HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rop@hacktic.nl (Rop Gonggrijp)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: ABCD as a Phreaking Tool
Date: 24 Aug 92 02:30:49 GMT
Organization: Hack-Tic Magazine
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 656, Message 5 of 10

mcovingt@athena.cs.uga.edu (Michael A. Covington) writes:

>> Guess this does show what 'capable minds' set up the technology that
>> we are supposed to trust. Yet in the eyes of US law enforcement, we
>> would have been the criminals for experimenting with this (using
>> 555-XXXX numbers), and AT&T the poor victim.

> When you "experimented," you _did_ impose false charges on somebody,
> didn't you?  Why _aren't_ you the "criminals" then?

If we did not experiment, we sould never have found this trick. AT&T
would say their system was totally secure. YOU would trust a system
this stupid. I did not use this system to make calls, I used it to
show that it could be done, and I have done some testing to see what
you could and could not do with it.

As a reporter that is into these things, that is what I have to do.
You may not appreciate it, but I'm doing you a favour. Believe me,
AT&T can live with about thirty to fifty dollars in "losses". They
should have "lost" a few hundred thousand dollars through this hole,
as far as I am concerned.

Knowing that this kind of thread can go on for ever, and is likely to
become a shouting match, I will not respond to any further posts on
this subject.

One thing: I hate to have to explain why I do things every second
posting I make. Can my motivations be included in the FAQ for this
newsgroup?  ;-)
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 05:54:39 GMT
From: mcovingt@athena.cs.uga.edu (Michael A. Covington)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Monitoring of Broadcasts
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 666, Message 1 of 13

In article <telecom12.661.12@eecs.nwu.edu> voorhis@aecom.yu.edu
(Adrienne Voorhis) writes:

> jon@Turing.ORG (Jon Gefaell)> writes:

>> It is illegal to disclose anything heard on any Radio Frequency in any
>> mode other than public broadcast, Amateur Radio, and that's about it.
>> This means that you can own a scanner and listen to the police, even
>> covert operations (I listen to very interesting operations from time
>> to time) but you _may not_ disclose those communications to any one
>> else.

> Could someone please explain how the federal government can allow
> you to legally monitor such broadcasts but can stop you from
> disclosing what was heard?  I'm not a First Amendment lawyer, but it
> would seem to me that if you lawfully became aware of information,
> that the government could not muzzle you from discussing what you have
> legitimately obtained.

Hmmm?  Never heard of confidentiality?

Jon was describing the Communications Act of 1934, which forbids
disclosing or "using" information obtained by listening to non-public
radio services.  (Broadcasts, hams, CBs, and a few other things are
freely disclosable.)

That law simply imposes a kind of confidentiality on people who,
through technological pursuits, come into possession of other people's
private messages.  Just like telephone repair personnel, mail
carriers, etc.

The Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 goes further: it
forbids _listening_ to private radio communications (cellular phones,
ship-to-shore phones, etc.).  But it also makes it clear that
non-encrypted police and other public service communications, as well
as ships and aircraft (other than phone calls intended to be private),
are not subject to the prohibition.


Michael Covington - Artificial Intelligence Programs - U of Georgia - USA 
Unless otherwise noted, these are private opinions, not official statements.
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 22:53:51 GMT
From: rbook@owlnet.rice.edu (Robert Aaron Book)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Decoding touchtones with a PC
Organization: Rice University
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 662, Message 8 of 14

Is there any device which can connect to a phone line on one end and a
PC (through a serial port?) on the other, and translate touch-tones
into numbers understandable to the computer?  Any modem (almost) can
*produce* the touch-tones; I am looking for a device that can
understand them.

A way to use a modem to do this would be even better; a device that
could also produce touch-tones and flash would be great.  I have many
applications in mind, but the one that first triggered the question is
that with such a device, and three-way calling on my phone, I could
call my home phone from my office (a local call), type in a password,
then a long-ditance number, then have the computer flash and dial the
long-distance number, thus setting up a three-way long distance call
and saving me the calling card surcharge when I am local to my home
phone.  This is essentially a reproduction of the discontinued MCI
"around town" feature, which allowed you to make long-distance calls
with no surcharge when local to you home phone (or within 11 miles, or
something to that effect).

