HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mc/G=Brad/S=Hicks/OU=0205925@mhs.attmail.com
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: How To Fix Genuine 900 Errors?
Date: 26 Jan 93 19:14:22 GMT
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 13, Issue 46, Message 4 of 12

Last week, a close friend of mine got a stern warning from the Credit
Collection Center, P.O. Box 610894, Miami, FL 33261-0894, +1 305 945
8441, insisting that:
 
 1. She placed a call to +1 900 386 2255, which cost $49.95.
 2. She had been billed for this through SWBT.
 3. She instructed SWBT to remove the charge, and they did.
 4. Therefore, Connections, USA, the owner of that 1-900 number, has
    instructed CCC to collect this debt.
 
She keeps a close watch on her credit record, because her dearest
dream is to own rental property and knows that it's going to be an
uphill struggle for somebody with her income, so the threat to her
credit record is no small thing to her.  Nor is there any question of
her paying the $49.95, even if she had it, because she disputes every
one of statements 1-3.
 
She only moved to St. Louis last July and has only had this phone
number since then.  Unfortunately, she did not keep her phone bills,
but she is 100% certain that she has seen them all, none of them had a
bill for this number on them, and she has never called SWBT to demand
the removal of a charge.  A Sprint operator (Sprint appears to be
Connections, USA's 900 provider) volunteered the information that
according to his records, +1 900 386 2255 has not been in use for over
a year.  If this is true then it is physically impossible for her to
have placed the call from her number to that number.
 
What is really making her angry is that the Sprint operator and CCC
both insist that the only way for her to untangle this is to phone
Connections, USA, on her nickle during business hours (while she's at
work, of course, and can't make such calls) and persuade them to drop
the charge.  Otherwise the non-payment notice will be sent to all
credit agencies, and the onus is on her to find them all and append
her explanation.
 
There MUST be a better way to handle this, and one that doesn't
involve hundreds of dollars in legal fees.  If anybody knows, it's you
all.  Please reply via e-mail; if Pat asks, I'll summarize for the
Digest.
 
If there isn't a better way to handle this, then what has the country
come to when a firm can bill you at random for service you never
received, and know that they can punish you arbitrarily if you don't
pay, and that there is no way to fight this that isn't cheaper than
paying them?  It smells of Danegeld to me, and that makes me as angry
as she is.
 
 
J. Brad Hicks     Internet: mc!Brad_Hicks@mhs.attmail.com
X.400: c=US admd=ATTMail prmd=MasterCard sn=Hicks gn=Brad
From: gtoal@pizzabox.demon.co.uk (Graham Toal)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Attempted Mindvox Break-in
Date: 23 Jan 93 21:42:21 GMT
Organization: Cuddlehogs Anonymous
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 13, Issue 42, Message 6 of 14

In article <telecom13.33.2@eecs.nwu.edu> mcmullen@mindvox.phantom.com
(John F. McMullen) writes:

> Phantom Access Foils Cracking Attempt 01/18/93 NEW YORK, NEW YORK,
> U.S.A.,1993 JAN 18 (NB) -- An attempt to illegally break into, or
> "crack" the "Mindvox" conferencing stem contained in Phantom Access, a
> flat-rate New York-based online service recently featured in various
> news publications, was detected and rebuffed.

Hmmm. the vox guys weren't so keen for publicity when those hackers in
Hawaii found that nasty hole in the NeXTs password stuff that let them
on to Mindvox.  In fact they seem to be keeping that one to themselves.
Wonder why.
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 19:25:41 GMT
From: jimmy@denwa.info.com (Jim Gottlieb)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Good Opportunity For Fraud
Organization: Info Connections, West Los Angeles
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 13, Issue 39, Message 7 of 12

In article <telecom13.37.13@eecs.nwu.edu> henry@ads.com writes:

> Citibank banks in other parts of the country are different banks using
> what looks like any of the usual range of ATM machines available to
> banks everywhere.

The Citibanks here often use a nifty ATM built by Transactional
Technologies (owned by Citibank).  These use a touch-screen running
under the X windowing system.

