HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dgc@math.ucla.edu (David G. Cantor)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Phone Hacking Article in Forbes
Date: 23 Jul 92 22:31:35 GMT
Reply-To: dgc@math.ucla.edu
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 581, Message 2 of 12

The latest (August 3, 1992) issue of {Forbes Magazine} features an
article headlined "Crime on the Line -- If you haven't been a victim
of toll fraud, you probably will be".  The article is entitled "For
Whom the Bells Toll".

A direct quote: "Who are the culprits?  Organized crime and drug
dealers are the big-league crooks."  My question: Are these the type
of persons who have been arrested in the various well-publicized
phone-phreak busts?

Judging by what it states others are publishing and getting away with,
the publishers of {2600} have nothing to worry about.


David G. Cantor    Department of Mathematics   University of California   
Los Angeles, CA 90024-1555   Internet:  dgc@math.ucla.edu
Date: 28 Jul 92 01:10:00 GMT
From: postmaster@satlink.org.ar (Postmaster)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: TRT/FTC MultiSpeed-Telepak Store and Forward Service
Reply-To: postmaster@satlink.org.ar (Postmaster)
Organization: SatLink Communications (Buenos Aires - ARGENTINA)
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 596, Message 7 of 13

Does anybody know how to use the TRT/FTC store and forward service
called Multispeed or Telepak?  TRT people don't give me any kind of
information/documentation and I must "discover" the commands!!  They
only gave me the way to connect and nothing else!!

Many thanks in advance for any kind of help.


Horacio Stolovitzky    Buenos Aires, ARGENTINA
E-Mail: postmaster@satlink.org.ar
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 16:14:04 NZS
From: David Norman <norman@corp.telecom.co.nz>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Coda Call (was Teleslime etc.)
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 3 of 11

Our local press here in Wellington carried a short article "Sick of
junk calls" describing a device called "Coda Call".  This requires a
three digit PIN to be appended to all incoming calls before
"connecting".  A Joseph Lutz is credited with developing the device.

Does anyone have any further details? It would seem to be an excellent
answer for eliminating telemarketer calls for example. I'd be
particularly interested in what happens to callers who have dialed the
published directory number; do they just get ring tone no reply?

Please feel free to e-mail me directly; I'll happily summarize
responses.


Dave Norman    e.mail:norman@corp.telecom.co.nz
Telecom Corporation of New Zealand


[Moderator's Note: If it works like the PrivCode device here in the
USA, it sits on the line all the time looking for changes in voltage
to indicate a call has been connected. It then seizes the line before
the phone has a chance to ring (subscriber is not disturbed with the
bell), and the PrivCode synthesized voice says 'enter your PrivCode
please'. The three digit number which follows is then dealt with.
After two or three wrong attempts, the device just drops the call. If
the code is one of several authorized, then the device itself warbles
to get the attention of the subscriber. Warbles come in different
cadences to partially indicate who is calling, based on the three
digit code entered. Certain codes are reserved with one always ringing
the answering machine plugged in, another just giving a ring back tone
to the caller (but silence to the subscriber) and eventually telling
the calling party politely 'no one is answering -- goodbye', and
other codes which will first attempt to signal the subscriber then
default to the answering machine after several rings.  PrivCode was
first available here in the early 1980's, and the patent is held by
International Mobile Machines of Bala Cynwyd, PA ... so I doubt the
newspaper was correct about the person who 'invented' it.   PAT]
From: starnet!jpp@sun.UUCP (John Pettitt)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Economist Telecom Articles
Date: 30 Jul 92 02:22:41 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 596, Message 3 of 13

There are two interesting articles in this week's {Economist} on the
telecom front.

1) The cable TV companies in the UK want to carry phone traffic as
well.  The article (p69 in the US edition) talks about who owns the
cable companies in the UK (US West, Bell Canada, Nynex, Southwestern
Bell, Pacific Telesis).  Interesting in the light of FCC allowing the
RBOC's to carry TV (announced July 16th).

