HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 92 17:09 PST
From: lauren@cv.vortex.com (Lauren Weinstein)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Reminder: AUDIOTEX Mailing List is Available
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 916, Message 10 of 11

Greetings.  The recent announcement of a "Touchtone" mailing list
suggests that I should remind the readership of the already
established Internet AUDIOTEX mailing list.

AUDIOTEX has been running since summer and already has a sizeable
readership representing an impressive cross-section of audiotex
manufacturers, developers, and users (quite low volume, but that's a
function of what people care to send in).  Below is an excerpt from
the AUDIOTEX information file:

>>> What is the AUDIOTEX mailing list? <<<

The AUDIOTEX mailing list is an Internet discussion forum for topic
areas relating to the field of "audiotex" systems.  "Audiotex" is a
general term covering the broad area of telephone-based information
systems of a wide variety of types.  The distinguishing characteristic
of an audiotex system is usually the use of either recorded or
synthesized voice to output information to the user, with either
telephone touch-tone keys or in some cases voice recognition systems
being used for input.  Voicemail systems, information
collection/retrieval systems, and entertainment services are all
examples of audiotex applications.

All aspects of audiotex systems, including currently deployed systems,
research and development issues, user interface design, applications
concepts, security considerations, etc. are valid topics for
discussion in this mailing list.

For more information regarding the AUDIOTEX mailing list, including
subscription instructions, ftp and archive information, etc., please
send a message with a BODY consisting of the line:

   information audiotex

to:

   audiotex-request@cv.vortex.com. 

Please be sure to include the "-request" on the address!  The subject
field of the message is ignored, and the information line should be
the first line in the body of the message.  Hope to see you on
AUDIOTEX.


 --Lauren--
From: johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us (John R. Levine)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Good Opportunity For Fraud
Date: 3 Jan 93 15:55:43 GMT
Organization: I.E.C.C.
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 13, Issue 6, Message 2 of 10

> Or do the ATMs check with the central computer each time (hope the
> traffic is encrypted.)

Of course they do.  How else could they know whether there was any
money in your account?  Some early ATMs were standalone or
semi-standalone with lists of bad account numbers downloaded into
them, so the cards they used either had the PIN on the magstripe or
computed the PIN from the account number.  These days, all machines
are online (they look to the host like 3278 terminals) so there's no
need to have the PIN on the card.

Whether they encrypt the traffic is a good question.  Banks are big
believers in security through obscurity so they get very touchy
whenever you ask a technical question about their ATMs.  I've even
been asked to move out of the line of sight when I was standing near
an ATM in the bank lobby as they were servicing it.  In fairness, I
suppose they wanted to be sure I didn't see them dial the combination
lock on the ATM's safe.


Regards,

John Levine, johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnl


[Moderator's Note: But please note there is also something on the card
which provides for a so-called 'overnight limit'. I have a Cash Station 
card connected with CIRRUS. I also have a 'Banking Card' from First
National Bank in Chicago which functions as a debit card. It has a
Master Card logo on it and can be used wherever credit cards are used,
except that it makes a direct debit to my checking account. It is
also hooked into CIRRUS.  On occassion -- but it is growing more and
more rare -- the network will be 'down'. When this is the case, a cash
machine will give me up to $100 *because I ask for it*, without any
verification. Once the network is back up, the transaction will be
processed when the tapes are updated that night. If there is not
enough money in the account, and either one party or the other gets
paid, rest assured the bank recovers their money first. A Cash Station
transaction which itself cannot be cleared later from lack of funds is
a Very Bad Thing, and that card will have a hold on it not only until
the money gets deposited to clear it but until 'someone' calls the
bank collection department to plead their case. First offense, okay;
second or third offense (of causing an overdraft because Cash Station
was down when you took the money you didn't have) is Bad News.   PAT]
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 13:34:53 -0500
From: Mike Arena <arena@credtech.com>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: What Are the Prefix "Codes" For Tone Dialing?
Reply-To: arena@credtech.com (Mike Arena)
Organization: Credit Technologies Inc.
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 928, Message 11 of 13

I have heard that there are codes with which you can precede dial
strings so that you can disable call-waiting, etc.