However, due to banking regulations, Transactional Technologoes is not
allowed to sell these to other banks.  Some rule about banks not being
in the bank equipment business.


Jim Gottlieb
E-Mail: jimmy@denwa.info.com    In Japan: jimmy@info.juice.or.jp
V-Mail: +1 310 551 7702   Fax: 478-3060   Voice: 824-5454
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 93 09:36:40 PST
From: awry!tom@hercules.aptix.com (Tom Ace)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: 702-333-8444 (was Strange International "Chat Line" Service)
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 13, Issue 39, Message 10 of 12

Yesterday, I had success calling 702 333 8444 when preceded by 10333;
our Moderator had these comments:

> [Moderator's Note: I *know* two things happened. Someone is taking
> your 10333 and either ignoring it and handing it off one plus by
> default to AT&T or changing it to 10288 which is another way of
> getting Mother.  ...
> ...  Are you in control of your 10xxx assertions when you dial, or is
> some PBX/COCOT/other private system making those decisions whether you
> like it or not ... or indeed even if you know it or not?  Try 10333 + 0
> and ask the operator who she is ... betcha she'll say AT&T, because
> your system kicked you over there when you thought otherwise. Please
> let us know the results of your further testing.   PAT]

I had placed the call yesterday on a PacBell residential POTS line
(415-821); there was no PBX to screen the 10333.  Today, it doesn't
work the same way -- I get a recording saying I need to use AT&T to
reach the number.  I made calls to PacBell and Sprint to ask about all
this, and Sprint told me there had been fiber outages which affected
service in my area yesterday (not implausible given the amount of rain
we've had over the past few weeks).  Indeed, I had to try twice to get
through yesterday -- I got an "all circuits are busy" recording the
first time I placed the call.

The PacBell rep was fascinated to hear about a number that could only
be reached by AT&T, but she assured me that PacBell would always honor
my 10333 request.  I wonder if that's true in all cases; does anyone
know whether it's common for an LEC to ignore 10xxx codes when there
are service outages associated with a long distance carrier (or for
any other reason)?  If PacBell didn't route my call to AT&T yesterday,
then did Sprint do it?


Tom Ace    tom@aptix.com


[Moderator's Note: Perhaps due to the outage, Sprint was automatically
transferring some of their overflow traffic to AT&T. It happens.  PAT]
From: lachman@netcom.com (Hans Lachman)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: DMS-100 Bug?
Date: 26 Jan 93 06:26:25 GMT
Organization: Netcom
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 13, Issue 44, Message 9 of 15

My home phone line is acting funny, and I was wondering if any of you
CO experts might know what the problem is.  It acts exactly as if I
had three-way calling (which I don't), but no matter what number I
dial (on the secondary dial tone), I always get a fast-busy tone
instead of having my call put through.

In other words, if I am on one call, and I hang up for one or two
seconds, I get a dial tone as three short bursts initially, then
continuous.  Then I dial any number, and always get fast-busy.  Then,
I hang up for another one or two seconds and find that the first call
is still there (i.e., as if it were on hold).  This is odd since I do
not have a second line, three-way calling, or any kind of "hold"
service.  It only started doing this two weeks ago.

The only special service I have is Message Center (a phone mail
service).  It lets me know I have a message by changing my dial tone
to an unending series of long bursts.  This is clearly different from
the "holding" dial tone I describe above.  Also, the "holding" dial
tone phenomenon happens regardless of the Message Center status.

I reported this odd behavior, and the Pacific Bell repair person came
out, but could not tell what was wrong.  She told me that I'm on a new
DMS-100 switch.  Anyone out there know why a DMS-100 would behave this
way?  Is it a misconfigured line or a software bug?  Do I have any
special capabilities in this mode?