2) AT&T is using a new voice recognition system to replace operators
(p79 in the US edition).

All in all the {Economist} coverage of telecom issues is very good,
and appears acurate (more than can be said for a lot of main stream
media).  Three weeks ago they did special on global data networking
with references to USENET, the Internet and Bitnet amongst others.
They correctly identified each -- a major event in a world where some
of the players confuse the networks!

[ no connection with them other than as a reader ]

Now if I can only talk them into an email address for the letters 
page ...


John Pettitt	Mail: jpp@StarConn.com   Fax: +1 415 949 2037
From: hsilbiger@attmail.att.com (Herman R Silbiger)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Telephone Keypad Question
Date: 23 Jul 92 23:46:54 GMT
Organization: AT&T
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 582, Message 2 of 13

In article <telecom12.578.14@eecs.nwu.edu>, lightw@cetra.trl.OZ.AU
(Liron Lightwood) writes:

> On the new Telecom phones, the '2'-'9' keys are labelled with the same
> letters as US phones.  However, the '1' key is labelled with 'Q' and
> 'Z'.

> Also, automatic teller machines (at least over here) which have keys
> labelled with letters as well as numbers (for easier to remember
> PIN's), also use the '1' key for 'Q' and 'Z'.  I believe this applies
> in the USA as well.

> If this is the case, the most obvious place to put the 'Q' and 'Z'
> would be on the '1' button.

This subject has been under discussion in both ISO and CCITT.
Agreement has been reached on where 24 of the 26 letters will go, but
the Q and Z location is not yet agreed.

The holdout is AUSTRALIA.

Several human factors studies have shown that users expect the Q to
follow the P, and the Z to follow the Y.  There are thousands of voice
mail systems and directory access systems that use this convention.

While I was in Australia I want into a shop that sold telephone sets,
and saw sveral sets that had letters on the keypad.  None had Q and Z
on the "1".


Herman Silbiger
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 92 19:57:50 EDT
From: hsilbiger@attmail.att.com (Herman R Silbiger)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: How to Use U.S. Modem in England?
Organization: AT&T
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 584, Message 8 of 9

In article <telecom12.577.4@eecs.nwu.edu>, chang@sparc2.prime.com
(John Chang) writes:

> How can I use a modem that's set up for U.S. modular jacks with phones
> in Britain (London in particular)?  Are the line levels compatible?
> If so, what wires go where?  In other words, how do you make a
> jack-to-jack adapter?  Are the dialing tones the same, or do I need to
> pulse dial?

The DTMF tones are the same the world over.  Unfortunately, the RJ-11
wiring patterns are not.

On a 4-lead RJ-11, in the US pins 2 and 3 are used for tip and ring.
In the UK pins 1 and 4 are used.  You will therefore have to make up a
line cord with leads 2 and 3 at the modem end going to pins 1 and 4 at
the wall jack end.


Herman Silbiger
From: Wolf.Paul@rcvie.co.at (Wolf Paul)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Phone Tap in Murder Case Ruled Illegal
Date: 21 Jul 92 08:27:00 GMT
Reply-To: Wolf.Paul@rcvie.co.at (Wolf N. Paul)
Organization: Alcatel Austria - Elin Research Center, Vienna
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 582, Message 11 of 13

In article <telecom12.574.8@eecs.nwu.edu> trebor@foretune.co.jp
(Robert J Woodhead) writes:

> Should I be allowed to tap all the phones at my office (and copy all
> the email), and give it to the police if I find evidence that one of
> my employees is a crook?  What if he/she isn't stealing from me, but
> using my premises as a base for other crimes?  Am I allowed to tell
> the cops "X is a crook, but I can't explain why ... go check it out"?

Not too much relation to Telecom anymore, but:

You are even allowed to explain why, and hand over such tapes, BUT the
police are not allowed to use them as evidence in the trial (if it
comes to that). They will have to PROVE your employee's guilt by other
means, but that does not mean that they cannot use such tapes etc to
aid them in their investigation.


