Georgia, I wonder about a wire that runs for a few miles along the
road.  This is a little used back road which was reportedly once
popular with the moonshine crowd.  The road is so isolated that there
aren't even power lines or indications of burried cables running along
side most of it.  The line in question starts in Florida where the
power line ends.  It is two bare copper lines hanging on glass
insulators.  

When I first noticed it, several years ago, I assumed that it was an
old and disused line and made a mental note to check for insulators
around any downed poles.  But over the years, I've seen some of the
old square cypress poles replaced with modern penta treated pine poles
so it's being maintained.  It terminates in Florida on a pole with a
metal drum the size and shape of a large juice can.  The wires go into
the can and two standard insulated drop wires emerge which cross the
road and head off toward a fancy plantation house behind a locked
gate.  The line follows the road for about five miles into Georgia.  It
then takes off into the woods where it seems to head toward a cluster
of buildings.

I assume that it's some sort of private line.  The poles are separate
from the power poles which sit along side them for a short part of the
route.  The entire route may belong to the same owner but I doubt it
as the line passes several homes on it's way to Georgia.

OK ... now we can go back to discussing ISDN and digital celluar and
such.


[Moderator's Note: It is possible you saw an antenna for an ELF radio
station. The length of an antenna is set by the frequency: the higher
the frequency the shorter the antenna, and vice-versa. That's why
police transmitting on UHF have little stubs for antennas on the back
of their car and cell phone users have little ones also. On the other
hand, a radio station like WGN, 720 AM needs a few hundred feet to get
a good half-wave antenna, and WIND, 560 AM has four big towers over in
Gary, IN for theirs. <E>xtremely <L>ow <F>requency transmitters are
good for use with submarines in the ocean ... very few radio waves can
travel under water or through the earth. ELF waves can though ... but
the trade-off is an antenna which stretches for miles at a time along
the highway on telephone poles, etc. If what you saw is an ELF antenna
it is probably a military thing, like the one in Wisconsin.  PAT]
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 22:08:56 GMT
From: Chris Petrilli <petrilli@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Area Code 512 Split 
Organization: Department of Redundency Department
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 596, Message 2 of 13

I just received the official announcement of the 512 area code split
in the phone bill today.  I thought everyone might be interested.
Unfortunately SWBT found it in their power not to give a map or
anything so that we know what exactly is changing (other than I know
what is below).  This is what the bill said:

                  NEW AREA CODE TO SERVE SOUTH TEXAS

We are changing: Beginning November 1, 1992, a new 210 area code will
be serving 152 comunities in the San Antonio and Rio Grande Valley
areas.


Chris Petrilli   petrilli@gnu.ai.mit.edu   I don't even speak for myself.
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 92 17:00:25 -0700
From: gast@CS.UCLA.EDU (David Gast)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Federal Case Against NYNEX
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 577, Message 13 of 13

I saw in the paper a while back that the federal government's case
against NYNEX had started.  Has anyone heard if the case has finished
and what the result was?


David
Date: 25 Jul 92 19:22:45 GMT
From: ron@pilot.njin.net (Ron Natalie)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: House Wiring
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 583, Message 15 of 15

When moved into my house in NJ, the house was sporadically wired for
two lines (some wall jacks had wires behind them for both pairs, some
only one).  Having five computer programmers living there we had
already ordered ten lines (oddly enough the phone company finally
caught on and stopped offering "teen" lines for $4.00 additional a
month).  I pulled 25-pair cable into the major rooms (my office, Liz's
office, the hack room, and Rehmi's bedroom) as well to the laundry
room (the other side of the exterior wall from where the NI was).
Everything was cross connected on 66 blocks in the garage.  I also
pulled thin ethernet.  We ran the ten lines everywhere and used the
remaining pairs for things like RS-232 lines.

