Subject: TELECOM Digest V4 #119 From: telecom@ucbvax.ARPA Path: watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!telecom Organization: University of California at Berkeley Date: Thu, 15-Nov-84 15:20:24 EST Sender: daemon@ucbvax.ARPA From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) TELECOM Digest Wed, 14 Nov 84 16:59:28 EST Volume 4 : Issue 119 Today's Topics: The LA BBS (Mog-ur) case BBS responsibility Two Sides to the Bulletin Board TARIFFS ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 13 Nov 84 02:07 EST (Tue) From: _Bob To: mcb%lll-tis.arpa@lll-tis (Michael C. Berch) Cc: telecom@bbncca Subject: The LA BBS (Mog-ur) case From: mcb%lll-tis.arpa at lll-tis (Michael C. Berch) The real question raised by the Mog-ur case (regardless of its specific outcome) is whether we want, as a matter of public poli- cy, to hold BBS sysops (and others in similar situations, includ- ing, for example, commercial services [The Source, CompuServe] and those who post and redistribute Internet/Usenet digest) CRIM- INALLY responsible for failing to detect and remove messages pro- posing illegal activities. Simply proposing criminal activity probably cannot be sanctioned unless the proposal is followed by an overt act. The difficulty is specific intent: How to prove I meant it when I said "Let's steal the Hope diamond." Innocently (or even negligently) transmitting such proposals can probably not be criminally punished either. Mog-Ur is this kind of specific intent problem. The substantive crime (if any) is a species of theft. As, I see the keys in your parked Mercedes and, with the intent to deprive you of it, stop random passersby and point out the opportunity. Can I still be said to be guilty if I simply allow the good news to be posted on the communal bulletin board in my candy store? Sure, if I had the requisite intent. And intent can be inferred from circumstances. Suppose you had just won the car in a disputed lottery in which I was the losing claimant, and I had said "Berch won't drive it far." One problem with Mog-Ur is that the first version of the story was innocent of any facts from which such an inference could be drawn. Not so with later versions. But, as you say, we don't have any way of knowing what the real facts are. Very rarely do our laws impose standards of affirmative conduct that result in criminal sanctions if they are not performed faithfully. Filed your 1983 income tax? These exceptions usually fall into categories where serious and immdiate harm to persons would result: operators of dangerous machinery or explosives; manufacturers/sellers of foods and drugs, and so forth. I don't think anyone has a problem with holding a drug manufacturer criminally liable for failing to in- spect a batch of product for dangerous impurities. Unfortunately, the L.A. prosecutor has misinterpreted the differ- ence between CRIMINAL and CIVIL standards of conduct. I have trouble with the drug company, for very reason you mention. The drug indictment is ordinarily not for failure to inspect, it is for homicide. It is this example that confounds civil and criminal notions of intentionality; the drug company intented to save a buck, not to kill people. The prosecutor's confusion in Mog-Ur is more likely to involve his own qualifications for higher office. If the Mog-ur sysop has breached a standard of conduct (and I draw no factual conclusions, based on third-hand evidence!) the remedy is for the aggrieved party to sue for damages. The elements of common-law theft are complete when the taker exercises control over the information, without any demonstration that anyone ever used the card. Even if California theft law is very peculiar, the general law of attempts would almost certainly make a course of conduct intended as a theft sanctionable. Should the cops have to stand by and watch me powerlessly until someone actually boosts your car? This way, both our society's interest in freedom of communication and expression AND the aggrieved party's property rights can be served in a controversial case. And ideally, our legislature could more specifically define a standard of conduct that assures that sysops and those in similar positions know what is expected >from them. Personally, I would rather err on the side of permis- siveness, but practically ANY reasonable standard of conduct is better than having a gung-ho prosecutor try to create a whole new class of information-age crimes. I suspect legislature has acted, not very carefully, and not with information in mind. Most "theft of services" statutes are broad enough to cover the intentional conversion of a telephone credit card number. These statutes often try to finesse the specific intent problem because of difficulties of proof, and usually do it very badly. There is a New Jersey section, for example, that makes it a crime to hack your electric meter with the intent to steal and then creates a presumption that if your meter is munged, you did it with the requisite intent. Think about applying that one to an elderly apartment house. Enactments of this kind may well be susceptible to 14th Amendment due process attack. That, rather than the First Amendment claims raised by VAIL, would seem to me the best line of analysis. _B ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12-Nov-84 23:07:35 PST From: Lauren Weinstein Subject: BBS responsibility To: TELECOM@MC I'm not so concerned about the telephone credit card case in particular (though, by the way, validating physical credit cards from pay phones would *not* solve the problems, since there are various other modalities of card usage) but I *am* concerned about the more general BBS issues. Let's take a couple of more extreme examples, and not necessarily impossible ones at that: 1) A BBS operator starts up what amounts to a "houses to hit" BBS. His anonymous users post information about local homes and businesses that have been noted to have "lax" security, and also note the times the buildings are unattended, what valuables are inside, and recommend possible places to fence the goods if they are "removed" from those establishments. The BBS operator makes sure he never knows who posts those messages, and disclaims any responsibility when robberies in the area increase 100 fold within a month of the establishment of his "information service." He also claims "he never reads the messages on his board--he's only providing a public discussion service." 2) A racial "hate" group establishes a BBS to discuss and plan acts of destruction and terrorism against various racial and religious groups, all anonymously of course. Both property damage and acts of personal, physical violence are proposed and planned on the BBS. The operator claims he has no responsibility because he "never looks at the messages." Both of these scenarios might be occurring right now, though we certainly hope they are not. Now the question is, do these BBS's deserve to be protected? What about BBS operators who attempt to use "ignorance of content" as an excuse to establish and/or promote illegal activities? In my view, BBS operators would be subject to much the same rules and penalties as a magazine publisher when it comes to publication of such materials. It is unreasonable for operators to try to absolve themselves of all responsibility by claiming lack of control of their boards and lack of knowledge regarding their users. If nothing else, BBS operators could screen messages before allowing posting to public boards. Oh yes, this would be more work and more hassle--which is probably why most operators kick and scream at the concept. Or they could make sure they've verified all users before allowing posting to public boards (some BBS's wisely do this now). But trying to hide behind the "anonymous" cloak is irresponsible and likely to promote increasing amounts of abuse by "anonymous" users. --Lauren-- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Nov 84 15:36:27 EST From: Brint To: telecom@BBNCCA.ARPA Subject: Two Sides to the Bulletin Board On the one hand, I seem to recall that the offending number was posted in a category with an offensive name. Can anybody recall what it was? On the other hand, if someone poss a telephone calling card number on the bulletin board down at the supermarket, is the grocery chain guilty of a felony -- or of anything? Brint (301) 278-6883 AV: 283-6883 FTS: 939-6883 ArpaNet: abc@brl UUCP: ...!{decvax,cbosgd}!brl-bmd!abc Postal: Dr Brinton Cooper U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory Attn: AMXBR-SECAD (Cooper) Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md 21005 ------------------------------ Date: Wednesday, 14 Nov 1984 08:57:51-PST From: molineaux%donjon.DEC@decwrl.ARPA (Arthur Molineaux DTN 2733133) To: telecom@bbncca.ARPA Subject: TARIFFS We use :National Communications Tariffs 38 West 32nd Street NY,NY 10001 212-868-0377 They have all tariffs available. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ****************************** ----------kgd Subject: TELECOM Digest V4 #120 From: telecom@ucbvax.ARPA Path: watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!telecom Organization: University of California at Berkeley Date: Thu, 15-Nov-84 17:04:52 EST Sender: daemon@ucbvax.ARPA From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) TELECOM Digest Thu, 15 Nov 84 16:09:26 EST Volume 4 : Issue 120 Today's Topics: From Usenet net.legal (please, no mail on spelling Tcimpidis) Thomas Tc*** and the phone phreaks Re: TELECOM Digest V4 #119 Re: BBS's -- who is responsible? BBS, telephone credit cards, fraud, etc. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thursday, 15 Nov 1984 06:06:36-PST From: waters%viking.DEC@decwrl.ARPA (Lester Waters) To: telecom@bbncca.ARPA Subject: From Usenet net.legal (please, no mail on spelling Tcimpidis) From: ROLL::USENET "USENET Newsgroup Distributor" 15-NOV-1984 06:42 To: VIKING::WATERS Subj: USENET net.legal newsgroup articles Newsgroups: net.legal Path: decwrl!decvax!tektronix!uw-beaver!cornell!vax135!houxm!mhuxj!mhuxr!mhux v!mhuxt!mhuxm!sftig!sftri!sfmag!eagle!ulysses!allegra!princeton!eosp1!ro bison Subject: Thomas Tc*** and the phone phreaks Posted: Mon Nov 12 14:57:34 1984 The billboard/phone-phreak case has reached the New York Times (Monday Nov 12 issue). A long story is very short on facts and long on concerns about censorship and liability. I presume the shortage of facts is related to the case being currently prosecuted. Still, is there a reliable, objective dicussion available anywhere of what probably happened? I have two questions: (1) It would be easier to talk about this case if we knew how to pronounce the sysops' name. Can anyone who knows for sure post it? (Thomas Tcimp...) (2) The crucial case issue in law appears to be: to what extent is an electronic bulletin board a publisher, and to what extent is it a carrier? Carriers are generally not responsible for the content of their messages, and publishers are. I think the global issue was not addressed properly by the NYT, nor on the net -- If bulletin boards are publishers, then how many other companies that THINK they are in the carrier business are actually also publishers? It is possible that nearly everyone in the store-and-forward business could be treated as a publisher also. S+F services INTEND to screen none of the messages they forward, and IN GENERAL messages they handle are sent from one person to one (or a few others) person. But there is nothing to prevent a S+F message from being sent to most of the potential audience, and nothing to prevent the S+F service from screening before forwarding. Thomas T. apparently intended to operate as a S+F service, leaving much data unscreened. If he had required the sender of every message to provide a specific list of addressees (selected from his user population), it's hard to see any difference in the possible "crime". Therefore, in my mind, this case attacks not only bulleting boards, but every company that intends to store and forward messages among individuals in different places. I would appreciate public comment. By the way, I'll reiterate another point I strongly believe in: This is not primarily a "free speech" issue. It's a case to decide if we have a set of laws applicable to regulate this type of commerce. Entities that are not part of the government, nor monopolies, have wide discretion to control what they will publish or relay. We rightfully hold them responsible in many cases to prevent the publishing of scurrilous, damaging-and-false information that attacks individuals not easily able to defend themselves appropriately. If we choose to have government-run bulletin boards, then the bill of rights will be a key factor in determining their content. - Toby Robison allegra!eosp1!robison or: decvax!ittvax!eosp1!robison alternate: princeton!eosp1!robison ------------------------------ Date: Thu 15 Nov 84 09:44:49-EST From: Doug Alan Subject: Re: TELECOM Digest V4 #119 To: TELECOM@BBNCCA.ARPA I'm concerned about the general paper company issue. Let's take a couple of extreme examples, and not necessarily impossible ones at that: 1) A paper company starts up what amounts to a "houses to hit" list. Some people use the paper made by the paper company to comunicate information about local homes and businesses that have been noted to have "lax" security, and also note the times the buildings are unattended, what valuables are inside, and recommend possible places to fence the goods if they are "removed" from those establishments. The paper company makes