What are these codes?  Are they carrier dependent?


Michael James Arena	Credit Technologies Inc.
arena@credtech.com	281 Winter Street, Suite #100
(617) 890-2000 x237	Waltham, MA  02154


[Moderator's Note: Features like call-waiting and number blocking are
local telco things and have nothing to do with long distance carriers.
Since we (mostly) cannot choose local carriers yet, the codes are not
'carrier dependent'. The ones I know of are:

*70 suspend call waiting for the duration of the call which follows.
If you have three-way calling, you can flash and insert this in the
middle of an incoming call as well, automatically returning to the
call in progress.

*67 block (or unblock, in other words, change the default) of number
identification (blocking) sent to the number being called. If you wish
to use *67 and *70 on the same call, you can do so; I suggest using
the *67 FIRST, since in some generics it is ignored if it is not the
very first thing you dial; Lord knows you could probably deal with a
call waiting tone you did not expect with more ease than you could
giving away your number to someone you did not think you were giving
it to.

*72 followed by seven or ten digits forwards calls to the number
dialed.   *73 standing alone (dial it, then disconnect) cancels call
forwarding. 

There are others:

*69 return last call -received- .   *66 repeat dial last call -placed-.
*86 or *89 erases the queue of returns/repeats. (Either code cancels both.)
*60 activate call screening 
*80 deactivate call screening
*65 turn on delivery of caller id (if you are subscribed)
*85 turn off delivery of caller id (why would anyone want to do this?)
*74 plus seven or ten digits programs eight number speed dialing.
*75 plus seven or ten digits programs 32 number speed dialing. 

There are still others; the above are the most common. In most places,
an eleven, i.e. '11' can be substituted for the *. In other places,
they don't use the *, but they put a # after the two digits. In some
places, silence is the delimiter; you can dial 70 and then just sit
there waiting; after a few seconds you'll get the burps and a fresh
dial tone to continue with the string.

Finally, the # acts as a carriage return; if short cut dialing is
possible but many be ambiguous, adding # to the end hastens the
process of sending the call on its way, i.e. international dialing of
variable length numbers and using just the calling card PIN when
calling the number to which the card is assigned. Ditto, 0# tends to
get the operator faster without having to wait for the zero plus
process to time out.    Is that good enough for starters?   PAT]
Date: Sat, 02 Jan 93 9:28:24 MST
From: Steve Howard <breck1!steveh@csn.org>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Loaned Phones/Courtesy Phones (Was AOS Payphones @#$%%%$#)
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 13, Issue 4, Message 3 of 12

In article <telecom12.921.4@eecs.nwu.edu> Bob_Frankston@frankston.com
writes: 

>> COCOTs have.  People who rent out their homes or condos have similar
>> issues with loaning their phones to others.

> Things you can currently do:

> 1) Ask for a toll restriction. In one place I had to pay a one time
>    charge. In another there was a monthly charge. (Not altogether
>    sure about which was which but I think the monthly charger was
>    Illinois Bell, the other one Southwestern Bell.  Other differences
>    were being able to reach Operator.

> Of course a toll restricted phone is of somewhat limited utility but a
> lot better than having driving to a payphone for even local calls.
> Incoming long-distance calls are of course not restricted.  And if you
> happen to have a calling card you can even get direct dial rates (from
> AT&T at least) if you tell the LD operator (800 numbers can be
> dialed) that you are at a toll-restricted phone.

A solution that I recommend to some of my clients is to: (1) order
selective class of call screening from the LEC (this is toll
restriction with 0+ and no 10XXX), (2) Contact an IXC that offers
toll-restriction, forced authorization code validation, and commission
on 0+ calls, (3) have your line PICed to the carrier found in step 2,
and (4) order collect and third party block.