Any ideas?


Robert Book    rbook@rice.edu
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 92 09:08:45 MDT
From: proicou@merlin.plk.af.mil (Mike Proicou)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: AT&T and Sandia
Organization: Parallel Processing Group, Phillips Lab
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 668, Message 10 of 12

In article <telecom12.665.15@eecs.nwu.edu> dwn@dwn.ccd.bnl.gov (Dave
Niebuhr) writes:

> What is happening is that the contracts between the DOE sites and AT&T
> are up for renewal and apparently Sandia is going with another company
> for their long distance carrier.

> My employer, Brookhaven National Laboratory, is negotiating a contract
> right now and I don't know who the players are at the present time.

Nahh, that's not it.  AT&T through Bell Labs through Sandia Corp. is
the operating contractor for SNL.  All of the DOE labs and plants are
GOCO (government owned-contractor operated) facilities.  BNL is
operated by something like Associated Universities, Inc. isn't it?  Los
Alamos is operated by the University of California.  Oak Ridge by
Martin Marietta Energy Systems.

The word in town is that DOE is pushing for the contractors to operate
the labs for profit (instead of the cost + $1).  In exchange, DOE
wants the contractor to accept liability for cleaning up any
environmental problems.  Doesn't sound like a bargain to me.

I'm across base at the Air Force's Phillips Lab, so this is all just
stuff in the papers and rumors.


Mike Proicou             (505) 846-2227
Phillips Laboratory/WSP  Kirtland AFB, NM 87117-6008
Date: 23 Aug 92 07:21:21 GMT
From: grnwood@gagme.chi.il.us (Jerry Greenwood)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Ameritech Complete MasterCard
Organization: Gagme Public Access UNIX, Chicago, Illinois.
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 657, Message 9 of 10

Also ... the May 1990 issue of {Consumer Reports} has the four major
ways in which the interest is computed.  They list them according to
their desirability.

Armed with these one can make a good choice.  There is even a 7.9
percent card out there ... the catch is that it has a $39.00 fee.
That would be great for me as I carry a large balance.  I'll probably
get that card and when the balance is paid off ... switch to a no fee
card.


Jerry Greenwood              N9NRG
grnwood@gagme.chi.il.us      312-545-2219
From: Jack.Winslade@ivgate.omahug.org (Jack Winslade)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Major Phone Outage in Omaha
Date: 1 Sep 92 05:03:33 GMT
Reply-To: jsw@drbbs.omahug.org
Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 675, Message 1 of 12

At about 10:45 AM this morning, a major malfunction in US West's 135th
St. office resulted in the disruption of 3/4 of the phones served from
the CO, according to the {Omaha World-Herald}.  At press time, the
exact cause was not known, but a US West spokesman stated that it was
probably a problem with the switching or computer equipment.

Television station WOWT reported that 'It was a computer error and not
a cable cut' and that service was restored in the late afternoon.
(The map shown by the station GREATLY exaggerated the area of the
outage, showing large areas to the east and south of the area served
by that office.)

The 135th St. office serves some 33x and all 69x prefixes in the Omaha
area.  I've been told by an 'insider' that it is a #5 ESS <tm>.
Ironically, both the west Omaha US West office (which includes
residential service reps) and some of AT&T's offices are served out of
135th and were shut down.  Non-emergency lines to the Douglas County
Sheriff's office were out, but 911 was said to be in service during
the outage.

The CLID log on DRBBS shows a call from the 330 office at 10:24 AM
with no other calls from the affected COs since.  Calls from the
surrounding offices appear to be coming through with no trouble.