If you know any of the answers, please email me directly at "lachman@
netcom.com".  If I find out anything interesting I will post it to the
net.  Thanks,


Hans Lachman   lachman@netcom.com
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 93 20:23 PST
From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: PacBell Intra-LATA Rate Ripoffs
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 13, Issue 43, Message 7 of 12

gmccomb@netcom.com (Glenn McComb) writes:

> Hello!  I'm trying to find out how to dial from my (408) to (415) and
> (510) via my preferred carrier (MCI).  When I dial 10222 (MCI access)
> and then a 415 number, a recording tells me "it is not necessary to
> use your carrier" or something like that.

There are two ways around this. One is to find a carrier who will give
you "950" access and the other is to install direct trunks to your
carrier. The first is perfectly doable for even the small user; the
latter is something more and more businesses are doing to bypass
Pac*Bell and its usary rates.

> [Moderator's Note: I believe under the tariffs, your local telco, (in
> this case Pac Bell) has the right to keep that traffic for itself, and
> there is some question in my mind if MCI is lawfully allowed to handle
> intra-lata calls between 415/408/510.

The tariff is tricky. There is nothing in it to prevent you, the end
user, from making intraLATA calls over a long distance carrier. A long
distance carrier is merely prohibited from OFFERING the service to you.
Most of them are pretty good about this and even if you ask, the
carrier will deny any capability of carrying intraLATA calls. It is we
who are in the know who take advantage of the above two methods to
save big time on our short distance calls.

Pac*Bell has seen this handwriting on the wall for some time and
realizes that much revenue is leaking away through bypass. Its remedy
(on application to the CPUC) is to lower intraLATA rates to competitive
levels (making bypass look less attractive) and then screwing the truly
captive customers who cannot go anywhere else for service: the
residential and small business local exchange customers.

Frankly, I would like to see the current system maintained. Keep the
reasonable rates for residence and small business local service. Those
of us who know better will bypass Pac*Bell for intraLATA calls, and
just let those who don't know any better pay through the nose,
subsidizing the rest of us!

> AT&T also charges 12-13 cents per minute on interstate calls during
> off-peak hours, but they are not technically allowed to handle
> intra-lata calls either.  PAT]

AT&T Megacom subscribers pay around 9 to 10 cents per minute (or
whatever they can negotiate). And of course, that includes intraLATA
since the trunks come direct from AT&T. No self-respecting business of
any size uses Pac*Bell for intraLATA traffic anymore. All that are
left doing that are residence and very small business chumps.


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
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 00:42:14
From: wdegnan@mdf.fidonet.org (William Degnan)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: N.E. Telephone Admits Ripoff - Refuses Restitution
Reply-To: wdegnan@mdf.fidonet.org
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 13, Issue 43, Message 2 of 12

sth@slipknot.mit.edu (Scott Hannahs) writes:

> Just a follow up to the note I posted last week.  New England
> Telephone now admits (verbally) that they were miss-billing (read
> overcharging) everyone in my exchange.  They are willing to rebate me
> the amount they overcharged but I was told, "We can't rebate everyone
> since that would cost too much".  I didn't hear any complaints about
> collecting too much money.  They will rebate anyone who complains
> about it.

The Mass. Department of Public Utilities might be interested in this
discussion.

And if they are not, try the Office of Public Utility Counsel (or if
this is not what it is called in the Commonwealth, its equivalent).

Oh ...

Did they refund any interest?


William Degnan,  Communications Network Solutions
-Independent Consultants in Telecommunications and Technology-
P.O. Drawer 9530       | wdegnan@mdf.fidonet.org | mfwic@mdf.fidonet.org
Austin, TX 78766-9530                |        Voice +1 512 323 9383
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 10:26:37 PST
From: dlr@daver.bungi.com (Dave Rand)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: "Secret" Phone Codes
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 13, Issue 40, Message 7 of 13

If you have the AT&T EasyReach 700 service, you can use the on-line
redirection facility to allow you to determine the number you are
calling from. Up util about three months ago, it also returned the
(bogus) billing number, not the real number, when calling the
EasyReach service from my cellular phone. Now, the message says that
EasyReach can't forward to the number as entered.