sure that it never knows who writes what on any of its paper, and disclaims responsibility when robberies in the area increase 100 fold within a month of the establishment of its "communication service." It also claims "we never read what anyone writes on our paper--we're only providing stuff for people to write on." 2) A racial "hate" group establishes a paper company so that people can write down their plans for destruction and terrorism against various racial and religious groups, all anonymously of course. Both property damage and acts of personal, physical violence are proposed and planned on the paper. The paper company claims that it has no responsibility because "we never read what people write on our paper." Both of these scenarios might be occurring right now, though we certainly hope they are not. Now the question is, do these paper companies deserve to be protected? What about paper companies that attempt to use "ignorance of content" as an excuse to establish and/or promote illegal activities? In my view, paper companies would be subject to much the same rules and penalties as a magazine publisher when it comes to publication of such materials. It is unreasonable for paper companies to try to absolve themselves of all responsibility by claiming lack of control of their paper and lack of knowledge regarding users of their paper. If nothing else, paper companies could provide carbon sheets with all their paper and could require that they be sent a copy of anything that is written on their paper. Oh yes, this would be more costly and more work for the paper company -- which is probably why most paper companies kick and scream at the concept. Or they could license people, before allowing them to purchase paper, which would all be marked with unique identification. But trying to hide behind the "anonymous" cloak is irresponsible and likely to promote increasing amounts of abuse by "anonymous" writers. --Big Brother-- ------- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Nov 84 10:09:41 EST From: Ron Natalie To: "Theodore N. Vail" Subject: Re: BBS's -- who is responsible? The real question here is Are bboards and commercial information services information carriers or are they publications? They don't really fit the classification of a conventional publication (I doubt anyone in the legal community knows what an APA is). -Ron ------------------------------ Date: 15 Nov 84 11:34 PST From: Tom Perrine To: telecom%BBNCCA@Nosc Cc: Tom Perrine Subject: BBS, telephone credit cards, fraud, etc. Interesting subject. Its even more interesting if you have been a victim. Three months ago, I received a rather large American Express bill; it came in *three* boxes. Examination of the contents revealed bills for approximately 1500 phone calls made on my "ExpressPhone TravelNet" (MCI paid via Amex) account, to the tune of $3000+. After calling American Express and convincing them that I didn't make the calls, my wife and I sat down to do a little "traffic analysis." All of the calls were from places I have never been, like Miami, Kansas City, New York, etc. Once a call was placed to an area, there was soon an outgoing call from that area, etc. The first call was in the day after the previous billing cycle had closed, from Los Angeles to New York. The next call was 1 hour later, from New York to Miami, Florida. After that, the calls were really flying, with literally scads of call from Miami to New York (were drug deals arranged with my MCI account?) From there, things fanned out at a nearly exponential rate, to include Kansas City, San Francisco (probably San Jose/Santa Clara) and many other places I have never been. On a whim, I tried dialing a few of the numbers. In every case I got a person, not a modem tone, who denied receiving any calls from the cities I knew they had received a call from or even knowing what a BBS was. B.S.**(+infinity)! In any case, American Express and MCI Investigations in McClean have all the records. They (AMEX) intimated to me that this will allow them to recover damages by convincing the people who *received* calls that they are accessories to the crime if they don't tell them who called *! ("If you don't tell us who did call you, we wil sue *you*...") I am *VERY* sure that my account number wasn't given out, or seen, as I am a little paranoid about giving thengs like that out. I *NEVER* give my number to hotel operators, if I can't dial it myself, I go somewhere I can, and then I make sure it isn't seen. I later calculated by "back-of-the-envelope" that several people, acting in concert could discover the MCI TravelNet access code of any account, in less than a week, using home computers; the method is left as an excercise for the weak of ethic. Tom Perrine, an ex-TravelNet subscriber ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ****************************** ----------kgd Subject: TELECOM Digest V4 #121 From: telecom@ucbvax.ARPA Path: watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ucbvax!telecom Organization: University of California at Berkeley Date: Fri, 16-Nov-84 17:29:21 EST Sender: daemon@ucbvax.ARPA From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) TELECOM Digest Fri, 16 Nov 84 16:38:52 EST Volume 4 : Issue 121 Today's Topics: the BBS case continues BBS responsibility Re: TELECOM Digest V4 #120 Re: BBS responsibility Telephone calling cards, fraud, etc. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 15-Nov-84 16:09:44 PST From: Lauren Weinstein Subject: the BBS case continues To: TELECOM@MC It's obvious that some people simply can't fathom the difference between providing of materials and providing of a "service," particularly the person who recently showed that he couldn't understand the difference between selling paper and running a message handling service! Maybe he can understand this: Nobody would hold someone selling paper, or phones, or computer terminals for that matter, responsible for how those things were used. However, if someone starts a "service" that uses those instrumentalities in illicit manners, the person running that service might well be responsible. Another example. What if there was a phone number you could call where someone would answer, not ask who you were, and provide you with lists of stolen phone and other credit card numbers that had been provided by other callers. Perhaps he claims he doesn't know what those numbers mean, but he's happy to pass them along anyway as a "service." Or let's say that phones weren't even involved, it was all done by postcard (harder to manage since postal addresses are involved). In both of these cases, the "services" would be considered to be "aiding and abetting" in criminal activities, regardless of their claims of "no knowledge or control." The problem that some people seem to have is that they can't understand that technology does not excuse one from conventional legal responsibilities. The reason the BBS's are so popular for passing around illicit numbers is because they are largely ANONYMOUS. If they weren't anonymous, people generally wouldn't discuss such topics. When CCIS technology is sufficiently in place to make calling number recording very simple, they will probably stop being used for such purposes (some years off, though). What is publishing from a legal standpoint? My guess is that the legal question may revolve around the intended audience. If you are sending messages to specific persons, and only they may receive the material, it may well be considered to be a common carrier type operation. If you allow essentially anyone to access your info, you may be taking on the responsibility of a publisher. For example, what if someone anonymously posted a message to a BBS that clearly libeled a person and did him or her great financial harm. Who would be responsible? Do you really think that all courts are going to accept the argument that the BBS operator has no responsibility? Keep in mind that only BECAUSE he created an "anonymous" method for people to send messages was the libelous message so simple to send. The obvious extension of such situations is people setting up BBS's as a convenient way to "avoid" the legal issues surrounding libel and other similar topics. Somone could set up the open libel BBS -- where people feel free to say anything, no matter how damaging, about anyone without being traceable. Of course the BBS operator would disclaim all knowledge of this. Or people *could* set up systems that mainly distributed information useful to the commission of crimes, and once again claim lack of knowledge. The key problem is that the law did not anticipate this sort of "anonymous" situation. It was assumed, for example, that the only way to get a message to large numbers of people was through magazines, conventional broadcast facilities, or newspapers who knew their legal responsibilities and would act accordingly before publishing questionable materials. I don't think that the legal system will long allow people to operate what amount to "no control and no responsibility" broadcast operations. And when the crackdown comes, it will probably be much more severe than any self-imposed controls that the BBS operators might have set into place for themselves. In any case, I do not believe that the widespread use of such technology to allow people to evade the requirements of legal responsibility will (or should) be permitted in the long run. Somebody must be responsible for widely distributed and available materials, and where the originator of the material is not known, the only other responsible party must be the entity that made it POSSIBLE for the anonymous material to be distributed to a large audience, via a single entity, in an anonymous manner. If that entity had not existed, it would not have been so simple or convenient to reach so many people with a single message so quickly. When you start performing operations that amount to broadcasting, responsibilities are part of the game. --Lauren-- ------------------------------ Date: 15 November 1984 21:56-EST From: Donald E. Hopkins Subject: BBS responsibility To: vortex!lauren @ RAND-UNIX Now that companies like Atari, Commedore, and Coleco are telling the masses that it is a social responsibility for them to get their kids a computer, there are now multitudes of people setting up and using BBS's. The good old days of BBS's for computer hobbiests are over. The rules that applied back then simple don't work now. The only reasonable way a BBS operator can really keep track of what his bbs is used for is to verify the name and address of every user, and assign login passwords. Any message a user puts on the board would have his of her name on it, and the operator would know exactly who they were, so if anything like this case in question occured, the sysop could simply point the police to the little snot's doorstep, and the right people would get punished. This would discourage anyone from abusing the system, and provide a certian ammount of security. Security may be a pain in the butt if you're trying to get real work done on real computers, but if you have a computer system like that open to the public, you are going to get a lot of people calling up trying to trash all they can. -Don ------------------------------ Date: 16 Nov 1984 00:52-PST Subject: Re: TELECOM Digest V4 #120 From: the tty of Geoffrey S. Goodfellow To: TELECOM@BBNCCA Re: egregious fraud on MCI/AMEX TravelNet. Nothing new here really. It's going on all over the country in epidemic proportions. One company told me their loss in revenue is "substantial", another said "Millions and millions per month". Yet another said they get 25,000 cracker attempts PER DAY, with a peak at about 3PM West Coast time. It doesn't take any great technological act of chicanery to dike the codes out. Some do it by hand, others have their computers do the work for them while they snooze away at night. 'round about morning time, it's new codes to read over bacon and eggs. Some OCC's are trying to deter the crackers as best they can though. Since the method most commonly used is normally to dial a modem in a remote city and detecting carrier sense means you made it -- One OCC has followed the "invalid authorization code message" with an answer modem carrier instead of the usual busy/reorder you would get by staying on the line. There is really not much the carrier's can do to really find out who is calling into them. Without Equal Access or upgrading to Feature Group B level access (950-xxxx), which I understand provides them with ANI of the caller. Hopefully this will add the needed level of accountability to move the crackers out of their bedrooms. By the way, perhaps the next Guinness World Records book could have a section on the largest phone bills (both honest and fraud) in dollar amount, number of pages, weight in pounds, number of delivery trucks, etc. g ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15-Nov-84 21:35:40 PST From: Lauren Weinstein Subject: Re: BBS responsibility To: A2DEH@MIT-MC Cc: TELECOM@MC I agree totally. The problem is ANONYMOUS messages. So long as there is some way to know who is posting messages (even if this information isn't displayed on the messages but known to the BBS operator) then it is practical to hold the person who SENDS the messages responsible, instead of the BBS operator. If truly anonymous postings are permitted, however, it is the operators who are going to have the problems. --Lauren-- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Nov 84 10:24:04 PST From: "Theodore N. Vail" To: telecom-request@bbncca.arpa Subject: Telephone calling cards, fraud, etc. With all the fuss about the appearance of a valid telephone charge number on a bboard, it is worth noting what the Telcos' official line is (not that they follow it): 1. Until about two years ago they routinely published millions of valid telephone charge numbers (because every valid telephone number was also a valid telephone charge number) in their own telephone directories. 