Under this scenario, your transient guests can place calls (on which
you make commission), you are protected from toll charges, and the
owner/authorized persons can make calls at direct dial rates by using
their authorization code.


Steve Howard         Breckenridge Ski Resort      steveh@paradise.breck.com
Disclaimer = The opinions above do not necessarily represent those of
my employer.
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 93 12:31:33 -0500
From: Doctor Math <root@sanger.chem.nd.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Format of ZIP Code Bars on Envelopes
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 13, Issue 7, Message 6 of 13

say,halim s (ssay@prefect.cc.bellcore.com) wrote:

> Does anyone know or could you tell me a reference for this "standard"?
> I am sure some address generator software would have this algorithm.

I have a postscript implementation of the algorithm; I used it to make
a label generator for Avery 5262 label stock. It's a little hacked -
for some reason it won't work with the zip code for my grandparents'
house ... if there's interest I can submit it to the Digest.
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 92 15:56:00 -0600
From: bill.garfield@yob.sccsi.com (Bill Garfield)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Cellular Rates in South Bend
Reply-To: bill.garfield@yob.sccsi.com (Bill Garfield)
Organization: Ye Olde Bailey BBS - Houston, TX - 713-520-1569
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 918, Message 3 of 9

Our contributor root@sanger.chem.nd.edu writes;

> Activation      $25
> Detail Billing  $1/month (Cell One)
>                 $2/month (Centel)

> base            'free' minutes          extra minutes
> $24.95          30                      $0.60
> $59.95          90                      $0.30
> $99.95 *        240                     $0.20

Other stuff deleted for brevity ...

And our esteemed Moderator's comments (also edited for brevity)

> With only two, there might as well be only one ... it is very easy for
> each of them to keep track of what the other one is doing and work
> with each other under certain unspoken gentlemen's agreements.

I think it must also have a LOT to do with the size of the market
area.  We have two cellular providers here in Houston (4,000,000 +
population) and the cellular rates offered by GTE Mobilnet and Houston
Cellular, while virtually identical, seem to be _much_ cheaper than
those in smaller towns.  One would think it the goal of these two
cellular systems to put a cellular phone into the hands of every human
being.

For example, today, in Houston, a Motorola 8000 handheld will cost you
exactly one dollar. Assuming you work for a company with a lot of
cellular phones and can therefore qualify for the "company rate" (both
providers allow this), a one year contract goes for roughly $24/mo
which includes detail billing. No "free" minutes, but air time runs
$0.23 peak, $0.11 off-peak and something absurd like $0.04 midnight to
6 AM.  The service area of both providers is simply enormous. And so
inexpensive is it, in fact, that folks in outlying areas (outside the
"core" of SWBT's toll-free service area) who frequently place toll
calls into the core, can use cellular service as cheap or cheaper than
subscribing to the landline carrier.


Ye Olde Bailey BBS   713-520-1569 (V.32bis) 713-520-9566 (V.32bis) 
  Houston,Texas          yob.sccsi.com       Home of alt.cosuard
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 09:50:00 +0000 
From: Gregg (G.) Woodcock <woodcock@bnr.ca>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Texans Entitled to <=$1500 Damages For Computerized Calls! 
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 914, Message 5 of 14

Under a new law that just passed in Texas, consumers are allowed to
collect up to $1500 in fines agains any company who initaites a phone
call with a non-human and can be identified (and who does not have
prior permission to contact you).  Pollsters and non-profit groups are
exempt.  Now if we just had CallerID we could all get rich!!


THANX...Gregg   woodcock@bnr.ca   day 214.684.7380   night 214.530.2495
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 93 00:04 PST
From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: SS7 Links Fron CA to NY via AT&T?
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 6, Message 7 of 10

Bob Yazz <yazz@oolong.la.locus.com> writes:

> You don't seriously believe such a state of affairs will stand, do you
> John?  The PUC will order that numbers not be delivered, period.  I
> can even see the potential for lawsuits against Pac Bell over this.

