HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 92  04:07:45 EDT
From: FZC@CU.NIH.GOV
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Why 'Die Hard II' Used Pac*Bell Pay Phones
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 701, Message 8 of 10

In earlier messages, people were talking about the errors in {Die Hard
II} and one in particular -- I noticed it myself -- was the {Pacific
Bell} pay phones at "Washington Dulles Airport."

I think they would have had to use Pacific Bell phones or nobody would
have believed the film at all.  Dulles Airport is not located within
Washington DC, it is located 40 miles away in Dulles Virginia, at the
edge of Fairfax County.  It is within the local calling area for
Washington DC and vicinity, the local carrier is not the one for the
rest of the area, C&P Telephone Company (of VA/DC/MD) but Continental
Telephone Company of Virginia.

I am not sure, but I think part of this organization was sold to GTE.

Would anyone believe that someone could actually {use} phone service
provided by GTE?

In which case people would *know* the whole movie was a fake!  :)

Opinions not necessarily those of the owner of this account.


Paul Robinson, TDARCOS@MCIMAIL.COM


[Moderator's Note: What a low blow! What a rude thing to say!  :)
When the movie first came out I asked someone what it was about and
they told me it was about a guy who had a heart attack and died during
sex.  :)  PAT]
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 92 05:02 GMT
From: Guy J. Sherr <0004322955@mcimail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Illinois Bell Now Allows Remote Call Forwarding Changes
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 698, Message 11 of 12

Bell Atlantic has had Remote Call Forwarding in Maryland (that's C&P
of Maryland) for quite some time.  Since I am a resident of DC though,
it was not offered to me until this month.

In this neck of the woods, it runs $.74/month more than regular Call
Forward and the two services are mutually exclusive.  To get it, I
broke up the service package that included forwarding to get this
product (it is known as Ultra Call Forward here).  It is something of
a nuisance to have to dial a ten digit number, a four digit PIN, 72#
and the target number when I am at home.  It does not ring the new
station, and it works right away.

Also, there is a different access number if I am calling in long
distance.  In this area, it is getting really hard to know which is
which before I get a bill ...
From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: US Phone System in 1971 (as Portrayed by Hollywood)
Date: 13 Sep 92 17:54:00 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 710, Message 10 of 11

David E A Wilson <david@cs.uow.edu.au> writes:

> 1) Did a station to station call differ in any way from an operator
> assisted call?

"Dialed" has always been distingished from "operator-assisted" calls
on telephone bills. It was in the late sixties that "dialed" calls
carried a lower rate than "operator assisted" ones which has continued
to this day. Back then it made sense; today it is a scam.

> 2) The murderer had to stop the victim from using the operator to make
> the call to Los Angeles, instead telling him to direct dial it
> using the 213 area code. Was direct dial that new and unusual back in
> 1971?

Yes and no. Direct nationwide dialing was introduced in the early
fifties but it caught on slowly. When I lived briefly in southern
California in 1956-1958 with my family (I was, after all, a kid), DDD
was completely unknown (we were served by GTE, or "General" as it was
known then). When we moved to San Jose in 1958, our phone could dial
nationwide (what a fun toy!) and that service had apparently been
available for a couple of years.

DDD did not become widely available in the US until the mid-1960's.
After many decades of using operators to complete long distance calls,
it is understandable that even in 1971 DDD was still a slight novelty.
But the main thing here is the importance to the plot. The murderer
wanted a record of a "dialed" call that would prove that the caller
had indeed made the call from the cabin outpost.

> 3) Would any record of a direct-dial call be kept so that the police
> could check the source of the victim's final call (knowing only the
> destination) or could they have got it later on when they suspected
> the murderer (and thus had a good idea of the source)?

The billing records are always available to law enforcement. This is
one reason Germany and other countries claim to have no billing
detail: to prevent government snooping. In the plot of the movie, you
will recall that the murderer made a followup call from a paystation
to account for that call from the cabin to the victim's wife.
Remember, the murderer claimed to have been the one to make the dialed
call.  The whole point was to establish that the murderer was
supposedly a hundred miles away at the time of the crime.

No records are kept of INCOMING calls to telephones. This has only
been recently technically possible, but even so it is not done at this
time.


        John Higdon         |   P. O. Box 7648   |   +1 408 264 4115
    john@zygot.ati.com      | San Jose, CA 95150 |       M o o !
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 92 18:54:29 -0400
From: shri%legato@cs.umass.edu (H.Shrikumar{shri@ncst.in})
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Monitoring of Broadcasts
Reply-To: shri@legato.CS.UMASS.EDU (H.Shrikumar)
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 694, Message 2 of 13

lchiu@animal.gcs.co.nz (Laurence Chiu) writes:

>> Then I wonder if those laws apply in England. For those who are not
 ...
>> the cell-phone frequencies.  The last news report I saw indicated that
>> the UK authorities had decided not to take any action against him.