To use this service, you must be an EasyReach subscriber (a bargain,
in my opinion). First, dial your EasyReach number. Enter your primary
PIN.  Then press "1". Then press "2". Press "1#". Press "#". The
number of the line you are calling from will be read back to you.
There is no extra charge for this call, and no bill will appear on the
number. What you are doing is: "1" - request forwarding; "2" - only
calls made with a PIN (although you can specify all calls if you
wish); "1#" - forward for 1 hour; "#" use the number that you are
calling from as the forwarding number. If you hang up after the number
is read back, then your forwarding will not be activated.

You can also use the "calls made with a PIN" feature to eliminate the
calling card surcharge commonly added by telephone companies.  Set up
the forwarding number to the number you wish to dial, then use the "2"
menu feature to call the number. Only $0.25/minute during the day,
$0.15 at night ($0.23/$0.13 in California) ...


Dave Rand
{pyramid|mips|bct|vsi1}!daver!dlr	Internet: dlr@daver.bungi.com
From: rossix!amber.dnet!dan@fernwood.mpk.ca.us (Dan Cook, Ross Escondido)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Telephone Line Bridge Info Needed
Date: 26 Jan 93 21:47:19 GMT
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 13, Issue 46, Message 3 of 12

I recently created a small electronic circuit which allows me to use a
pair of telephone lines to 'forward calls.'  What I do is call the
first line, get bridged to the second, then dialout from there.
(Dialtone on the second line is not accessable until the correct four
digit DTMF password has been entered.  I also put a toll restrictor on
the line -- just in case.)
 
I use this arrangement to reduce the cost of some automated modem
calls from a large variable amount for toll calls ($150-$200) to a
small fixed amount for two strategically placed unmeasured residential
phone lines ($32) each month.
 
Unfortunately, the method I have used to bridge the lines (600ohm
impeadance 1:1 line coupling transformer) really cuts down on the
received signal level at the far end.  My modem shows a receive signal
level of -19db for direct calls and -33db for bridged calls!  The
signal-to-noise ratio also suffers.  This signal loss (or perhaps lack
of boost) often makes high speed modem connects an iffy proposition.
 
Questions:
 
1.  There must be a better, yet still relatively simple way to bridge
telephone lines.  Perhaps I just need to add a bidirectional amplifier
of some sort?  Any suggestions?
 
2.  Failing a good homebrew solution, anyone know where I can get an
inexpensive commercially made telephone line bridge?  Preferably with
just the bridging function, but even pointers to remotely similar
parts/products will be appreciated.

 
Dan
From: wex@cs.ulowell.edu (Paul M. Wexelblat)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: A RISK Question
Date: 26 Jan 93 20:40:23 GMT
Reply-To: wex@cs.ulowell.edu
Organization: Univ. of Lowell CS Dept.
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 13, Issue 47, Message 4 of 11

I know this isn't the RISKS Digest, but...

I have a line that rings in two places, home and office.  The home and
office are in different towns (separate fire/police), but the same
telephone exchange.

When 911 gets installed, what are the possibilities for what gets
displayed who gets the call what is the likelyhood that they can do it
right (both customer drops come out of the same CO, so they have a
prayer of getting it right.)

The RISK, is obvoiusly that the same Fire Department goes to the wrong
address (10 miles away).


Wex
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 93 10:34:11 GMT
From: newsdesk@dims.demon.co.uk (Darren Ingram)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Good Opportunity For Fraud
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 13, Issue 42, Message 9 of 14

>	About two or three years ago the Bank of England (for some
> reason or other) decided to find out what people used as words for
> there PINs . Well guess what ... If you found a BoE card in the

Er. do you mean the Bank of England (as in the United Kingdom) ... the
BoE here does _not_ issue ATM cards and certainly does not have an ATM
network.  It acts as a central government agency clearing receipts
from the clearing banks and generally playing around with inflation.