2. If one looks at a Telco Calling Card (here I will be quoting from a GTE card -- I don't have a Pacific Bell card), one can look in vain for a statement that the number is secret and should not to be divulged. Indeed, all but the last four digits are the same as my telephone number, and if I weren't cognizant of the problem, I might not be aware that those four digits amount to a "pin" (personal identification number). What one does find is a number of statements regarding "use" and possession of the card. For example: "Such unauthorized use can constitute a violation of law. The card is not transferable." "If your telephone and/or calling card number is changed or service is discontinued, please destroy your old card to protect yourself against unauthorized charges by others." "The card is not transferable." It appears that the telco considers the card, itself, not the number on the card, as the item to be protected. In this sense the telcos are acting as if the card were like a Visa card or American Express card, both of which must be physically presented (those who accept telephone charges on such cards knowingly accept the risk that the rightful "owner" may reject the charges). On the general problem of publishing a charge number (not necessarily a telco number): These are not normally treated as secure. Whenever used, a large number of persons, not specially cleared, are given access. A similar statement applies to bank checking account numbers which appear on checks and are accessible to anyone involved in cashing a check. (This is a real problem which has led to major abuses.) I continue to believe that this is a First Amendment matter. Ask any newsperson about restrictions on what they may publish. They will immediately tell you about the "public's right to know" and the First Amendment. In my opinion, a bboard is much closer to a newspaper than a "store and forward network", which is simply a message passing facility the modern version of the United States Post Office (which, after all, is itself, a store and forward network). Finally, about 35 years ago, the nation realized the problems that might occur if persons anonymously discussed illegal matters (such as forceful overthrow of the United States Government). This realization was due to the forthright, outstanding American Senator and Hero, Joseph McCarthy, who brought the problem to the attention of the American public. He would have had no problem with bboards. He would simply have required that all sysops take an appropriate oath of allegiance. Those who didn't would have been blacklisted, lost their jobs, etc. His supported would have provided adequate policing of the bboards. ted ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ****************************** ----------kgd Subject: TELECOM Digest V4 #122 From: telecom@ucbvax.ARPA Path: watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ucbvax!telecom Organization: University of California at Berkeley Date: Sat, 17-Nov-84 22:34:50 EST Sender: daemon@ucbvax.ARPA From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) TELECOM Digest Sat, 17 Nov 84 21:13:31 EST Volume 4 : Issue 122 Today's Topics: BBS's and responsibility New telco charging capability? Strange numbers in AT&T's int'l recordings Objection ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 16-Nov-84 15:38:50 PST From: Lauren Weinstein Subject: BBS's and responsibility To: TELECOM@MC Getting to be a pretty hairy topic, eh? --Lauren-- ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 17 Nov 84 09:33 EST From: Frankston.SoftArts@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA Subject: New telco charging capability? To: Telecom@MIT-MC.ARPA Just see a TV ad (by Jeanne Dixon for horoscopes). The number was 415-976-3333. The important point was the charge was listed as .50+toll charges. This means telco is doing bill-back via the phone number!! Not even a 900 number! Am I interpreting this correctly? ------------------------------ Date: Sat 17 Nov 84 09:04:53-PST From: Tim Gonsalves Subject: Strange numbers in AT&T's int'l recordings To: telecom@USC-ECLC.ARPA While making a direct-dial call from area code 415 to India (011-91-xxx-xxxx# ), I got the following two recordings: "All circuits to the country you have dialed are busy. This is a recording. 212-5231" and "The call cannot be completed. This is a recording. 212-5235" What are the two numbers, 212-5231 and 212-5235, at the end of the recordings ? Tim Gonsalves Gonsalves@SU-Sierra ------- ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 17 Nov 84 11:41:40 EST From: Brint To: telecom@Berkeley Subject: Objection I object to Lauren's avoiding the issue of the responsibility, if any, of someone who makes a bulletin board available for public use and who, in no way, controls the content of the messages. Countless shopping centers across the USA make available hardcopy bulletin boards for public posting of messages. Are these managements to be held liable of someone posts a teleco redit card number? It seems to me that, if the BBS is really accessible to the anonymous public and if the BBS owner engages in no activities relating to the content of the messages, then he/she is no more or less liable for message content than the owner of the supermarket with its hardcopy bulletin board. Which way is it, Lauren? Brint ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ****************************** ----------kgd Subject: TELECOM Digest V4 #123 From: telecom@ucbvax.ARPA Path: watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!telecom Organization: University of California at Berkeley Date: Mon, 19-Nov-84 03:28:16 EST Sender: daemon@ucbvax.ARPA From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) TELECOM Digest Sun, 18 Nov 84 23:10:41 EST Volume 4 : Issue 123 Today's Topics: Emergancy Breakthroughs.. several topics what are the alternatives? TELECOM Digest V4 #121 the BBS case continues Uniden EX1040 BBSs ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 17 Nov 1984 21:05-PST Subject: Emergancy Breakthroughs.. From: MHAMILL@SRI-CSL To: Telecom@BBNCCA Hello, I have one question Reguarding the Emergency Breakthroughs. The other day, I did an emergency breakthrough from A 914 operator, to area code 703-491-xxxx. The operator called the 703-491 inward operator and said: "Emergency Interrupt on 703-491-xxxx" To which the 703 inward responded: "Could i have the name of the party?" I said,"Mark Hamill" The inward said: "Could I please have the number you are calling FROM Mr. Hamill?" I said :"914-946-9563" Then the inward asked for the reason for the interrupt. At this point the 914 operator asked if all of this was necessary. The inward said it was for the records only. I said:"I must speak to the other party" The inward then said: "I am sorry Mr. Hamill, that is not a valid reason for an interrupt" and then hung up. My operator did not know what was going on and asked me to try the call again later. My question is:"Shouldent the Phone Co. have to put through the interrupt as long as I am going to pay for it? And also, why would they want my name and phone #? thanks , Mark Hamill MHamill@SRI-CSL ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 17-Nov-84 23:31:18 PST From: Lauren Weinstein Subject: several topics To: TELECOM@MC Gee, several topics. Let's get the BBS one out of the way first. I haven't evaded the issue of physical bulletin boards, I just was searching around trying to find some old newspapers that I hoped I still had that described some interesting situations along these lines. Unfortunately, it appears that those old papers got thrown out, but I remember the material quite well. The issue of physical bulletin boards (as well as BBS's) would seem to most directly involve the continued presence of or frequent postings of "illegal" messages. While I don't follow the supermarket bulletin board scene too closely, I do recall at least two instances at universities when there were investigations into what were considered to be "illegal" postings on the public ("unrestricted") boards there. In one case, I remember that the issue involved someone advertising to buy stolen goods, and in another case it involved drugs. In both cases the messages were pulled and quickly reappeared, in one case apparently resulting in the posting of strict "rules" for use of the boards and frequently checking of the boards for adherence. The fear indeed was that the school might be sued if someone was harmed or otherwise victimized thanks to the material on those boards. There's still a chance that I have that old newspaper around--I'll make another attempt at finding it. I don't think that anyone would try prosecute a grocery store owner if an occasional "bad" message showed up on his board. But what if someone posted a message that was direct libel, or recommended illegal acts or some of the other topics we've discussed already? And what if the owner left such messages up for long periods of time and/or allowed such messages to be frequently posted? The bottom line is that it is considered either illegal or subject to civil liability (depending on circumstances) to publicly post certain sorts of information when that information constitutes libel or aids/abets in crime. I know of no exceptions that say, "It's OK to allow the display of such information if you don't know who posted it." If a pattern of abuse were not apparent, one would hope that BBS's (and physical bulletin board) owners would simply be asked to remove the messages, and that legal/civil action would not be taken. In cases of obvious patterns of abuse (for example, someone who insisted on allowing the posting of stolen credit card numbers on their board and left them up for long periods) more serious action would seem suitable. I strongly believe that there is NO DIFFERENCE between physical bulletin boards and BBS's in this regard. We're hearing more about BBS's because they reach so many people and are very, very simple to use anonymously, but similar situations could occur with any "public display" facilities. ----- To the person asking about the 976 charge-back numbers... They have been present here in L.A. for quite some time. The information service provider rents a bunch of phone lines (I think around 25 is the minimum), specifies the maximum length of the call (3 minutes the absolute max, I believe) and the amount they want to charge for the call up to $2 or possibly $3. They also provide the recordings or computer equipment (touch-tone/voice output, etc.) for the lines. For each call that comes in, telco charges the caller any ZUM/toll charges plus the designated "call cost," keeps a chunk, and sends a certain percentage of the "call cost" back to the provider. The most popular of these services to date have been the "Eros" type numbers, by the way, though there are people running stock market query/response numbers and other information services that are also apparently doing QUITE well. In fact, I may be peripherally involved with a local 976 info service (writing and doing recordings for a general information service--not sexually explicit!) quite soon, in which case I'll presumably find out even more about how these 976 services operate. Two interesting points: 1) They are local to each area code. Here in L.A. where we now have two codes, the 213 and 818 systems are considered entirely separate. 