In article <telecom12.671.7@eecs.nwu.edu> Charlie.Mingo@p4218.f70.
n109.z1.fidonet.org (Charlie Mingo) writes:

> From what I gather from the British papers, there is no prohibition
> on eavesdropping on cellular or cordless calls.  There is some sort of
> restriction on "using" material heard over the air, but it is not
> being enforced in this case.
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

> British laws concerning wiretapping in general seem to be rather
> loose.  Recently, members of the press recorded conversations between
> the Minister of National Heritage (David Mellior) and his mistress, by
> tapping into an extension socket at the flat the mistress was using.
> They apparently had the *landlord's* permission, but not that of
> either party to the conversation.  According to the {Sunday Times},
> this activity broke no laws.
                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^

   Funny, and makes me provoke a comment ...

   Not too long ago, perhaps a year and a half at the most, someone
most likely a British, had described the UK as a "police state" when
discussing (if I remember right) "wireless waves coming in my own yard
anyway".

   Has *the* Great Britain changed ?? :-)


shrikumar (shri@legato.cs.umass.edu)
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 92 12:28:47 GMT
From: vixen!jadams@uunet.UU.NET (26070-adams)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Volume of Telecom Question
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 695, Message 11 of 14

In article <telecom12.689.1@eecs.nwu.edu>, stapleton@misvax.mis.
arizona.edu (Dr. Ross Alan Stapleton) writes:

> I've seen some overview articles (there was a two-pager in the
> {Whole Earth Review} a few issues back), but could someone from this
> most august forum provide some referenced figures (or pointers to
> where I could find them) on:

>   - Growth in number of domestic calls completed (US);

>   - Growth in number of international calls (either with the US and
>     rest of the world, or total internationally, or both);

>   - Growth in bandwidth or calls completed to interesting places like
>     Moscow, or Cuba, or Iran, etc.

An excellent source I used (unfortunately, its a book) for a course I
developed on the business aspects of telephony was a book published by
AT&T entitled "The World's Telephones".  It is published yearly (Most
good libraries keep back issues so your information should be easy to
extrapolate) and has enormous amounts of easily understandable
statistics ... precious little telephoneeze!


Jack (John) Adams		| Bellcore RRC 4B-259
(908) 699-3447 {Voice}		| (908) 336-2871 {Facsimile}
jadams@vixen.bellcore.com	| kahuna@attmail.com
From: steven@alchemy.uucp
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: GTE Community Involvment
Date: 11 Sep 92 05:11:36 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 699, Message 8 of 11

Well Mr. Higdon you failed to check your facts on that one.

For years GTE has supplied its people to work with the LA Raiders on
its Food Day game. Each year well over 500 GTE people are at the GTE
sponsered GTE West Golf Classic which is used to support a shelter for
battered wives. It sponsers Public TV programs and many other local
community events in its service areas. If you were to contact your
area public affairs office they could tell you more. 

We were also involved with over 1000 volunteers in the 1984 Olympics
in LA. We were at the Super Bowl in Pasadena and will be there again
for public service. 'GTE People' is not very well known. It is the
volunteer group over 1500 strong within the company volunteering when
needed. Maybe we should blow our horns more often, but we are more
interested in just doing our community service and not caring if
anyone really knows about it since we do and that is all that really
counts.


Steven H. Lichter   GTE Calif COEI
Mad Dog (Steven)             Sysop: Apple Elite II -- an Ogg-Net BBS
UUCP: steven@alchemy.UUCP    (714) 359-5338  1200-2400 bps 8N1
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 92 02:27 GMT
From: Jeff Garber <0005075968@mcimail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Weird Intercept
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 697, Message 11 of 13

In article <telecom12.681.2@eecs.nwu.edu> Mike Morris wrote:

> Also 714-259-0020 thru 0029 are nonbilling intercepts.

These numbers go into the Centrex at Pacific Bell's Edinger (Tustin,
CA) offices. These three buildings contain a central office (Santa
Ana-Tustin), a business office, an engineering department, and two
separate TOPS (operator) offices (Tustin I and Tustin II).

I was a TOPS operator in Tustin II in 1988. I believe Tustin I handles
calls from 213 and 818 (and now probably 310) area codes, while Tustin
II handles 714 calls from LATA 730 (Los Angeles) and 619 calls from
LATA 730 and LATA 732 (San Diego). The interesting thing about LEC
operators handling calls from different LATAs is that obviously they
cannot connect calls between the two LATAs. Often I'd tell a Los
Angeles area customer that San Diego was out of my service area and
then turn around and complete calls within San Diego for other
customers.