 
Good day.   JSW
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 92 08:49:52 EDT
From: Jerry Leichter <leichter@lrw.com>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Polite Thief
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 661, Message 14 of 19

Yesterday, I tried to place a long-distance credit card call using a
pay phone in Piscataway, New Jersey.  LD service was from some company
like "American Network Services".  Needless to say, I dialed 10288
first.

The response was interesting: A ring, then a polite recorded female
voice, sounding just every official telco message you ever heard (but
without any SIT) told me that "it is not necessary to dial a
long-distance access code" with the number I was dialing.  Well, of
course, it wasn't NECESSARY - I just had to be willing to pay whatever
exorbitant rates the AOS would charge.

No combination I tried would let me select AT&T; either the sequence
was (legitimately) declared invalid, or I got the "not necessary"
message.

Most people, having learned about 10288 from AT&T's ads, would surely
have responded to the "not necessary" message by trying again, WITHOUT
the "optional" carrier selection.

And this is right in the heart of AT&T land: Fire a gun in any
direction and you'll probably hit an AT&T facility!

I seem to recall that AT&T has a number at which they want nonsense
like this reported, but I can't remember it.  Anyone?


Jerry
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 17:56:13 EDT
From: drilex!carols
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Automated Hate Calls in Minnesota
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 668, Message 6 of 12

In Volume 12, Issue 661, person@plains.nodak.edu (Brett G Person)
writes:

> Apparently, people [in Minneapolis are getting calls] from a new kind 
> of telemarketer slime encourageing them to hate minorites, Jews,etc.  It
> sounded like the phone calls were comming from an automated dialer
> that plays a tape encouraging violence. The State Attourney General's
> office says that this doesn't violate any laws.

> Any comments? Have any of you gotten phome calls like this?

Thankfully, not any quite of this nature.  But I did get a call the
other day that started out,

      "Hello, there.  This is Thomas Something-or-other, your
      neighbor, and I was wondering:  Has anyone ever told you 
      to ... go to hell?"
 
                             <pause>

      "Well, I just wanted to tell you to ...  go to heaven."

It was, of course, a recorded pitch for some church; which one, I'm
not sure, since I quickly hung up.

The message served its purpose as an attention-getter.  The recording
had low enough background noise that it was hard to identify the call
immediately as automated.  Especially annoying was that I do have an
upstairs neighbor named Tom, with whom I have had conflicts about
noise in the past, so there was a considerable adrenalin rush for a
second there.  I wish now I'd stayed on the line long enough to see if
they were taking information, and if so, to respond, um,
appropriately.


Carol Springs    carols@world.std.com


[Moderator's Note: Well what would you rather have, a phone call like
that or the Jehovah Witnesses coming to your door at 9 AM on Saturday
morning like they do mine?  PAT]
From: stlouis@unixg.ubc.ca (Phill St. Louis)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Is RJ45 With Notch Same as RJ45 Without Notch?
Date: 25 Aug 92 17:59:20 GMT
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 661, Message 7 of 19

The Subject says it all.

I would like to ensure that these RJ45 wall jacks with a notch will
work.  (I am pretty sure that they are Digital Equipment Corp. (DEC)
RJ45 wall jacks that have been installed in some new offices.)  Will
these work with the standard RJ45 (without notch) plugs?


Thanks,

Phill
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 92 15:58:04 CDT
From: mearle@pro-party.cts.com
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: 911 From CMT (was 911 on Jerry Springer Show)
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 663, Message 8 of 8

Here in South Texas, Southwestern Bell Mobile systems operators handle
the initial part of a 911 call. This is because the area a cmt works
in covers a large number of Law Enforcement juristictions. For
instance, my service, based out of Corpus Christi, TX, works in:
CorpusChristi, Alice, Rockport, Beeville, Kingsville, Refugio,
Raymondville, and other places. That's an area represented by a
rectangle 100 x 80 miles! So when I dial 911, a SWBMS operator
answers, asks where I am (approximately) and transfers the call to the
proper agency, announcing "mobile call from xxx-yyyy". She/he stays on
the line during the call, in case of some trouble on the mobile side.
 