But the PUC cannot order this, just as it cannot prevent any carrier
from passing realtime ANI to end users. In SS7, the calling number is
ALWAYS transmitted as part of the data packet, although there is a bit
that identifies it as a "blocked" number if such is the case. First,
why would Pac*Bell even care about blocking if it does not trade in
CNID? Second, what the end telco does about the "block bit" is up to
the telco in the destination state. The PUC has no jurisdiction in
this matter whatsoever. And remember, the PUC has not prohibited CNID.
It has just placed what Pac*Bell considers to be unreasonable
conditions on its offering. So Pac*Bell does not offer it. But the PUC
has no authority to tamper with the SS7 protocol, particularly on
interstate calls.

Remember, the phone numbers of Californians are appearing right and
left at locations both within and outside the state via ANI. Just as
the PUC cannot do anything about this it cannot do anything about
similar transmission via SS7. The PUC is only concerned about the
feature known as "Caller-ID" as offered by LECs to customers in
California. All else is outside the PUC's purview. The fact of the
matter is that callers from California will have their phone numbers
displayed wherever CNID is offered in other states, like it or not.

Oddly enough, if a California caller dials *67 before placing a long
distance call, the block bit will be set and there is a good chance
that the display at the called telephone will say "Private Number" or
whatever it is they say for blocked CNID. But most callers will not
know this, and Pac*Bell is under no obligation to educate them.
Pac*Bell is not offering CNID and therefore not required to meet any
of the conditions for that service as mandated by the PUC.

> Sounds like an incentive to switch to a long distance company that
> does not use SS7.  How do you think AT&T might feel about this?

Switching to an IEC that does not use SS7 is a temporary reprieve at
best; within several years calls will be sent no other way. And
remember, there is still ANI. In this area, the Big Three are all
using SS7 to Pac*Bell.


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: 2 Jan 1993 20:50:06 GMT
From: rees@dabo.citi.umich.edu (Jim Rees)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: More Harassement Questions
Reply-To: Jim.Rees@umich.edu
Organization: University of Michigan CITI
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 13, Issue 1, Message 7 of 13

Suppose someone calls me every morning, lets the phone ring once, then
hangs up, so that I never actually pick up the phone.  Is that still
considered harassement?

If someone calls and lets the phone ring only once, will Caller-ID
still be delivered?

I'm asking for a friend.  My own ringer is on a timer, so I don't hear
it early in the morning.  Two of my lines don't even ring at all.


[Moderator's Note: Tell your friend that everywhere I know, deliberatly
causing the telephone of another person to ring for no purpose other
than to harass or annoy is against the law. There need not be any
actual conversation. Since Caller-ID is delivered between the first
and second rings, it may or may not be delivered on such a call. Here
in Chicago, it seems the data is sent immediatly on the end of the
first ring, and most of the time when I've gotten 'one-ringers' the
number has gotten here before the originating CO had a chance to tell
my CO to disconnect the call, etc. I think it would be worth a shot to
learn the identity of the caller; your friend might have to wait for a
few calls to have the two CO's out of synch with each other just
enough to allow your friend's CO to slide the information out to him.
Then, he'll need to observe this a few more times just to assure
himself that it is a deliberate, calculated activity. Won't the caller
be surprised!  Actually I think 'return last call received' -- *69 --
might be even more reliable than Caller-ID, because once the caller
hits your friend's CO, his number *is* in the buffer, and even if the
CO does not get around to sending the ID in time (before the caller
breaks the connection), causing the ID not to show up or to show up
with errors in it, etc ... he'll still be able to call back.   PAT]
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 92 14:12:29 GMT
From: gary.w.sanders@att.com
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Texans Entitled to <=$1500 Damages For Computerized Calls! 
Organization: AT&T
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 918, Message 9 of 9