Since 619 exists in both LATAs, it was difficult to decide if calls
within 619 were in the same or different LATAs, and if calls from 714
to 619 and vice-versa crossed LATA lines. The TOPS terminals, of
course, wouldn't allow calls to be completed between the LATAs. I
wonder if any other LECs have the same operators serving multiple
LATAs or if this is fairly uncommon.

Note: I no longer work for Pacific Bell (so don't blame ME :)


Jeff Garber <MrFone@mcimail.com>   My opinions are just that.
Date: Mon, 07 Sep 92 11:27:26 MST
From: kph@cisco.com
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Calling 911 From a Cellular Phone
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 691, Message 3 of 13

> Incidentally, the rep that programmed my phone said that even if the
> service is disconnected, 911 calls still go through. I never had my
> service disconnected so I don't know if he was right or not.

I am an A carrier subscriber, and once needed to call 911 in an area
with only B carrier service. I switched the phone to B and called 911,
and the call went through without any problems.

So, this is probably true, unless there is some way to "black-list" an
ESN so that it can't be used at all.


Kevin
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 92 16:35:29 PDT
From: HOWARD PIERPONT <pierpont@snax.enet.dec.com>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Calling Card Changes for SNET in CT
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 694, Message 1 of 13

The August issue of SNETnews "A telecommunications newsletter for
Connecticut residents" has an article under the heading "Free for
fall" SNET Calling Cards.

Starting in September, all customers who have ever ordered SNET
Calling Cards will receive new cards in the mail. This scheduled
reissuance will be completed by November.

Changes in the Cards. A few changes have been made recently:

  - Only a four-digit security number appears on the card. Your phone
number is no longer on it, so it's more secure to use and carry.

  - There's a new 800 information number on the back of the card for
customers with questions on how to use the SNET Calling Card.

  - The magnetic strip on the back is fully activated.

Easy-to-use. The SNET Calling Card is still easy to use wherever you
go because it's based on your easy-to-remember home phone number AND
it requires no complicated access codes when calling in North America.
Look for the new card in the mail soon.

Wellllllllll.  If someone steals my wallet, they will know my address.
Seems that they can call DA and get the home number tied to the card.
It will slow down the shoulder surfers. My dad likes having a card
that only has four numbers on it.

If the mag stip is "fully activated" seems that the person who should
not have your card could just pass the card thru a mag reader phone
and still get through.


Howard Pierpont   DEC, Hudson MA   Standard disclaimers apply.


[Moderator's Note: But if a person stole your wallet wouldn't they
likely have your address anyway from your driver's license and other
documents in your wallet? And with the old telephone cards showing
your full phone number they did not have to search out anything. So
what is the solution?    PAT]
Date: 8 Sep 92 20:35:16 GMT
From: backon@vms.huji.ac.il
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Disaster Reporting On Usenet
Organization: The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 698, Message 7 of 12

In article <telecom12.690.4@eecs.nwu.edu>, tls@panix.com (Thor
Lancelot Simon) w rites:

> Perhaps it's worth bringing this up somehow with an appropriate
> organization such as the Red Cross?  What'd it take, a 386 box in
> their national headquarters to run things from?  Probably worth the
> money!

> [Moderator's Note: Actually, it would be quite easy. If someone wants
> to donate the 386 and the required UUCP software, I'd set it up in the
> Chicago Red Cross or else my own office.  PAT]

The National Headquarters of the American Red Cross in Alexandria VA
seems to be on the Internet as: red-cross.org

If I'm not mistaken, I think there *is* a BITNET/Internet moderated
list on network emergency response planning called HELPNET which I
think is available from Listserv@ndsuvm1


Josh    backon@VMS.HUJI.AC.IL
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 92 18:21:04 EDT
From: dwn@dwn.ccd.bnl.gov (Dave Niebuhr)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Exchange 516-711
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 711, Message 4 of 8

I just finished checking the Verification Test Number for several
Hicksville, New York (Long Island) exchanges and found that 711 is a
valid exchange in the 516 Area Code.

New York Telephone hasn't announced via their directory that it is
being used and I have absolutely no idea as to why the test number
recording would state that it is an exchange along with several
others.

I tried this several times and each try had the same results.

 
Dave Niebuhr      Internet: niebuhr@bnl.gov / Bitnet: niebuhr@bnl
Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, NY 11973  (516)-282-3093
From: UK84@DKAUNI2.BITNET (Juergen Ziegler)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: An Interesting Advertisment
Date: 15 Sep 92 07:12:00 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 712, Message 9 of 14

Hi TD readers,
 
I read the following ad in the German {Forbes} 8/92 issue on page 117:

Free Phone
Weltweit kostenlos telefonieren  = worldwide tollfree calling
Mediumvalue Ltd.
Mannheimerstr. 22
6836 Ottersheim
06202/51509
                           ----------
 
A lot of the older TD readers will probably remember the same type of
advertisment same 20 years ago when "telephone consultants" sold their
customers inexpensive telephone services.
 