Wolf N. Paul, Computer Center   wnp@rcvie.co.at
Alcatel-Elin Research Center    +43-1-391621-122 (w)
Ruthnergasse 1-7                +43-1-391452 (fax)
ELIN RESEARCH   A-1210 Vienna-Austria/Europe      +43-1-2246913 (h)
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 92 00:40 GMT
From: Richard Cox <mandarin@cix.clink.co.uk>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Country Code 37 Now Discontinued (Use 49)
Reply-To: mandarin@cix.clink.co.uk
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 592, Message 10 of 15

CCITT will not be reissuing Country Code 37 (was East Germany).

Instead they will issue the ten codes 370-379.  CCITT have said that
they will not issue any more one or two digit country codes.


Richard Cox

Mandarin Technology, Cardiff Business Park, Llanishen, CARDIFF, Wales CF4 5WF
Voice: +44 222 747111      Fax: +44 222 711111      VoiceMail: +44 399 870101
E-mail: mandarin@cix.compulink.co.uk
From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Ratepayer Funding
Date: 23 Jul 92 19:09:00 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 581, Message 8 of 12

Yesterday, the California Public Utilities Commission ordered Pacific
Bell to refund approximately 57.6 million dollars and reduce its rates
by 19 million to ratepayers. The Division of Ratepayer Advocates
determined that Pac*Bell has been using regulated revenues to support
competitive services since January of 1990.

A service is considered competitive if it can be supplied by other
vendors. The CPUC says that Pac*Bell services such as Voicemail, PC
Connection, California Call Management, and Smart Desktop were all
subsidized by regulated ratepayers when they should have been financed
by shareholders.

Need I say more? Yes. Those who naively believe that regulation of
cross-subsidization is a trivial matter should consider this: yes, the
PUC caught Pac*Bell with hands in the cookie jar. But how many VM
providers, IPs, and other independent businesses did Pac*Bell drive
out of business before this discovery? (I know of several ...)

Please, can we finally see that RBOCs have NO BUSINESS getting into
competitive business. And particularly, they have no business getting
into competitive business that depends upon use of the LEC network.
There is not enough PUC horsepower in the world to supervise this
madness. The RBOCs are masters of this game and will ALWAYS win. All
of this push to allow them into information and other competitive
services is terribly wrong thinking. RBOCs do NOT have the public's
best interests at heart; they hold their stockholders' interests
paramount.  And that is the way it should be. So let us at least not
just bend over.


        John Higdon         |   P. O. Box 7648   |   +1 408 264 4115
    john@zygot.ati.com      | San Jose, CA 95150 |       M o o !
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 92 18:41:22 EDT
From: David Lesher <wb8foz@SCL.CWRU.Edu>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Airfone System Overload
Reply-To: wb8foz@skybridge.scl.cwru.edu  (David Lesher)
Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers - Beltway Annex
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 576, Message 9 of 11

> (The cordless GTE system can have as many as eight phones in the
> cabin, and they can all connect to the ACU.  But you can still only
> have four radios -- four calls per aircraft.)

But WAIT!

Can't I call my butler back in 48F from my seat here in first class?
Why not? Before they started letting ANYONE fly, I could send the
Stew^H^H^H^H sorry Flight Attendent, back. Now *I* have go back and
summon him. How degrading to have to walk into, ahem, Economy ...

Think! You could charge big money, and never use up any RF space at
all. Then the next step will be on-board 976 service. Hey, those long
flights across the pond are *boring* Folks ...  ;_}


wb8foz@skybridge.scl.cwru.edu
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 13:33:28 GMT
From: bc335@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Michael H. Riddle, Esq.)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: FCC Modem Tax Rumor on Compu$erve
Reply-To: bc335@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Michael H. Riddle, Esq.)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 580, Message 7 of 11

In a previous article, pdh@netcom.com (Phil Howard) says:

> [Moderator's Note: Well, here we go again. Someone had better get on
> the phone to CIS and ask them if they realize the problems caused by
> the spreading of this report and their request for help ... unless it
> really is true this time around. 