2) I'm told that these numbers only collect the "call cost" when called from numbers inside the local area code. For calls outside the local code, they supposedly only charge as "regular" calls. That's what my 976 source says, anyway, for whatever it's worth, though one would think that there would be special arrangements for close knitted codes like 213/818. Also, it appears that there would be a problem with any calls going through alternate carriers on a local basis, but that situation is quite cloudy. At least this is the information that telco is apparently giving prospective 976 service operators--they are warning them that only calls inside the local area code will generate them revenue. ----- Telco recordings that include numbers at the end normally are indicating the area code and a switch location code for the recording in question. If you hear a recording ending with "212-172" you are most likely listening to a recording somewhere in New York City. By and large, these numbers are being phased out in the toll network, partly because of complexities being introduced by new CCIS-based call routing systems. --Lauren-- ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18-Nov-84 02:38:21 PST From: Lauren Weinstein Subject: what are the alternatives? To: TELECOM@MC By the way, I'm still waiting to hear useful alternative suggestions from those who feel that BBS operators should be free of any responsibility for all messages on their systems. Are we to assume that you feel that any and all information should be OK to have on these systems? How about *your* credit card numbers? Your medical history? The status of your bank account? When you come and go from your house? Degrading or obscene messages regarding yourself or your relatives from people who dislike you? How about discussions of your sexual preferences, problems, and kinks? If you agree that there are SOME TOPICS not suitable for public discussion, and you insist that people should be able to anonymously post messages to these systems, it might be interesting to hear who should be responsible for the damage that might be inflicted on individuals through the public display of such info. --Lauren-- ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 Nov 84 11:58 EST From: Douglas Alan Subject: TELECOM Digest V4 #121 To: TELECOM@BBNCCA.ARPA > From: Lauren Weinstein > Subject: the BBS case continues > It's obvious that some people simply can't fathom the difference > between providing of materials and providing of a "service," > particularly the person who recently showed that he couldn't > understand the difference between selling paper and running > a message handling service! It's obvious that some people simply can't fathom that a service is a type of material. So what if you can't a touch a service like you can touch a rock? You can buy services, sell services, give away services just like any other material. When you buy some material, the seller isn't responsible for what you do with the material, so why should the provider of a service be responsible for what you do with the service? By your line of reasoning, phone companies should take responsibility for crimes that are planned over telephones, mail comapanies should be responsible for packages that contain bombs, hotels should be responsible for everything that is discussed in their hotel rooms. Phone companies should listen to all conversations. Mail companies should open and search all packages. Hotels should bug all their rooms. > The problem that some people seem to have is that they can't > understand that technology does not excuse one from conventional > legal responsibilities. The real problem that some people seem to have is that they can't understand that just because freedom can be abused (especially with the aid of technology) doesn't mean that it should be taken away. > The reason the BBS's are so popular for passing around illicit > numbers is because they are largely ANONYMOUS. If they weren't > anonymous, people generally wouldn't discuss such topics. Gee, so are rumors. I guess we should make them illegal too! > For example, what if someone anonymously posted a message to a > BBS that clearly libeled a person and did him or her great > financial harm. Who would be responsible? If a rumor is started that clearly libels a person and does him great financial harm. Who would be responsible? Clearly we should make talking illegal, for without talking there could be no rumors. > Somone could set up the open libel BBS -- where people feel free > to say anything, no matter how damaging, about anyone without > being traceable. Of course the BBS operator would disclaim all > knowledge of this. If I were to say, "I believe that Ronald Reagan had sex with a German shepard," I would not be guilty of anything, no matter how damaging this was to Reagan. I have the right to believe in anything I want to, and I have the right to voice my opinions. On the other hand, if I were to say, "Ronald Reagan had sex with a German shepard, and I can prove it," I would be guilty of slander, unless I did indeed have proof. There can be no such thing as anonymous slander, because if no one is willing to sign his name to it, then it has no authority. If people are willing to believe anonymous lies or regard my unsuported beliefs as facts, then it is they who are guilty ones. > The key problem is that the law did not anticipate this sort > of "anonymous" situation. Thomas Jefferson knew very well what he was doing when he created the bill of rights, and if he were alive today, he'd probably want hold a revolution. > Somebody must be responsible for widely distributed and available > materials, and where the originator of the material is not known, > the only other responsible party must be the entity that made > it POSSIBLE for the anonymous material to be distributed to a > large audience, via a single entity, in an anonymous manner. > If that entity had not existed, it would not have been so simple > or convenient to reach so many people with a single message so > quickly. This line of reasoning is rediculous. Again, by this reasoning, Thomas Jefferson is responsible for all abuses of the First Ammendment. The guilty are the guilty. Even if they are not easy to find. The fact that there is an easy-to-find scape-goat doesn't make him guilty of anything. Not afraid to defend the First Amendment, Doug Alan ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 17 Nov 84 22:58 MST From: "Kevin P. Fleming" Subject: Uniden EX1040 To: TELECOM@BBNCCA.ARPA Anyone out there in NetLand have any stories good or bad, about Uniden extension phones? I am thinking of buying an EX1040 two-line with memories and conference calling and all of that good stuff. Please reply via private mail, or to the net if you must. -Kevin KFleming%pco@CISL ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 Nov 84 15:53:23 est From: ulysses!smb@Berkeley (Steven Bellovin) To: TELECOM@BBNCCA.ARPA Subject: BBSs Just saw an interesting variant in the paper... It seems that a neo-Nazi group in this country is using an American-based BBS to spread the "message" in Canada. Importation of printed versions of that material is against Candian law, but they haven't figured out how to handle this one. --Steve Bellovin ulysses!smb@Berkeley smb.ulysses.btl@csnet-relay.arpa ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ****************************** ----------kgd Subject: TELECOM Digest V4 #124 From: telecom@ucbvax.ARPA Path: watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ucbvax!telecom Organization: University of California at Berkeley Date: Mon, 19-Nov-84 17:50:33 EST Sender: daemon@ucbvax.ARPA From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) TELECOM Digest Mon, 19 Nov 84 15:54:15 EST Volume 4 : Issue 124 Today's Topics: cost of leased lines privacy BBS case Emergancy Breakthroughs.. "Emergency Break-ins" (Verifies) Re: privacy move BBS discussion to another list? Re: Strange numbers in AT&T's int'l recordings 976 numbers and BBS Re: TELECOM Digest V4 #122 950 access 14.4Kb modems ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 18 Nov 1984 22:33:28 PST Subject: cost of leased lines From: Dave Dyer To: TELECOM@BBNCCA.ARPA Can someone point me to an order-of-magnitude cost estimate for leased lines? I'm looking for something with about the level of detail and accuracy as: ( $N + $K per kilometer * $X per baud. ) per month ------- ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 Nov 84 22:37:40 PST From: "Theodore N. Vail" To: telecom@bbncca.arpa Subject: privacy Lauren Weinstein asks: Are we to assume that you feel that any and all information should be OK to have on these systems? How about *your* credit card numbers? Your medical history? The status of your bank account? When you come and go from your house? Degrading or obscene messages regarding yourself or your relatives from people who dislike you? How about discussions of your sexual preferences, problems, and kinks? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Publicizing this information is legal, can be published by any news- paper, and often is! Go down to your local magazine stand and read the fan magazines about Hollywood Celebrities and other public figures. Read the National Enquirer. Privacy rights are limited, are not in the Bill of Rights, and take a back seat to the First Amendment. Note that it is almost impossible for a "public figure" to win a libel or slander suit -- such a person must prove not only that the published material was false and defamatory, but also that there was "malicious intent". By the way, well-known magazine columnists who keep their name in the public eye by constantly publishing in usenet, etc., are almost certainly "public figures" in the eye of the law. ted ------------------------------ Date: 18 Nov 1984 23:09:23 PST Subject: BBS case From: Dave Dyer To: TELECOM@BBNCCA.ARPA This whole discussin on BBS illustrates the inherent inanity of trying to classify *ANY* communication as "legal" or "illegal" based on its content. How is the poor sysop supposed to know if a number posted on his board is stolen? Or even if it's a phone number at all? Do you suppose that theives will "observe regulations" by clearly marking all proscribed communication; **SYSOP; PLEASE DELETE TO SAVE YOUR ASS** Trying to regulate the content of BBS will only put the honest operators to a lot of trouble, or out of business altogether, and make them subjct to arbitrary harrasment by any DA with an axe to grind ("crusading DA cracks down on dial-a-crime"). The operators whose intent is criminal will have no trouble skirting the regs. ------- ------------------------------ Date: 19 Nov 1984 00:25 PST (Mon) From: Tony Li To: MHAMILL@SRI-CSL Cc: Telecom@BBNCCA Subject: Emergancy Breakthroughs.. As I understand it, an Emergency Breakthrough is supposed to be used only for *Emergencies*. The life or death type, I s'pose. The operator cutting in on you is an invasion of privacy, and the 'rules' say that they can only cut in with a valid emergency. The name and phone number are so that they can track the call in case they get a complaint. Speaking of which, I remember once when I got an Emergency Breakthrough whilst hacking... The operator got an earful of Vadic, and once I figured out what was going on and killed the modem, she told me that I had a problem on my line. Sigh. Cheers, Tony ;-) ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18-Nov-84 23:26:53 PST From: Lauren Weinstein Subject: "Emergency Break-ins" (Verifies) To: TELECOM@MC Line verification (or "interrupts") are normally only allowed when a "good reason" is present. It's pretty clear why: you aren't simply paying for a service (the call interrupt) but you're also interrupting someone ELSE'S call, who presumably doesn't want his or her call disturbed except for a good reason. Perhaps you know that the person in question wouldn't mind being interrupted by you, but telco has no way to know that. The keeping of records regarding who places interrupt calls is to help provide protection in cases of harrassment--you'd be surprised how much this still happens, even with a charge for the procedure. As a practical matter, I would expect most any operator who was told that the reason for the call was "a personal emergency" would place the call without further questions. If they won't, it's "let me speak to your supervisor" time... --Lauren-- ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18-Nov-84 23:57:44 PST From: Lauren Weinstein Subject: Re: privacy To: randvax!vail@UCLA-LOCUS Cc: TELECOM@MC Theodore, Your own message brings up the key issue! Yes, there are conflicts between privacy rights and First Amendment rights. However, the First Amendment rights do NOT override ALL privacy rights. In particular, if a person feels slandered or damaged by an article in The National Enquirer, they can sue the person who wrote the article AND/OR the Enquirer itself. And in fact, suits of this kind, even by "public figures," are becoming increasingly successful as the courts begin giving more emphasis to privacy rights. There have been cases won where there was no issue of "inaccuracy" but simply of serious invasion of privacy. But the important thing is that in such cases, people at LEAST have the ability to sue the publication involved. It is extremely doubtful that even The National Enquirer would publish "anonymous rumors" that could conceivably result in a lawsuit, unless they (at least in private) knew who the original authors were. Otherwise, they'd end up taking the full brunt of any lawsuits. Responsible publications (and even most irresponsible ones!) just don't put before the public any and every unsubstantiated fact that someone happens to anonymously phone in! Two other points. It appears to be held from a legal standpoint that "non-public" figures have substantially greater rights to privacy than "public" figures. Publications normally are aware of this distinction and usually careful about what they publish, since they are aware of the potential problems. The BBB's we're talking about, on the other hand, don't even offer that modicum of "filtering" -- they "publish" anything about anyone without regard to *any* privacy issues. Oh, the second point. The definition of "public figure" has been worked out pretty well in the courts. It apparently requires that a person be "generally" known to "the public at large." This does not include people who are only widely known within certain limited technical communities, even if they publish in those communities. If you took a general sampled poll of people scattered around the U.S. and asked them who, say, Carol Burnett was, you'd get a high percentage who could identify her. If you asked the same group who Lauren Weinstein was, you'd probably get a 0% response from the sampling group. She's a public figure. You and I are not. Now, if we appeared on The Tonight Show it *might* make a difference, but we haven't, and hopefully we won't. --Lauren-- P.S. By the way, not even the National Enquirer would publish lists of people's credit card numbers. Stories about houses painted mysteriously at night by ghosts, but not credit card numbers. General publication of credit card information would be considered to be aiding and abetting in the commission of crime by virtually any court. (Yes, stories about ghosts painting houses--I saw the headline on my way out of the supermarket...) --LW-- ------------------------------ From: Jon_Tara@Wayne-MTS Date: Sun, 18 Nov 84 16:13:24 EST From: Jon_Tara%Wayne-MTS%UMich-MTS.Mailnet@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA To: Telecom%BBNCCA@MIT-Multics.ARPA re: 976 numbers and per-call charges Several months ago Michigan Bell dropped weather service. (They still provide time.) Several companies now provide weather service using 976 numbers. The charge is .15/call. Apparently, 976 is a special exchange, and the public is supposed to "know" that if they call a 976 number they're going to be charged for some service. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19-Nov-84 01:40:35 PST From: Lauren Weinstein Subject: move BBS discussion to another list? To: TELECOM@MC Given that this discussion is becoming increasingly involved with issues of law, and decreasingly involves telecommunications technology, perhaps we should move it over to INFO-LAW? --Lauren-- [Hear Hear! I think TELECOM readers have read enough of the legal implications of the BBS case. Note: If you have some legitimate information to tell about the case, I encourage you to post it to TELECOM, but the debate really belongs in INFO-LAW. --JSol] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Nov 84 7:54:16 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) To: Tim Gonsalves Subject: Re: Strange numbers in AT&T's int'l recordings I don't know what the numbers after the hyphen mean (have had that happen on recordings I have gotten), but I did read in a newspaper article of almost 20 years ago that overseas calls go thru New York (hence the 212). ------------------------------ Date: Mon 19 Nov 84 08:02:47-PST From: HECTOR MYERSTON Subject: 976 numbers and BBS To: telecom@BBNCCA.ARPA 976-XXXX numbers are nation-wide "local" numbers. If you dial them from anywhere the network will take you to wherever the serive provider is and charge you the toll charges in addition to charges by the provider. Pretty dangerous if you have a system which restricts toll calls based on 1+ or NPAs only. A suggestion: How about a BBS split-off newsletter for those that enjoy this type of useless academic polemic?. ------- ------------------------------ Date: 19 Nov 84 09:37:21 PST (Monday) From: Thompson.PA@XEROX.ARPA Subject: Re: TELECOM Digest V4 #122 To: TELECOM@BBNCCA.ARPA Re :Strange numbers in AT&T's int'l recordings Tim- I have always assumed that the first portion of the recording number was the area code of the tape recorder that was talking to me. In this case it would mean that your call got dumped in New York. Makes sense. When I have run into those things the areqa code quoted was always equal to source or destination. Geoff ------------------------------ To: telecom@bbncca.arpa Subject: 950 access Date: 19 Nov 84 14:53:25 EST (Mon) From: Dave_Farber I live right near a boarder to area 302 and much of 302 is a local call for me. I subscribed to SBS and got a 950 number out of a 302 access point. WHen I tried to dial it I got reorder. Seems I have to either dial 1-302-950.... or 1950.... I assume that the 1950 takes me to Philadelphia about 50 miles away. Is there ever a charge for a 950 number!! Dave ------------------------------ From: ihnp4!amdcad!phil@bbncca Date: Sun Nov 18 13:53:12 1984 Date: Mon, 12 Nov 84 16:36:46 pst To: ihnp4!bbncca!telecom-request Subject: 14.4Kb modems Anyone have any experience or recommendations on the subject of 14.4Kb modems? phil ngai amd!phil@decwrl.ARPA or ihnp4!amd!phil ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ****************************** ----------kgd Subject: TELECOM Digest V4 #124 From: telecom@ucbvax.ARPA Path: watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ucbvax!telecom Organization: University of California at Berkeley Date: Mon, 19-Nov-84 22:30:43 EST Sender: daemon@ucbvax.ARPA From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) TELECOM Digest Mon, 19 Nov 84 15:54:15 EST Volume 4 : Issue 124 Today's Topics: cost of leased lines privacy BBS case Emergancy Breakthroughs.. "Emergency Break-ins" (Verifies) Re: privacy move BBS discussion to another list? Re: Strange numbers in AT&T's int'l recordings 976 numbers and BBS Re: TELECOM Digest V4 #122 950 access 14.4Kb modems ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 18 Nov 1984 22:33:28 PST Subject: cost of leased lines From: Dave Dyer To: TELECOM@BBNCCA.ARPA Can someone point me to an order-of-magnitude cost estimate for leased lines? I'm looking for something with about the level of detail and accuracy as: ( $N + $K per kilometer * $X per baud. ) per month ------- ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 Nov 84 22:37:40 PST From: "Theodore N. Vail" To: telecom@bbncca.arpa Subject: privacy Lauren Weinstein asks: Are we to assume that you feel that any and all information should be OK to have on these systems? How about *your* credit card numbers? Your medical history? The status of your bank account? When you come and go from your house? Degrading or obscene messages regarding yourself or your relatives from people who dislike you? How about discussions of your sexual preferences, problems, and kinks? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Publicizing this information is legal, can be published by any news- paper, and often is! Go down to your local magazine stand and read the fan magazines about Hollywood Celebrities and other public figures. Read the National Enquirer. Privacy rights are limited, are not in the Bill of Rights, and take a back seat to the First Amendment. Note that it is almost impossible for a "public figure" to win a libel or slander suit -- such a person must prove not only that the published material was false and defamatory, but also that there was "malicious intent". By the way, well-known magazine columnists who keep their name in the public eye by constantly publishing in usenet, etc., are almost certainly "public figures" in the eye of the law. ted ------------------------------ Date: 18 Nov 1984 23:09:23 PST Subject: BBS case From: Dave Dyer To: TELECOM@BBNCCA.ARPA This whole discussin on BBS illustrates the inherent inanity of trying to classify *ANY* communication as "legal" or "illegal" based on its content. How is the poor sysop supposed to know if a number posted on his board is stolen? Or even if it's a phone number at all? Do you suppose that theives will "observe regulations" by clearly marking all proscribed communication; **SYSOP; PLEASE DELETE TO SAVE YOUR ASS** Trying to regulate the content of BBS will only put the honest operators to a lot of trouble, or out of business altogether, and make them subjct to arbitrary harrasment by any DA with an axe to grind ("crusading DA cracks down on dial-a-crime"). The operators whose intent is criminal will have no trouble skirting the regs. ------- ------------------------------ Date: 19 Nov 1984 00:25 PST (Mon) From: Tony Li To: MHAMILL@SRI-CSL Cc: Telecom@BBNCCA Subject: Emergancy Breakthroughs.. As I understand it, an Emergency Breakthrough is supposed to be used only for *Emergencies*. The life or death type, I s'pose. The operator cutting in on you is an invasion of privacy, and the 'rules' say that they can only cut in with a valid emergency. The name and phone number are so that they can track the call in case they get a complaint. Speaking of which, I remember once when I got an Emergency Breakthrough whilst hacking... The operator got an earful of Vadic, and once I figured out what was going on and killed the modem, she told me that I had a problem on my line. Sigh. Cheers, Tony ;-) ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18-Nov-84 23:26:53 PST From: Lauren Weinstein Subject: "Emergency Break-ins" (Verifies) To: TELECOM@MC Line verification (or "interrupts") are normally only allowed when a "good reason" is present. It's pretty clear why: you aren't simply paying for a service (the call interrupt) but you're also interrupting someone ELSE'S call, who presumably doesn't want his or her call disturbed except for a good reason. Perhaps you know that the person in question wouldn't mind being interrupted by you, but telco has no way to know that. The keeping of records regarding who places interrupt calls is to help provide protection in cases of harrassment--you'd be surprised how much this still happens, even with a charge for the procedure. As a practical matter, I would expect most any operator who was told that the reason for the call was "a personal emergency" would place the call without further questions. If they won't, it's "let me speak to your supervisor" time... --Lauren-- ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18-Nov-84 23:57:44 PST From: Lauren Weinstein Subject: Re: privacy To: randvax!vail@UCLA-LOCUS Cc: TELECOM@MC Theodore, Your own message brings up the key issue! Yes, there are conflicts between privacy rights and First Amendment rights. However, the First Amendment rights do NOT override ALL privacy rights. In particular, if a person feels slandered or damaged by an article in The National Enquirer, they can sue the person who wrote the article AND/OR the Enquirer itself. And in fact, suits of this kind, even by "public figures," are becoming increasingly successful as the courts begin giving more emphasis to privacy rights. There have been cases won where there was no issue of "inaccuracy" but simply of serious invasion of privacy. But the important thing is that in such cases, people at LEAST have the ability to sue the publication involved. It is extremely doubtful that even The National Enquirer would publish "anonymous rumors" that could conceivably result in a lawsuit, unless they (at least in private) knew who the original authors were. Otherwise, they'd end up taking the full brunt of any lawsuits. Responsible publications (and even most irresponsible ones!) just don't put before the public any and every unsubstantiated fact that someone happens to anonymously phone in! Two other points. It appears to be held from a legal standpoint that "non-public" figures have substantially greater rights to privacy than "public" figures. Publications normally are aware of this distinction and usually careful about what they publish, since they are aware of the potential problems. The BBB's we're talking about, on the other hand, don't even offer that modicum of "filtering" -- they "publish" anything about anyone without regard to *any* privacy issues. Oh, the second point. The definition of "public figure" has been worked out pretty well in the courts. It apparently requires that a person be "generally" known to "the public at large." This does not include people who are only widely known within certain limited technical communities, even if they publish in those communities. If you took a general sampled poll of people scattered around the U.S. and asked them who, say, Carol Burnett was, you'd get a high percentage who could identify her. If you asked the same group who Lauren Weinstein was, you'd probably get a 0% response from the sampling group. She's a public figure. You and I are not. Now, if we appeared on The Tonight Show it *might* make a difference, but we haven't, and hopefully we won't. --Lauren-- P.S. By the way, not even the National Enquirer would publish lists of people's credit card numbers. Stories about houses painted mysteriously at night by ghosts, but not credit card numbers. General publication of credit card information would be considered to be aiding and abetting in the commission of crime by virtually any court. (Yes, stories about ghosts painting houses--I saw the headline on my way out of the supermarket...) --LW-- ------------------------------ From: Jon_Tara@Wayne-MTS Date: Sun, 18 Nov 84 16:13:24 EST From: Jon_Tara%Wayne-MTS%UMich-MTS.Mailnet@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA To: Telecom%BBNCCA@MIT-Multics.ARPA re: 976 numbers and per-call charges Several months ago Michigan Bell dropped weather service. (They still provide time.) Several companies now provide weather service using 976 numbers. The charge is .15/call. Apparently, 976 is a special exchange, and the public is supposed to "know" that if they call a 976 number they're going to be charged for some service. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19-Nov-84 01:40:35 PST From: Lauren Weinstein Subject: move BBS discussion to another list? To: TELECOM@MC Given that this discussion is becoming increasingly involved with issues of law, and decreasingly involves telecommunications technology, perhaps we should move it over to INFO-LAW? --Lauren-- [Hear Hear! I think TELECOM readers have read enough of the legal implications of the BBS case. Note: If you have some legitimate information to tell about the case, I encourage you to post it to TELECOM, but the debate really belongs in INFO-LAW. --JSol] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Nov 84 7:54:16 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) To: Tim Gonsalves Subject: Re: Strange numbers in AT&T's int'l recordings I don't know what the numbers after the hyphen mean (have had that happen on recordings I have gotten), but I did read in a newspaper article of almost 20 years ago that overseas calls go thru New York (hence the 212). ------------------------------ Date: Mon 19 Nov 84 08:02:47-PST From: HECTOR MYERSTON Subject: 976 numbers and BBS To: telecom@BBNCCA.ARPA 976-XXXX numbers are nation-wide "local" numbers. If you dial them from anywhere the network will take you to wherever the serive provider is and charge you the toll charges in addition to charges by the provider. Pretty dangerous if you have a system which restricts toll calls based on 1+ or NPAs only. A suggestion: How about a BBS split-off newsletter for those that enjoy this type of useless academic polemic?. ------- ------------------------------ Date: 19 Nov 84 09:37:21 PST (Monday) From: Thompson.PA@XEROX.ARPA Subject: Re: TELECOM Digest V4 #122 To: TELECOM@BBNCCA.ARPA Re :Strange numbers in AT&T's int'l recordings Tim- I have always assumed that the first portion of the recording number was the area code of the tape recorder that was talking to me. In this case it would mean that your call got dumped in New York. Makes sense. When I have run into those things the areqa code quoted was always equal to source or destination. Geoff ------------------------------ To: telecom@bbncca.arpa Subject: 950 access Date: 19 Nov 84 14:53:25 EST (Mon) From: Dave_Farber I live right near a boarder to area 302 and much of 302 is a local call for me. I subscribed to SBS and got a 950 number out of a 302 access point. WHen I tried to dial it I got reorder. Seems I have to either dial 1-302-950.... or 1950.... I assume that the 1950 takes me to Philadelphia about 50 miles away. Is there ever a charge for a 950 number!! Dave ------------------------------ From: ihnp4!amdcad!phil@bbncca Date: Sun Nov 18 13:53:12 1984 Date: Mon, 12 Nov 84 16:36:46 pst To: ihnp4!bbncca!telecom-request Subject: 14.4Kb modems Anyone have any experience or recommendations on the subject of 14.4Kb modems? phil ngai amd!phil@decwrl.ARPA or ihnp4!amd!phil ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ****************************** ----------kgd Subject: TELECOM Digest V4 #125 From: telecom@ucbvax.ARPA Path: watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!telecom Organization: University of California at Berkeley Date: Thu, 22-Nov-84 00:27:39 EST Sender: daemon@ucbvax.ARPA From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) TELECOM Digest Tue, 20 Nov 84 21:42:55 EST Volume 4 : Issue 125 Today's Topics: BBS filter? strange charging for certain numbers, continued misc. topics Re: TELECOM Digest V4 #124 BBS Liability Re: Strange numbers in AT&T's int'l recordings Re: TELECOM Digest V4 #123 the BBS case continues the BBS case continues ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 19 Nov 84 17:19:03 EST From: Craig MacFarlane Subject: BBS filter? To: telecom@bbncca.arpa How about running all incoming msgs though a filter to scan for naughty words,politicians names, numbers like credit card numbers, and any other things that might question the intent of the msg. After the flag goes up, put the msg in a file to look at by the sysop with time and date. After editing he/she could put the msg back on for the public to read... just adding to the fire, [raig cmacfarlane@bbnccj ------------------------------ From: ima!johnl@bbncca Date: Mon Nov 19 18:24:00 1984 Subject: strange charging for certain numbers, continued To: bbncca!telecom As of a few years ago, the telco's charging was special-cased for numbers ending in 9911 or 9951 (I think.) Such numbers were supposed to be reserved for business offices, which you could traditionally call for free even from far away. My uncle who owns the Shoreham Telephone Co. (in Vermont) had to pick out such toll slips by hand when preparing bills, at least until he bought a computer for billing. Evidently those numbers are no longer special, because these days you call collect to talk to a distant business office -- around here the recording asking you to wait for the next available service rep even says that they'll accept charges! John Levine, ima!johnl or Levine@YALE.ARPA ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19-Nov-84 17:54:32 PST From: Lauren Weinstein Subject: misc. topics To: TELECOM@MC A few topics: 1) 950 numbers. There isn't SUPPOSED to ever be a charge for dialing these numbers. 2) 976 numbers. They are NOT "nationwide" access numbers. They are unique to each NPA (area code) and result in the service charge-backs discussed in a previous digest when called from within the same area code. 3) Just as a point of information, overseas calls from the U.S. are routed from a variety of locations, including White Plains NY, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Denver, and a variety of other locations. For many years, the White Plains location (area code 914) was the primary gateway to most of the world. --Lauren-- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Nov 84 20:12:03 EST From: Joe Pistritto To: TELECOM@BBNCCA.ARPA Subject: Re: TELECOM Digest V4 #124 On the subject of Emergency Breakthrough, remember there is another service that will handle a lot of the cases that emergency breakthrough is used for: Verification. In many cases, (non life and death, but still critical), all you want to know is whether the person you are trying to call is actually TALKING to someone, or if the line is screwed up for some reason, (phone off the hook, etc.). You can ask for the 'Verification Operator' in my area (301), and the operator will tell you whether or not there is conversation on the line. Of course, he/she won't tell you what the content is, but you can then decide if you want to do a breakin. There is no charge currently for verification in this area, although I have heard rumors there might be soon. On another topic, a couple weeks ago, I posted a question as to what the bit rates of the available T(1, 2, 3, etc.) trunks were. Got no response, so I'll ask again. Someone out there must know this... (I already know T1 = 1.544 Mhz). -JCP- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Nov 84 12:47:02 EST From: Brint To: telecom@bbncca.ARPA Subject: BBS Liability OK, now Lauren and I have reached an important point of agreement: that "hardcopy" bulletin boards and computer BBSs should be treated the same way. Now, we need to agree on what that way is. An important problem is "drawing the line." If the law expects bulletin board owners to police the content of their "boards," and holds them liable for illegal postings, is it not also consistent to hold the public utility company liable if illegal postings are made on the wooden poles that carry its wires? And should the owners of walls be responsible for libelous and slanderous grafiti(sp?) posted thereon? Yes, I agree that walls and poles are not erected for the posting of information. But they are THERE. And such posting is very nearly a tradition in American society. (No defense intended!) It seems that holding bulletin board owners responsible for materials posted on their boards implies that the state is telling such folks how to operate their boards, e.g., that they must periodically read every posted item, that they must insist on the identity of the poster, etc. Do we really want government writing such regulations? I believe that there are other means to prosecute the real culprits--those who actually post the items. Brint ------------------- Afterthought: If, on the other hand, a bulletin board is, in fact, to be considered a broadcast medium equivalent to radio, TV, and journalism, then it is already subject to these restrictions. ------------------------------ Date: 20 Nov 84 09:41 PST From: jellinek.pa@XEROX.ARPA Subject: Re: Strange numbers in AT&T's int'l recordings To: Tim Gonsalves , telecom@BBNCCA.ARPA I believe that the number after the hyphen is the number of the recording, and that the 212 alludes to the fact that your call was routed through the international switching center in White Plains, NY. Herb ------------------------------ From: decvax!seismo!umcp-cs!aplvax!pmg@Berkeley Date: Tue, 20 Nov 84 14:02:38 est To: decvax!ucbvax!telecom@Berkeley Subject: Re: TELECOM Digest V4 #123 Subject: the BBS case continues From: P. Michael Guba First of all I would like to say that Lauren's analogy with a physical bulletin board at a grocery store or student union is a very good one. Electronic BBS's are a new medium and they can reach many more people but they should be required to follow the same rules. | From: Douglas Alan |> From: Lauren Weinstein |> Subject: the BBS case continues | When you buy some material, the seller | isn't responsible for what you do with the material, so why should the | provider of a service be responsible for what you do with the service? Because he has the capability of monitoring how you use that service without invading your rights to privacy. If the service being provided can be used as a PUBLIC forum in an ANONYMOUS manner the provider of the service must be held accountable to exercise reasonable care in preventing any illegal use of the service. | By your line of reasoning, phone companies should take responsibility | for crimes that are planned over telephones, mail comapanies should be | responsible for packages that contain bombs, hotels should be | responsible for everything that is discussed in their hotel rooms. | Phone companies should listen to all conversations. Mail companies | should open and search all packages. Hotels should bug all their rooms. Under all of these situations that Doug mentioned, the right of privacy of the average citizen in using these services takes precedence over the discovery of the few people that abuse these mediums by using them to commit crimes. When people post information to a bulletin board, on the wall or on a computer, they have given up their right to privacy in transmitting their information. Once the posted message is in the public forum, it is under scrutiny of the law and a search warrant, or permission of the author or other privledged recipient of the message, are not required to enter the message as evidence in a court of law. None of these conditions apply to the use of the mediums discussed by Doug. |> The problem that some people seem to have is that they can't |> understand that technology does not excuse one from conventional |> legal responsibilities. | The real problem that some people seem to have is that they can't | understand that just because freedom can be abused (especially with the | aid of technology) doesn't mean that it should be taken away. And some people don't realize that freedoms carry responsibilities. |> The reason the BBS's are so popular for passing around illicit |> numbers is because they are largely ANONYMOUS. If they weren't |> anonymous, people generally wouldn't discuss such topics. | Gee, so are rumors. I guess we should make them illegal too! Rumors are normally transmitted from one person to another or in small closed groups and therefore are protected by our rights to have private conversations. Thats why they are called rumors and not the Washington Post. |> For example, what if someone anonymously posted a message to a |> BBS that clearly libeled a person and did him or her great |> financial harm. Who would be responsible? | If a rumor is started that clearly libels a person and does him great | financial harm. Who would be responsible? The person who put the message into the public or who was most responsible for the financial harm that was created by the rumor. Thats why I don't repeat rumors that can harm people, and thats why I don't slander people on BBS's. | Clearly we should make talking illegal, for without talking there could | be no rumors. This one doesn't even deserve a response. |> Somone could set up the open libel BBS -- where people feel free |> to say anything, no matter how damaging, about anyone without |> being traceable. Of course the BBS operator would disclaim all |> knowledge of this. Lauren is correct. If some one is providing a public forum for ANONYMOUS messages they have accepted SOME responsibility for making sure that the posted information does not violate laws. And they should exercise REASONABLE care to insure that the postings are legal. It is the responsibility of juries in our justice system to determine what is reasonable care. | There can | be no such thing as anonymous slander, because if no one is willing to | sign his name to it, then it has no authority. If people are willing to | believe anonymous lies or regard my unsuported beliefs as facts, then it | is they who are guilty ones. How does this line of thought apply to anonymously posted telephone credit card numbers? The person who posted the number is aiding a criminal action. If the BBS operator does not exercise reasonable care in removing such messages he is responsible for that message being on the bulletin board. On the other side of the coin, if his system also supports transmission of private mail between frequent users, he is not responsible for filtering these messages because they are private. |> The key problem is that the law did not anticipate this sort |> of "anonymous" situation. | Thomas Jefferson knew very well what he was doing when he created the | bill of rights, and if he were alive today, he'd probably want hold a | revolution. Thomas Jefferson would roll over in his grave if he could see how some people were condoning the commitment of crimes, under the guise of exercising their freedoms. Someone has the right to say anything they want but the must also pay the penalty if what they say infringes on someone else rights. |> Somebody must be responsible for widely distributed and available |> materials, and where the originator of the material is not