One day, about half the lines stopped working.  I called the phone
company and they came out and decided the problem was with the
internal wiring (they hadn't been inside yet, they were still at the
NI).  I had noticed that we were paying 30 cents a month or something
for wire maintenance (not my idea, I didn't place the order when we
moved), so I told him to have at it.  The installer was sure suprised
when I showed him where the wires went after the demarc.  After about
20 minutes of puttering around with an ohmmeter he calls me over and
says that he's identified which run of the 25 pair is bad.  We head to
Liz's office.  The 66 block here is not attached to the wall but is
sitting on the floor (no closet in her office, I was going to screw it
to the underside of the built-in desk).  We pulled it out a bit.
"Can't you smell it I say?"  The phone installer can't tell, but some
cat has pissed into the 66 block (we had new kittens).  We finally
agree that he will provide me a few 66 blocks and other miscellanious
parts (bridge clips) and I'll take care of repuncing that block.


Ron
From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: FCC Modem Tax Rumor on Compu$erve
Date: 23 Jul 92 17:23:00 GMT
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 582, Message 6 of 13

yarvin@CS.YALE.EDU (Norman Yarvin) writes:

> I do know that one current research project at Bellcore is a circuit
> to automatically distinguish modem sounds from voice sounds.  It uses
> neural networks, and is apparently quite reliable.

Well, this ought to tell people something. If it takes neural network
technology to determine mechanically that a modem rather than a voice
is using a telephone line, then there cannot be much justification on
technical grounds for higher charges!


        John Higdon         |   P. O. Box 7648   |   +1 408 264 4115
    john@zygot.ati.com      | San Jose, CA 95150 |       M o o !
Date: 27 Jul 92 22:20:38 EDT
From: Robert K. Ricketts <73670.1164@CompuServe.COM>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: 911 Nightmare
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 590, Message 6 of 6

Our Esteemed Moderator replies to a post:
 
> The modern CO does not know the difference between one off-hook and
> another *until it finds time to go and get the caller's request.* At
 
But it depends on what point during call setup that the busy was
issued.  If the subscriber dialing 911 encountered busy going off-hook
instead of dial tone then I agree.
 
But if a DTMF receiver was available to the 911 caller giving dial
tone, then I see no reason why the originating CO cannot be programmed
to initiate call setup ahead of all other call requests.  If this
means seizing the very next trunk to come available or even seizing an
active trunk carrying a non-emergency call (as indicated by the call
request being 911), then so be it.
 
This reminds me of an incident years ago in Houston that I'm sure most
long-time Houston telecom-types will recall: Sometime in the late
seventies, a major blood collection agency (Houston Blood Bank or
maybe the Red Cross) staged a telethon on *all* local television
stations -- network, local-only, and PBS -- to call in and pledge to
donate blood.  It was billed in the local media as "The only show in
town".  An appointment time and location to donate was scheduled
during the call.  For the one hour that the telethon aired plus
another thirty minutes or so afterwards, it was nearly impossible to
place a call to/from any CO in the entire city.  It was a major league
gridlock.  This was before the days of 911.  Imagine needing emergency
care during that 90 minute blackout.  The blood center has yet to
repeat that episode.
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 03:25:31 GMT
From: kev@sol.acs.unt.edu (Kevin W. Mullet)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: 1-900 Number For Internet Access
Organization: University of North Texas
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 596, Message 10 of 13

I've got a couple of questions:

1: Is it possible to get a 1-900 number that allows you to bill the
caller a flat rate per month (say, $30-35) regardless of the time used
instead of on a per-minute basis?

2: What's wrong (and/or right) with the idea of offering commercial
Internet access through a 1-900 number that charges a range of fees on
a per-month (not per-minute) basis and has a range of services based
from plain vanilla host access with a userid, news, mail, etc to SLIP
or PPP access.

I know there are yet-to-be-navigated issues of appropriate use with
regard to selling access to the Internet (or are there?)  Also, I know
a little about what outfits like uunet are doing, but I'm curious
about the feasability of the flat-fee-per-month route.

Please reply through mail, not news.  If I get many replies, I'll
summarize to the net.