DIMS (newsdesk mailbox)(newsdesk@dims.demon.co.uk)   - Views expressed do 
184 Brookside Avenue, Whoberley, Coventry CV5 8AD UK - not automatically  
Tel:+44 203 717 417/Fax:+44 203 717 418/Tlx 94026650 - represent those of 
*News, features, PR, consultancy & network services* - DIMS or its clients
From: Dave.Leibold@f730.n250.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Dave Leibold)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Who You Gonna Call? Phonebusters!
Date: 27 Jan 93 08:10:24 GMT
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 13, Issue 47, Message 7 of 11

{The Toronto Star} reported on Project Phonebuster, an undertaking by
the Ontario Provincial Police, RCMP and the federal Ministry of
Consumer and Corporate Affairs. The Phonebusters had the task of
stomping on bogus boiler rooms that called unsuspecting citizens to
offer phony prize winnings or overpriced merchandise. Credit card
scams are also done via unscrupulous telemarketing.

The police estimates indicate approximately 40 such phraudulent
operations are running in Canada, ripping off CAD$20 million each
year. Average loss per victim (and there could be 16 000 victims in
the province of Ontario alone) is $500, and may become the most
widespread phraud ever committed in Canada.

Meanwhile, the legitimate telemarketers are making progress with plans
to improve their integrity. The Canadian Direct Marketing Association
(CDMA) offers a "do not call" list for those who do not want to be
called from boiler rooms, and hopefully this list can be made
mandatory for all boiler rooms whether or not they are CDMA members.


Dave Leibold - via FidoNet node 1:250/98
INTERNET: Dave.Leibold@f730.n250.z1.FIDONET.ORG
From: amunn@gibbs.oit.unc.edu (Alan Munn)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Overseas Directory Assistance (
Date: 27 Jan 93 03:39:54 GMT
Organization: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 13, Issue 47, Message 2 of 11

Is it possible to connect directly to directory assistance in other
countries?

  We recently had a rather frustrating experience trying to find a
number in Brazil through MCI.  The MCI operator spoke no Portuguese
and had a pretty strong regional American accent.  Needless to say the
operator claimed that there was no one of that name in the 'small'
city we were calling (14 million people).  When I asked to speak
directly to the Brazilian operator she refused.  I then talked to an
MCI supervisor who said we couldn't speak directly to the operator,
but that he had "an even better solution" -- a Portuguese speaking MCI
operator (who did speak pretty reasonable (European) Portugeuse).
This helped somewhat but finally he ended up letting us speak to the
Brazilian operator at which point we got the number.

Can one find out how to dial the operator directly?  If I were
overseas could I just dial the North American xxx-555-1212 number as
if it were a regular long distance call to get directory assistance
here?  Why wouldn't MCI (although I assume this is common practice)
let us talk directly to the operator?


Alan Munn                     <amunn@gibbs.oit.unc.edu>
Dept. of Linguistics, CB# 3155 UNC Chapel Hill NC 27599


[Moderator's Note: Yes and no. No, you are not supposed to dial
international DA direct (no, people in other countries cannot dial
555-1212 in this country -- I don't think), and yes, it can be done in
a few cases if you know the number the operator dials (it is not a
standard 555-1212, but 011-xxx-555-1212 will work in a few places).
You pay the cost of the overseas call. It seems to work for 671 (Guam)
and 670 (Saipan), as well as 852 (Hong Kong) but I am not going to run
my bill up checking out every possible place. 684 (American Samoa)
also goes through. 

If you think MCI operators are bad, you should hear some of the help
AT&T has hired in the past few years at the IOC. I am sorry to say
this, but sometimes I am embarassed for them when they try to talk to
an overseas operator to obtain a number. Especially annoying is when
they split the connection, leaving me on a dead line while I can only
hope they are asking for what I want instead of something else. At
least when the connection is left in place during the call, I can make
a correction if needed instead of waiting for the AT&T operator to
come back five minutes later and say nothing was located. When calling
some countries, be prepared to wait through five minutes of ringing
before they even answer the line, unless you get that infernal
'Telee-kom Services, we're trying to extend your call, please stand
by,' message with three bars of music which repeats itself every ten
seconds for the five minutes instead.  PAT]