The way I read the Compuserve message in their GO FCC forum, and the
referenced discussion in GO TELECOM (not to be confused with the
TELECOM Digest), CIS is concerned about two separate issues.

First, although they fail to give the docket number, they appear to be
concerned with Docket 89-79, which had a "Final Rule" promulgated
about a year ago.  CIS appears to want their users to support the
Petition to Reconsider which has been filed by the industry group
ADAPSO, among others.
 
Second, CIS attributes to an unnamed FCC commissioner the thought that
some kind of a modem fee might be reasonable.  They also want to
attack that principle.
 
The troublesome thing about the CIS messages is that they have an
enormous lack of detail.  So much so, that I'm afraid most responses
generated will go immediately into the bit-bucket@black.hole.com.

I've left feedback to the CIS managers and hope to have more details
soon.


mike.riddle@inns.omahug.org    Nebraska Inns of Court
bc335@cleveland.freenet.edu    +1 402 593 1192 (Data/Fax)
Sysop of 1:285/27@Fidonet      V.32/V.42bis   /   G3 Fax


[Moderator's Note: Scott Loftesness, a Digest reader and one of the
sysops of the Telecom Forum on CIS put up the very message you talk
about in his forum over there recently. I've included it in another
message in this issue.   PAT]
From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Panasonic 12/32 - Any Experiences? Any Advice?
Date: 23 Jul 92 09:49:00 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 13 of 13

irving@happy-man.com (Irving_Wolfe) writes:

> What's the best thing to do?  Shall I invest in another DISA card for
> over $500?  Is the system really badly designed, so I should avoid
> throwing good money after bad and replace it with something more
> robust (and if so, what)?

Have you thought about having it repaired? You know Matsushita has an
extensive repair center network nationwide and they have very
reasonable "flat" repair rates. As far as the system design is
concerned, it is one of the best. I am shocked that you feel that
money spent on the system was "bad" and quite frankly of the many,
many such systems with which I am personally familiar (including my
own), none has experienced as much trouble as you describe.

I suggest you do a bit of shopping and then ask about replacing it
again. You will not find a more feature-laden system at anywhere near
the price. If yours were mine (and I was too lazy to get repair
service on it), I would replace any defective cards in a heartbeat.

But then, if you have more (MUCH more) money than sense, you might go
out and look at a Merlin :-(


        John Higdon         |   P. O. Box 7648   |   +1 408 264 4115
    john@zygot.ati.com      | San Jose, CA 95150 |       M o o !
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 07:09:05 GMT
From: Eli.Mantel@lambada.oit.unc.edu (Eli Mantel)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Cordless Phone Not Charging
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 583, Message 5 of 15

In article <telecom12.578.5@eecs.nwu.edu> MCMANGPH@NUSVM.BITNET (Ang
Peng Hwa) writes:

> My AT&T cordless phone is not charging and I'd appreciate any input.
> It was on for 20 days while I was on vacation. I then had to unplug it
> for another 20 days. When I recharged it, the thing just lit up the
> Battery Low light.

I have a several-year-old Uniden phone which exhibits similar
properties.  If I allow it to discharge fully, it will not recharge.
It seems that there is one cell which will not recharge while in
series with the other cells.  If I recharge that cell independently
(identified by its lack of voltage) then I can recharge the whole
battery pack successfully.


Eli Mantel (eli.mantel@bbs.oit.unc.edu)

   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 92 17:09:39 GMT
From: tedh@cylink.COM (Ted Hadley)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Uploading Speed-Dial Numbers
Organization: Cylink Corp.
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 589, Message 8 of 15

(Hopefully) simple question:

Is it possible to upload (i.e., extract) speed-dial numbers from a
telephone over the telephone wires? (I don't really care how, just if
it is possible).

We have mostly Panasonic EASA-PHONEs, model KX-T2355 and similar. Are
there any models/types of telephones to avoid because uploading is
possible? I prefer E-Mail on this subject to be sent to me directly.