Kevin


[Moderator's Note: Yes, there are 900 numbers set up to charge flat
rate for calls regardless of length, but the length is typically very
short.  And regards the commercial resale of Internet service, this is
a very controversial topic. I am grateful you asked for replies in
email -- your email that is, not mine!  But do summarize later.  PAT]
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 19:38:12 GMT
From: bakerj@gtephx.UUCP (Jon Baker)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: GTE and CLASS/ISDN
Organization: AG Communication Systems, Phoenix, Arizona
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 584, Message 6 of 9

In article <telecom12.576.1@eecs.nwu.edu>, john@zygot.ati.com (John
Higdon) writes:

>> Regarding SS7 links, he said GTE was working on them between their own
>> switches.  Links to PacBell would come, but he didn't know when.

> When I have mentioned GTE's lack of SS7, I have been roundly taken to
> task and told that the company does indeed have such links in place.
> Thank you for confirming that this is the baloney that I suspected it
> was.

Apparent evidence that, as I suspected, Mr. Higdon was never really
listening when he was roundly taken to task.

The GTD5 has offered SS7 and CLASS services for about 4 years now.
All of the GTD5's in GTE West are, most definitely, without a doubt,
100% certain, capable of providing SS7 and CLASS features.

When, and if, these services are deployed in your area is dependent on
the local telephone company (in this case, GTE West).

Mr. Higdon has never been taken to task over the issue of whether or
not GTE West has actually deployed SS7 or CLASS, or the extent of that
deployment.  He has been taken to task over his unfounded claims that
the GTD5 is not capable of supporting SS7/CLASS.  Neither I nor any
other person has ever claimed that GTE West has 100% SS7 trunking.
The statement 'GTE was working on them between their own switches' is
entirely accurate.  Their deployment is somewhere between 0% and 100%,
and it is increasing.

At no time has Mr. Higdon been fed any baloney, or any other meat
by-product, by me or any other member of this staff.


J.Baker    enuucp!gtephx!bakerj
I am not an official representative of AG Communication Systems.
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 02:00:17 EDT
From: David Leibold <DLEIBOLD@VM1.YorkU.CA>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: AT&T Fights Fonorola's Attempts to Enter U.S. Market
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 580, Message 1 of 11

Despite a December ruling from the FCC allowing foreign companies to
provide international communications within the U.S., AT&T is fighting
a bid by the Canadian company Fonorola to sell its services in the U.S.

Much of the dispute involves differing rules and regulations between
Canada and the U.S. Local rates are cheaper in Canada, for instance,
while it is easier in Canada to subsidise local rates from long
distance revenues. AT&T claims that Canadian companies fail a "test of
equivalency" that was required by the FCC in conjunction with opening
up international communications. Fonorola replies that American
resellers are already allowed, and is thus sifficient for the
equivalency required by the FCC.

Under free trade terms between the U.S. and Canada, there are concerns
this dispute could put requirements for local service subsidies from
long distance at risk. That is, a "level playing field" imposed on
Canada could mean skyrocketing local rates for Canadians, a situation
regulators sought to avoid when permitting long distance competition
in Canada.


dleibold@vm1.yorku.ca
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1992 03:43:08 GMT
From: irving@happy-man.com (Irving_Wolfe)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Tropez Cordless - Second Thoughts
Reply-To: Irving_Wolfe@happy-man.com
Organization: Happy Man Corp., Vashon Island, WA 98070-7399
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 578, Message 4 of 15

Awhile ago, I praised the new UHF Tropez cordless phone here.  I still
like it, but thought I'd better pass along this problem:

When we installed a second one, the range of both went down.
Intermittently, it went way down.

We spoke with the manufacturer; it is aware of the problem and working
on it.  In other words, until further notice, don't expect to be able
to use more than one of these on a site.


Irving_Wolfe@Happy-Man.com      Happy Man Corp. 206/463-9399 x101
4410 SW Pt. Robinson Rd., Vashon Island, WA  98070-7399  fax x108


[Moderator's Note: Did the manufacturer explain *why* this happened?
Can you give any technical explanation?    PAT]