They NEVER (in my experience) hassle one, or question the nature of
the call -- they just connect one to the law enforcement agency as
quickly as possible.
 
Cellular One has a similiar procedure.


Mark W. Earle 
mearle@pro-party.cts.com (Mark Earle) [WA2MCT/5]
FidoNet at       Opus 1:160/50.0   
Bitnet           adblu001@ccsu.vm1
Internet  73117.351@compuserve.com
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 92 16:03:26 -0800
From: Sam Drake <drake@almaden.ibm.com>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: PacBell Message Center Woes
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 670, Message 5 of 12

Here in Northern CA, the Message Center was sick a lot last week, too.
Rather than having the problem you mentioned, here the system was UP
but didn't seem to be getting ANI from the main phone system.  So if
you called to get your messages it didn't know what number you were
calling from and asked you to key it in.  Worse, if someone called
your number, rather than getting your recording / beep, they got a
message center recording asking them to enter my "mailbox number" ...
THEN they got my recording and the beep.

I had the message center for four months, and had two major problems
with it.  Last week's failure was the final straw; I cancelled and
plugged my "old fashioned" answering machine back into the wall.
Pfui.

Actually, the final straw was when I called Message Center repair to
complain.  The person I talked to actually told me to call all my
friends and tell them that my "mailbox number" was equal to my "phone
number", so my friends would know what to do if they called me and got
the semi-broken Message Center.  As {Consumer Reports} might say, I
judged this suggestion Not Acceptable.


Sam Drake / IBM Almaden Research Center
Internet:  drake@almaden.ibm.com    BITNET:  DRAKE at ALMADEN
From: FZC@CU.NIH.GOV (Paul Robinson)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Which Uses Less Resources: Off Hook or On Call?
Date: 1 Sep 92 00:58:39 GMT
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 675, Message 7 of 12

I'd like to start some discussion and some thinking over an issue
which we had a bit of some hot discussion.

If you have to make a number busy, for example, when changing the
paper in a fax machine -- especially if you have multiple fax machines
on hunt group so that a busy line rolls over to the next unused line
 -- that you want a line to be busy.  (When someone sends to a fax
machine and it's busy, they retry in a short while; if it doesn't
answer, they figure it's out of order.  (At least, I do.)

So what is the least use of the telephone system for keeping a line
busy?  I said that you are better off, say, calling a silent line or
calling the line itself and listening to its own busy signal except
that some systems drop you on a call to a busy number after a time.

Someone else said to just leave the phone off-hook.  I pointed out
this ties up a dialing sender.  They claimed, yes, but only for the 30
seconds it allows you to dial, and is less resources than a call
set-up and tear-down among the battery hold, etc.

Someone want to settle this?


Paul Robinson     Tdarcos@MCIMAIL.COM
From: cmoore@BRL.MIL (VLD/VMB)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Weird Intercept
Date: 28 Aug 92 20:52:34 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 668, Message 5 of 12

All I can find is that 663 is a Los Angeles prefix and thus would
still be in 213, not in 310.
From: blake@pro-party.cts.com (Blake Farenthold)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Cell Phones in the Air
Date: 31 Aug 92 15:55:08 GMT
Organization: Corpus Christi, Texas' pro-party bbs +1 512 882-1899
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 674, Message 5 of 10

> This led me to think about the movie Die Hard II....

What a classic for telcom continuity blunders. You caught only one ...

> In some sequence, our hero gets paged by his wife from a plane, he
> checks the pager and calls her back on the plane.

No can do.  (Actualy I'm suprised SHE was able to call at all,
whenever I really need the airphone all I get is a synthasized voice
saying processing call please wait for about half an hour) Of course
they are GTE air phones, I should have known not to count on them.

The other telcom blunders I remember in Die Hard 2 are:

Pac*Bell (Pacific Bell, serves California) payphones in what was
supposed to be the Washington DC airport.