Ted A. Hadley   tedh@cylink.COM   (408) 735-5847
Cylink Corporation, 310 N. Mary Ave., Sunnyvale, CA 94086  USA
All opinions expressed are my own, and probably not liked by my employer.
Date: 20 Jul 92 17:13:12 EDT
From: Alan Boritz <72446.461@CompuServe.COM>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Caller*ID Device: Name Delivery System
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 2 of 13

> [Moderator's Note:...People keep talking about Caller-ID as a way to
> screen or avoid answering unwanted calls, and they base their
> complaints about Caller-ID on the shortcomings they find in their
> perception of the purpose of number delivery. If they would realize
> the primary purpose is to identify and provide recourse to the
> subscriber of the calling telephone -- the person who legally remains
> responsible for the uses made of the instrument -- and only
> secondarily as a way to avoid unwanted calls, I suspect there would be
> fewer complaints.

Also, don't forget that with the implementation of Caller-ID "privacy"
the Caller-ID service subscriber is getting something of significantly
less value than that advertised.  And wouldn't the "privacy" feature
appear to reflect the advertising campaigns, about reducing prank
calls, as deceptive marketing practices?


Alan Boritz      72446.461@compuserve.com


[Moderator's Note: Not really, since blocked-ID calls are noted as
such and the recipient can deal with them accordingly.  Speaking of
blocked ID, I received a neat device today from someone which goes in
series with the phone to the wall-jack. Whenever the phone goes off
hook to make a call, this gizmo dials *67 automatically. Kind of
clever if you prefer to block your ID. I'll be reviewing it in detail
here at a later date.   PAT]
Date: 25 Jul 1992 18:59:54 GMT
From: stoll@ocf.Berkeley.EDU (Cliff Stoll)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Cracker Running Rampant!
Organization: U. C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 583, Message 1 of 15

Someone's breaking into a system and thumbing his nose at the system
managers.  They're apparently incompetent, which makes patching up the
damage difficult.

Roger Gonzalez says to completely wipe the system -- since the guy has
introduced new holes into the OS, everything has to be rebuilt from
scratch.

Darren Griffiths (dag@nasty.ossi.com) sez that's not enough: you've
got to call the police, perhaps the FBI and CERT.

Sadly, I agree.  Those with neither ethics nor responsibility
undermine the trust of our Internet community.


Cliff Stoll


[Moderator's Note: Well Cliff, the Internet community had a lot of
trust between people for many years until the BBS'er/malicious hacker
type person found out about it and began abusing the trust. It reminds
me of how ham radio *used* to be until the CB'ers started moving in.  PAT]
From: dwn@dwn.ccd.bnl.gov (Dave Niebuhr)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: 911 Run-Around
Date: 23 Jul 92 12:57:32 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 582, Message 9 of 13

In TELECOM Digest Volume 12 : Issue 578 I wrote:

> In TELECOM Digest Volume 12 : Issue 571 Carl Moore (VLD/VMB)
> <cmoore@BRL.MIL> writes:

>> Some phone books do list non-emergency numbers, and I take them to be
>> for matters which should get police attention but are not as urgent.

> The problem with my PD (Suffolk County, NY) is that if I wanted to
> make a non-emergency call but yet talk to a policeman/woman, I would
> be told to call 911 in about 90% of the instances.

[ ... An example I gave was deleted ...]

[ ... Moderator's  confirmation that this is not unique to one police
department deleted ...]

> Once every few months or so 911 officials complain about how
overloaded the system is, and why they are sometimes unable to answer
for six rings ... I wish our police department would settle this once
and for all, and make an official policy that everyone had to stick
to.  PAT]

My son-in-law is a dispather for the SCPD and this is one of his
biggest gripes.  He told me one day that his workload would be cut by
at least 50% if the precincts would handle the non-emergency calls
directly instead of referring the callers to 911.


Dave Niebuhr      Internet: niebuhr@bnl.gov / Bitnet: niebuhr@bnl
Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, NY 11973  (516)-282-3093