In article <telecom12.914.5@eecs.nwu.edu> Gregg (G.) Woodcock
<woodcock@bnr.ca> writes:

> Under a new law that just passed in Texas, consumers are allowed to
> collect up to $1500 in fines agains any company who initaites a phone
> call with a non-human and can be identified (and who does not have

Does it specifically say 'company', or anyone who dials your number
with a non-human attendant? Get rich in Texas, publish your phone
number a some super-duper BBS then wait for the calls to come in ...
cha-ching!

I also wonder what "non-human" means ... can I have a computer call
and as long as a human is monitoring the call this is legal or does a
human need to be at the from end of the call?


Gary W. Sanders (N8EMR)  gary.w.sanders@att.com		
AT&T Bell Labs   614-860-5965 


[Moderator's Note: Publishing your number in a BBS listing then
'waiting for the calls to come in' would not benefit you anything
other than a lot of grief. The intent is there must be *no basis* for
the calls; your number appearing in such a list would provide the
basis for such calls to be made. I think the intent also is to exclude
from punishment those 'accidental or occassional calls' which a
mis-programmed fax machine or computer modem might cause. The intent
of the legislation is to prevent the deliberate automated-dialing of
calls to people who do not want them. I suppose a BBS operator who
refused to correct his listings or his uucp software after being
notified of the problem could be punished ... but who in the world
would refuse to make such corrections?  If someone as a sick joke
published your number in a BBS list, your recourse would be against
the submitter and possibly the editor/publisher of the list; but not
against the caller, and not under the law being discussed.   PAT]
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 17:58:26 -0500
From: Dave.Leibold@f730.n250.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Dave Leibold)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Telecomics (Peanuts 1st Jan 1993)
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 13, Issue 1, Message 13 of 13

The Peanuts comic appearing today (1st January 1993) featured a
telephone conversation between Peppermint Patty and Charlie Brown as
follows:

Peppermint Patty to Charlie Brown:

"Hi, Chuck ... just calling to wish you a Happy New Year ... do you
love me, Chuck?"

Charlie Brown in reply:

"I'm sorry, but your call cannot go through ... please hang up, and do
not dial again ..."

 ...

On a loosely related note, the Adam comic that appears in {The Toronto
Star} now has a grainier appearance, with digital style contours on
the artwork. The era of syndicators faxing those cartoons to
newspapers is well underway.


Dave Leibold - via FidoNet node 1:250/98
INTERNET: Dave.Leibold@f730.n250.z1.FIDONET.ORG


[Moderator's Note: Some of the cartoonists have even made reference to
their use of the fax machine: consider 'Family Circus', where in one
episode, by artist/author Bill Keane (whose cartoons deal with his
family and himself) the picture is a picture of Keane himself as he
draws the cartoon and a caption telling his son Billy to 'hurry up and
get this in the fax machine to the Syndicate right away, or it will be
too late for the Sunday papers ...'  :) PAT]
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 92 18:39:08 GMT
From: ssay@prefect.cc.bellcore.com (say,halim s)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Format of ZIP Code Bars on Envelopes
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 928, Message 7 of 13

Hi there,

I would like to find out the encoding for the ZIP code bars on USPS
mail envelopes.

I could figure out this much:

Ones are long bars, zeros are short bars.  Start and end with a one.
Each digit has five characters.  I could figure out what zero through
nine correspond to.

The only remaining part is the check digit at the end.  Only one check
digit is used both for five digit regular ZIP code and nine digit
extended code.

Now my question is: What is the encoding/decoding rule for this single
check digit?

Does anyone know or could you tell me a reference for this "standard"?
I am sure some address generator software would have this algorithm.

Thanks and my best wishes for a Happy New Year!


SABiT   ssay@cc.bellcore.com