History seems to rerun again. Actually TELEKOM, the German telephone
operator has tremendous problems with phreaking. Just recently there
was a report on TV about this problem. TELEKOM estimates the the total
damages (loss) is around 20 millions DM ($15 million) a week.
Esspecially their toll-free customers are reluctant to offer toll-free
numbers to their foreign offices, since such numbers could be used for
fraudulent theft of service and I could easily happen that those
companies would be liable for those calls, since TELEKOM has no
reliable method of detecting phreaking.
 
There is an intersiting article about "blue boxing" in the November
1990 issue if {IEEE Spectrum}. Very informative and very interesting
to read. ("The great blue box phone frauds" by David Flory)
 
Disclaimer: I have no intention to get big trouble for stupid phone
            calls I do not need. So this message does not encourage
            anybody to get the services of the mentioned company. I am
            not affiliated with that company either.

 
Juergen
Date: Sun, 06 Sep 92 02:16:26 EDT
From: kday@entropy.mcds.com (Kevin Day)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Call Forwarding Help Needed For Red Cross Office
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 687, Message 5 of 9

The local Red Cross office would like to add a fax number. The problem
is, they can't afford to add a fourth line simply for a fax machine.
Their current setup is:

line 1 (main number, published)
line 2 (hunts with line 1)
line 3 (forwarded to answering service)

When someone calls line 1 outside of office hours, they are instructed
by an answering machine) to call line 3 if they have an emergency.  A
few years ago, when someone was in the office they would disable
forwarding and use line 3 for inbound calls also, but something broke
in the telco and this no longer works.  (The local telco is United
Telephone - draw your own conclusions ;-) So, when someone calls line
3, the office gets a short half-ring and the call bounces out to the
answering service. Call forward-no answer is available from the telco.

What they want to do is use the line 3 for fax AND emergency calls
(the line is almost always unused right now) 24 hours a day.  Is this
possible?  I haven't come up with a way of doing this.  The only idea
I have is to get a fax/voice switch on line 2, and publish that as the
fax number, but the fax switch would have to work well (they get a lot
of traffic for a small town).

Does anyone have any ideas?  The first scenerio would be preferred,
but if that isn't possible (I don't think so) then could someone
recommend a fax/voice switch (remember they're on a tight budget).


Thanks.

kday@entropy.mcds.com
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 18:39:26 GMT
From: tonyg@spock.retix.com (Tony "Salty Dog" Goulding)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: How do You Pronounce "#"
Organization: Retix, Santa Monica CA
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 695, Message 13 of 14

In article <telecom12.684.8@eecs.nwu.edu> rjhawkin@mothra.syr.edu (The
Virtual Kid) writes:

>> The # sign?  The POUND sign!  <grin>

No, this is a pound sign...     _
			       / \
                               |
			      -|-
			       |
			       |
			     __|__

What you're referring to is a 'hash' symbol...


Tony [All views expressed are mine - if anyone is to blame its me]
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 18:09:59 GMT
From: Bruce@Pixar.com (Bruce Perens)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Utility Meter Reading Switch
Organization: Pixar -- Point Richmond, California
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 713, Message 9 of 16

Yesterday, I spent a few minutes an electric utility trade show in San
Francisco.

Every one of the exhibitors was showing something related to power
meters. Most interesting from a telecom standpoint was a company that
sold a data switch similar to a Voice-Fax-Modem switch, but for use to
share a voice telephone line with a data-collecting power meter.

These data-collecting meters are used by utilities that bill
differently for peak and off-peak usage. The switch connects to the
phone line before the telephone instrument. When the utility wishes to
read the meter, they send DTMF down the phone line _without_ringing_,
and the meter picks up the line. They need a special arrangement with
the telephone company to do this. The meter downloads its data, and
can also be _programmed_. If a telephone instrument is picked up or
the CO has a call for that line, the data connection is dropped
immediately and re-attempted later on.

This sounds like the old "Harmonica Bug". It's interesting that COs
can provide such a facility -- a voice path to a particular line
without ringing. The potential for abuse is obvious -- it would be
trivial to send dial tone down such a connection and provide "Trojan
Horse" phone service.  There's also the potential for very detailed
records of electricity use on a minute-to-minute basis and the use of
such records for surveillance.

The data-collecting meters can also be manually read. They have a LED
and photodetector behind the glass seal, and the meter-reader uses a
hand-held computer with a similar optical transceiver to read the
meter. This provides an intermittent-use connection with reasonably
high bandwidth that is not vulnerable to contamination from liquids
and grit. I wonder if these meters are vulnerable to power-factor
abuse, or if the internal computer can detect such abuse.


Bruce Perens