Faxing fingerprints for identification.  I can't even read half the
typwritten stuff that is faxed to me ... nuch less make out the
details of a graphic as fine as a finger print.
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 20:17:16 GMT
From: stevef@wrq.com (Steve Forrette)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: 800 Portability
Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 670, Message 10 of 12

In article <telecom12.668.8@eecs.nwu.edu> varney@ihlpf.att.com (Alan L
Varney) writes:

> Correction of problems is a major concern of the
> industry.  Anyone know of another industry that has multiple databases
> with multiple owners with content specified by companies competing
> against each other???  The only one that comes to mind is the default
> carrier assigned to equal access lines.

Problems with the 800 database will be of much larger scale than with
the equal access default.  In most cases, incorrect settings of the
equal access PIC result in billing problems only.  Call completion is
so uniform between the carriers for 1+ calls that spurious PIC changes
are often not noticed for some period of time (like when the bill
arrives).  However, any problem with the 800 database is likely to
bring all calls to the affected 800 number to a screeching halt, as no
carrier other than the correct one is likely to know what to do with
the call.  At least this will remove the motive for carriers to slam.


Steve Forrette, stevef@wrq.com
From: davep@u.washington.edu (David Ptasnik)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: 110 vs. 66M Blocks
Date: 30 Aug 92 00:29:50 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 670, Message 9 of 12

edwards@world.std.com (Jonathan Edwards) wrote:

> What is the difference between 110 and 66M blocks?  I am wiring my
> house for a mix of voice and possible future 10-BASET.  All the wires
> will end-run to the blocks in the basement.  Should I use 110 or 66M
> blocks?

The technicians at the University of Washington (where I am an
analyst) won't let me have a punch tool, they say that it would be to
horrible to imagine.  They are probably right.  Still, I asked them
the same question one day, as a group of them were roundly cursing the
new 110 blocks.  The 110 blocks take up a lot less wall space.  As we
were wiring outlets every 15 feet with four sets of four pair, this
was VERY important.  They claim, however, that the 66's are a lot
easier to punch, and that you can punch more wires onto the same post
(for those occasions where several single line phones share a line)
than you can with the 110's, and that the 66's give you a good
connection more reliably.  110's also use different punch tools for
most efficient use (I think you are supposed to be able to punch five
wires at a time on a 110)(when it works right).  They also claimed
that it was much easier to hook a test set up to 66 blocks for trouble
testing (clip leads instead of a special connector).

Overall the 110 review from this crew on that day was extremely
negative.  I suspect that a negative reaction to a "new" thing was
part of it.  Techs seem to be a pretty conservative lot.  Your mileage
will vary.


All of the above is nothing more than the personal opinion of - 

Dave Ptasnik          davep@u.washington.edu
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 18:18:42 GMT
From: aclarke@stsci.edu (Angie Clarke)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Hearing Radio on the Phone
Reply-To: aclarke@stsci.edu
Organization: Space Telescope Science Institute, Baltimore MD
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 666, Message 4 of 13

I certainly am interested in the article that appeared in TELECOM
Digest a few years ago: "Praise the Lord and Pass the RF Filters".
Please post.  Thanks.


Angie


[Moderator's Note: Okay, I will hunt it up and use it soon, maybe over
the weekend.   PAT]
From: leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Standardized Exchange Names
Date: 25 Aug 92 13:49:35 GMT
Reply-To: 70465.203@compuserve.com
Organization: SCN Research/Qic Laboratories of Tigard, Oregon.
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 661, Message 9 of 19

> [Moderator's Note:  Another Hyde Park exchange is FAIrfax (324), 
> which it is said was named in honor of a University of Chicago
> trustee, Fairfax Cone.

I think "FAirfax may be a "standard" name of some sort, as the 32x
exchanges in Spokane used that in the 60's.


Leonard Erickson		      leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com
CIS: [70465,203]			 70465.203@compuserve.com
FIDO:   1:105/51	 Leonard.Erickson@f51.n105.z1.fidonet.org
(The CIS & Fido addresses are preferred)