known, |> the only other responsible party must be the entity that made |> it POSSIBLE for the anonymous material to be distributed to a |> large audience, via a single entity, in an anonymous manner. |> If that entity had not existed, it would not have been so simple |> or convenient to reach so many people with a single message so |> quickly. | This line of reasoning is rediculous. Again, by this reasoning, Thomas | Jefferson is responsible for all abuses of the First Ammendment. Don't forget your First Ammendment ends where the next persons Bill of Rights begins. | The guilty are the guilty. Even if they are not easy to find. The fact | that there is an easy-to-find scape-goat doesn't make him guilty of | anything. Someone made it hard to find the guilty. And that same person had the power to remove the illegal message. You call him a scape-goat, and I say the courts will decide whether or not he has exercised what I have defined as reasonable care in removing illegal messages from his BBS. In a previous telecom digest "Theodore N. Vail" wrote: | I continue to believe that this is a First Amendment matter. Ask any | newsperson about restrictions on what they may publish. They will | immediately tell you about the "public's right to know" and the First | Amendment. In my opinion, a bboard is much closer to a newspaper than a | "store and forward network", which is simply a message passing facility | the modern version of the United States Post Office (which, after all, | is itself, a store and forward network). This is true, but don't forget that newspapers, no matter how loosely the term is used, have been sued for, and lost, libel cases and that the author of an article, and the editor of the paper are ultimately responsible for any article published in the paper. The author wrote the article and the editor provided the means for public distribution of the material. A bulletin board operator assumes the same responsibility to exercise reasonable care that the information being posted is not libelous or criminal in nature, that an editor would have to assume if he published an ANONYMOUS article in his paper. REPEATING: Don't forget your First Ammendment ends where the next persons Bill of Rights begins. I love discussions on legal interpretations, done with minimal flaming. This views presented in this article are mine and have no connection with my employer. Just another conservative engineer, Mike ---- P. Michael Guba ...seismo!umcp-cs!aplvax!pmg ...rlgvax!cvl!umcp-cs!aplvax!pmg ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ****************************** ----------kgd Subject: TELECOM Digest V4 #127 From: telecom@ucbvax.ARPA Path: watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ucbvax!telecom Organization: University of California at Berkeley Date: Fri, 23-Nov-84 21:01:55 EST Sender: daemon@ucbvax.ARPA From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) TELECOM Digest Fri, 23 Nov 84 20:24:35 EST Volume 4 : Issue 127 Today's Topics: Re: Strange numbers in AT&T's int'l recordings public figure 976 Pac Bel's "Party Line" telco provided "party-lines" ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 23 Nov 84 13:26:24 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) To: jellinek.pa@xerox.arpa Subject: Re: Strange numbers in AT&T's int'l recordings You have said "212 alludes to...(being) routed thru international switching center in White Plains, NY". But White Plains is in 914. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23-Nov-84 12:17:27 PST From: Lauren Weinstein Subject: public figure To: TELECOM@MC Sure, if the published information in question dealt directly with technical issues. But the examples of "harmful published information" that I was using were things like credit card numbers, comings and goings from the home, and sexual proclivities. None of these areas relate to "technical" issues in the manner you suggest. A person has to be a public figure in the "general" sense before the broad base of their privacy begins to erode, and even then items like credit card numbers would never be included in the "eroded" catagory. --Lauren-- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23-Nov-84 12:24:27 PST From: Lauren Weinstein Subject: 976 To: TELECOM@MC Some of the services are attempting to get the same 976 access numbers in each city, mainly to simplify their advertising, but they are still distinct services local to each area code. Even in Los Angeles the 213 and 818 codes are providing separate 976 services (the 818 976 service was awarded to General Telephone, by the way...) In L.A., 976 services are in great demand. There isn't enough central office equipment to support the number of people who wanted to provide services, and the available circuits were awarded by lottery. Once you are awarded a service, you MUST begin using it within a short time or the lines will be given to someone else. --Lauren-- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Nov 84 13:32:05 pst From: Phil Lapsley To: telecom@bbncca.ARPA Subject: Pac Bel's "Party Line" It's interesting to note that a group of individuals have been running a service similar to Pac Bell's "Party Line" for some time now in San Francisco. I forget the name of their conference, but it was well run, using a microcomputer with a voice synthesizer and five or six lines. Each individual had their own access code, and when you called and entered your code, the computer would announce your arrival on the conference with a short trumpet-like fanfare and then give stats on how many people were on the conference, etc. As for the concern that people would give out Sprint numbers, etc. on the conference, well that indeed did happen, and the only reason I would suspect that phreaks wouldn't use Pac Bell's service would be the fear that maybe Pac Bell *is* listening. As far as legal responsibility for publishing... well, I won't touch that with a 1200 baud modem. Phil ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23-Nov-84 12:30:33 PST From: Lauren Weinstein Subject: telco provided "party-lines" To: TELECOM@MC I suspect that these may be a legal "sleeper" -- I wouldn't be at all surprised to hear about major lawsuits resulting from information passed through these lines. They are a bit different than a BBS since you can only "broadcast" to a limited number of people (the number of people on the line at a given time) but they may be opening the door to telco vulnerability for "offending" messages. What if jerks started exchanging telco calling card numbers over such a service? Should be interesting to see what happens, from a legal standpoint, with these services. --Lauren-- ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ****************************** ----------kgd Subject: TELECOM Digest V4 #128 From: telecom@ucbvax.ARPA Path: watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!cbosgd!ucbvax!telecom Organization: University of California at Berkeley Date: Wed, 28-Nov-84 15:18:15 EST Sender: daemon@ucbvax.ARPA From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) TELECOM Digest Wed, 28 Nov 84 14:21:14 EST Volume 4 : Issue 128 Today's Topics: T-carrier specs. T1, T2, etc data rates ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 26 Nov 84 9:26:04 EST From: Jim Berets Subject: T-carrier specs. To: telecom@bbncca.arpa Cc: jberets@bbn-vax.arpa From "Introduction to Communication Systems" by Stremler: Specifications for the T-carrier TDM/PCM Telephony System System Rate MUX Voice Medium Rptr. Max. Sys. (Mbps) Chans. spacing sys. error (miles) length rate (miles) ------------------------------------------------------------- T1 1.544 T1 24 Wire 1 50 1e-6 pair T2 6.312 4(T1) 96 Coax 2.5 500 1e-7 T3 44.736 7(T2) 672 Coax not used for xmission T4 274.176 6(T3) 4032 Coax 1 500 1e-6 T5 560.160 2(T4) 8064 Coax 1 500 4e-7 WT4 18500.0 58(T4) 233000 Wave- 25 4000 1e-8 guide There is also T1C which is 2(T1). Jim ------------------------------ From: ihnp4!ariel!jmn@Berkeley Date: 27 Nov 84 11:16:06 CST (Tue) To: ihnp4!ucbvax!telecom@Berkeley Subject: T1, T2, etc data rates [] The data rates of the digital transmission facilities in the U. S. A. are; Bit Rate No. of 64,000bps voice channels T1 1.544Mbps 24 T1C 3.xxx 48 T2 6.312 96 T3 44.736 672 T4 274.176 4032 In Japan; level 1 1.544Mbps 24 level 2 6.312 96 level 3 32.064 480 level 4 97.728 1440 level 5 400.352 5760 In CEPT (Europe); level 1 2.048 Mbps 30 level 2 8.446 120 level 3 34.368 480 level 4 139.264 1920 level 5 560.xxx 7680 John M. Nervik ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ****************************** ----------kgd Subject: TELECOM Digest V4 #129 From: telecom@ucbvax.ARPA Path: watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ucbvax!telecom Organization: University of California at Berkeley Date: Fri, 30-Nov-84 00:01:59 EST Sender: daemon@ucbvax.ARPA From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) TELECOM Digest Thu, 29 Nov 84 22:34:22 EST Volume 4 : Issue 129 Today's Topics: phone wiring Hello, I'm a computer Re: TELECOM Digest V4 #127 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed 28 Nov 84 16:16:01-PST From: Mike Dixon Subject: phone wiring To: telecom@BBNCCA.ARPA while attempting a bit of reverse-engineering on my phone answering machine (a record-a-call 675) i noticed that it seems to expect signals on the first and fourth wires (modular plug) as well as the second and third. all the phones i've ever looked at ignored these wires, and indeed some extension jacks don't even connect them... can someone give a brief summary of what each of the four wires are used for, what the signal levels are like, etc.? thanks. .mike. ------- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Nov 84 13:00:51 EST From: Craig MacFarlane Subject: Hello, I'm a computer To: telecom@bbncca.arpa Have many of you noticed the increase in computer/recordings that call your no. to get you to buy something? In the last 2-3 weeks I've received about 5 of these calls, and I'm rarely at home. Where does the law draw the line between inquiry and abuse? Is there any- thing stopping someone from setting up a recording that will call every no. in the local area, and say "eat at joes"? I think the ones that bother me the most are the surveing calls, where the recording pauses for a response, because you can't find out who they are. Anyway, I was just wondering if this is fad or trend... [raig ------------------------------ Date: Thu 29 Nov 84 22:01:27-EST From: Keith M. Gabryelski Subject: Re: TELECOM Digest V4 #127 To: TELECOM@BBNCCA.ARPA A couple of things: Re: Screening BBS Mail.. Would anyone out there like to right the routines for the various computers. I sure wouldn't like to put in a time wasting routine like that on my BBS. Re: Interuptions.. I've never had a problem interupting a line. I've even used bizarre names that only the receiving party would understand and I still never had a problem. Maybe the operator was new operator that just finished reading the "Standard Practices" (You've gotta break the new ones in.) Re: Party Lines.. There have been several party lines (that I have been on) up and down the coast here. Charlie Oakland I think is the one that runs the one in SF. (They would not allow stuff of questionable nature on the line). There is also one in LA related with FEEDBACK I think. I've noticed that 4-5 is the maximun number of people you can have on a conference before it got annoying. With all the people being random, I would say that the number would have be a lot less. (Lukers not-withstanding.. ofcourse who would lurk with prices like that.) Keith ------- ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ****************************** ----------kgd Subject: TELECOM Digest V4 #130 From: telecom@ucbvax.ARPA Path: watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!cbosgd!ucbvax!telecom Organization: University of California at Berkeley Date: Sat, 1-Dec-84 01:49:02 EST Sender: daemon@ucbvax.ARPA From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) TELECOM Digest Fri, 30 Nov 84 16:57:10 EST Volume 4 : Issue 130 Today's Topics: Phone wiring and "Hello, I'm a computer" automated recordings (dial out) Hello, I'm a computer BBS Liability ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 29 Nov 84 21:23:50 PST From: "Theodore N. Vail" To: telecom@bbncca.arpa Subject: Phone wiring and "Hello, I'm a computer" The first and fourth wires on a four-conductor modular plug are normally used for modular jacks connected to one line of a key (push-button) multi-line telephone system. Shorting them disables the "hold" circuit and enables the telephone to be used. The "hold" circuit is (traditionally) a "holding" relay across the telephone line, and the two wires are connected in parallel with the coil, so that shorting them removes current from the coil and the holding relay opens. Of course, now there are electronic equivalents, but the circuitry at the telephone remains the same. Signal levels are a few volts dc and the current is the traditional "20" milliamperes. ------------------------------ I have received computer calls, with no human asking first if I wanted to receive them. What laws, rules, regulations, etc., if any, would I be breaking, if I set my auto-dialing modem to indefinitely dial the number that the recording tells you to call for more information. My modem will keep dialing until it gets a modem to answer. (Because of its "linking" feature, it doesn't have the 15 call limitation that some believe is required.) ted ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30-Nov-84 01:17:15 PST From: Lauren Weinstein Subject: automated recordings (dial out) To: TELECOM@MC The rules regarding these devices vary from state to state. Here in California, the law says that you are supposed to be asked by a human whether or not you wish to hear the recording before it is started, and they are supposed to monitor the line to drop the recording if you hang up. So you can use automated techniques to pick numbers and dial, but you "have" to let a person query the callee. Of course, these rules are sometimes ignored, and I (very rarely, even with multiple phone lines) still get on occasional completely automated call. They usually never tell you the name of the company calling, just prompt you for various information. I consider them to be a somewhat entertaining way to practice my knowledge of Anglo-Saxon expletives. --Lauren-- ------------------------------ Date: 30 November 1984 12:24-EST From: Ray Hirschfeld Subject: Hello, I'm a computer To: cmacfarl @ BBNCCJ I, too, have been getting more junk calls lately. I wonder if it's possible to get a home 976 number. I wouldn't mind these calls if I got a dollar for each one. At one point I considered getting an unlisted number to eliminate these nuisance calls. It burns me that the phone company charges not only a whopper of a service charge for this, but a monthly charge as well. And it wouldn't protect against dialers that try every possible number rather than go through the book. Ray ------------------------------ Date: 30 November 1984 15:00-EST From: Ray Hirschfeld Subject: BBS Liability To: telecom @ BBNCCA There has been a lot of discussion recently about the liability of BBS operators for credit card numbers posted on their systems. The people contributing to this discussion seem to be polarized into two camps, those who feel that only the person who posted the number can be held responsible, and those who feel that, because the culprit cannot be identified, this responsibility devolves upon the operator. Neither position seems right to me. Neither the BBS operator nor the person who posts the number is necessarily guilty of anything. Even if the submission of the credit card number were not anonymous, it seems to me that culpability is limited to those who use the number fraudulently. Similarly, I would not hold Abbie Hoffman or his publisher criminally liable for _Steal This Book_. Slander/libel is a different matter, since the message is itself damaging. But there is nothing inherently damaging about a number on a bulletin board. I give out my mastercard number over the phone all the time, and conceivably anybody who takes a phone order from me can abuse it. I'm not doing anything illegal, though. If I post a message on a BBS that says "my credit card number is so-and-so but I don't authorize anybody to use it," I'm asking for trouble but I don't think I'm breaking the law. If a number were posted with malicious intent it might be different, but this seems like a very difficult thing to prove. I know very little about laws concerning these matters, so the above is based solely on common sense, which has little to do with law. If I'm way off base, please let me know. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ****************************** ----------kgd Subject: TELECOM Digest V4 #131 From: telecom@ucbvax.ARPA Path: watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!telecom Organization: University of California at Berkeley Date: Tue, 4-Dec-84 22:51:37 EST Sender: daemon@ucbvax.ARPA From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) TELECOM Digest Tue, 4 Dec 84 15:36:05 EST Volume 4 : Issue 131 Today's Topics: junk calls; call forwarding phone wiring Automated recordings (dial out) RE:Hello, I'm a computer ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 30 Nov 84 19:35:44 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) To: telecom@Brl-Vld.ARPA Subject: junk calls; call forwarding I have heard of junk calls being routed to every possible number, thus stripping away the protection afforded by unlisted numbers (and also reaching jails, hospitals, etc.). I have also heard of not being able to hang up on some of these calls, which spells trouble if you happen to want to make emergency call at the very same time (it's happened!). But I am not sure who said what (if anything) about such junk calls. Re: call forwarding. I can still make outgoing calls, right? If I am making such an outgoing call and a call comes in, do I hear anything? (If the phone is on the hook, I hear one ring on an incoming call but cannot answer it there, right?) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Nov 84 17:24:19 est From: ulysses!smb@Berkeley (Steven Bellovin) To: MDIXON@su-score.ARPA, telecom@bbncca.ARPA Subject: phone wiring There are a number of common uses for the other two wires. The most likely use in this case is for the 'A-A1' lines -- an off-hook signal used by key phone systems to deal with someone picking up a held line, lighting the buttons to show a line is in use, etc. If that's the case, the answering machine should simply complete a circuit between those two when it's off-hook. ------------------------------ Date: Sat 1 Dec 84 13:19:49-EST From: Ralph W. Hyre Jr. Subject: Automated recordings (dial out) To: telecom@BBNCCA.ARPA I suspect that activity of this sort will decrease when we all have those little boxes that tell us the number of the phone that is calling us. (They were testing them in Pennsylvania a year ago.) Then you at least have some information to give to the phone company when you report those harassing phon e calls. You could even take it upon yourself to prevent them from harassing others by tying up THEIR dialout line with YOUR autodialer. - Ralph Hyre ------- ------------------------------ Date: 4 Dec 84 14:36:27 EST From: Gadi Subject: RE:Hello, I'm a computer To: telecom@BBNCCA.ARPA Getting an unlisted number might not help. When I was in high-school I worked for a Telephone Sales company (selling Newspapers). We were gived a card with the first 5 digits and had to dial the 100 last 2 digit combinations. This way we got all the unlisted numbers... -Gadi Friedman@Ru-Blue. ------- ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ****************************** ----------kgd Subject: TELECOM Digest V4 #132 From: telecom@ucbvax.ARPA Path: watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ucbvax!telecom Organization: University of California at Berkeley Date: Fri, 7-Dec-84 19:00:17 EST Sender: daemon@ucbvax.ARPA From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) TELECOM Digest Fri, 7 Dec 84 16:39:58 EST Volume 4 : Issue 132 Today's Topics: Automated dialers Political polling by telephone junk calls Re: call forwarding MCI Mail won't be free for long Re: TELECOM Digest V4 #130 Forwarding.. TELECOM Digest V4 #131 Allnet ??? Introducing... air-to-ground phone scanner freqs 950+ handling Can anyone identify this modem? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 2 Dec 84 10:41 EST From: "Roger A. Roach" Subject: Automated dialers To: Telecom@MIT-MC.ARPA I'm afraid that some of these dialers just call sequential numbers so even getting an unlisted number may not protect you. I saw something in TELECOMMUNICATIONS NEWS (July 9, 1984, pg 31) that may help. It seems that Southwestern Bell is going to be trying out something called LASS (Local Area Signaling Service) in Austin, TX in early 1985. This would include a feature called "displayed calling-party number", "customer-originated trace and nuisance call rejection" and "automatic recall of last called or calling party". If this feature became generally available, you could have your computer intercept the inward call and obtain the number of the person calling you. If it was a number in its database, it could announce who is calling you before you pick up the phone. ("Mr. Jones is calling you from his office" or "someone is calling you from Joe's Bar and Grill".) Then all you would have to do is to have your computer recognize the number of the dialing computer and answer the pauses with your favorite lines from Jabberwocky. This is more effective way of dealing with these calls rather than hanging up because this requires a human to listen and ascertain that you are not buying what they are selling. If you just hangup, the computer goes on to the next number and no human gets involved. If their costs of monitoring these calls becomes high enough, it will no longer be an effective way to market. ------------------------------ Date: 4 Dec 1984 1327-PST From: Richard M. King Subject: Political polling by telephone To: telecom@MIT-MC.ARPA, poli-sci@RUTGERS.ARPA As I recall, Dewey was predicted to beat Truman by a poll taken of telephone subscribers before an election. This was inaccurate because the set of people with telephone service was not a cross sectin of the voting population. In 1984, practically everyone has a phone, so this is no longer a problem. BUT Pollsters dial numbers at random in order to get unlisted numbers. I have two lines in my house - one for the people and one for the modem. We have hunting (might as well) so we often don't remember not to answer the modem line if it rings while the listed line is not busy. Last election we were polled on that line. That pollster had twice as high a probability of contacting me (and similarly situated people) as of contacting a person with a single line. They did NOT ask us whether we had two lines, which would have enabled them to compensate for this. Are pollsters asking for trouble? If some poll gets a wierd result circa 1988 or 1992 when approximatel y half the population has two lines, you heard it here first! Dick ------- ------------------------------ Date: 5 Dec 1984 08:52:47-EST From: prindle@NADC To: telecom@bbncca Subject: junk calls I recently got one of those junk calls (a builder trying to sell aluminum siding in the guise of a survey). I absolutely could not hang up on it until it was over (approximately 3 minutes)! Depressing the switch hook for up to 30 seconds had no effect! I called the business office to complain and th ey said it was impossible unless the CO equipment was malfunctioning. Fortunate ly I was able to track down the caller via his answering service (number given at end of survey/ad) and give him a piece of my mind on the matter. Can someone explain how he could have caused this "can't hang up" effect? Frank Prindle Prindle@NADC ------------------------------ Date: 5 Dec 84 11:48:09 PST (Wednesday) From: lynn.es@XEROX.ARPA Subject: Re: call forwarding To: TELECOM@BBNCCA.ARPA Call forwarding available here (Los Angeles area, Pacific Bell) comes in two flavors: 1) forward immediately. This gives a short ring at the forwarder, but cannot be answered there. 2) forward after 3 (unanswered) rings or if busy. Here you can answer during the three rings, but you never even know of the arriving call if you are on the phone already. In either type you can call out from the forwarder phone. It has always bothered me that they linked "unanswered" and "busy" forwarding together. It might make sense for someone who has a secretary who will then get the call if he doesn't answer or is already on the phone, but in most cases, secretaries have extension phones on the same line, so forwarding is not needed. I usually use the forward "unanswered" for when I am going back and forth between my office and a lab. In that case, I don't want the "busy" forward to go to the lab. I would rather the caller got a busy tone or got forwarded to the phone next door to my office. /Don Lynn ------------------------------ Date: Wed 5 Dec 84 15:59:50-EST From: Ralph W. Hyre Jr. Subject: MCI Mail won't be free for long To: telecom@BBNCCA.ARPA I just called them, and they said that starting January 1, there will be an $18.00 annual mailbox fee. I was told that if I signed up now, the fee wouldn't be assessed until my 'anniversary date' next December. I didn't ask what would happen to current subsribers, but I presume that they would also be grandfathered in for a while. Are there any 'free to sign up and read messages, pay to send' mail services left? How much will people pay per year to have an electronic mailbox? (I won't pay $20.00 just to make myself marginally more accessible to people. ) - Ralph ------- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Dec 84 12:05:38 pst From: ihnp4!uw-beaver!tikal!teldata.shad@Berkeley (Warren Shadwick) To: cholula!tikal!uw-beaver!cornell!vax135!houxm!ihnp4!cbosgd!ucbvax!telecom@ Berkeley Subject: Re: TELECOM Digest V4 #130 In response to the four wires on a standard modular plug, I have seen the second pair used for lamp voltages on "Princess" type telephones with illuminated dials. Color coding at the phone (note that the standard modular cord contains a reversal at the wall): green - tip red - ring yellow - ground black - lamp Tip & ring are the normal transmission pair. Ground is quite often connected and is still used on party lines for tip-to-ground or ring-to-ground ringing. The lamp voltage requires a ten volt AC adapter. Warren Shadwick Teltone Corporation ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 Dec 1984 01:20 EST From: GZT.KEITH%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA To: telecom@BBNCCA.ARPA Subject: Forwarding.. Date: Wed, 5 Dec 1984 01:57 EST Message-ID: From: GZT.KEITH%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA To: TELECOM@BBNCCA.ARPA Subject: TELECOM Digest V4 #131 In-reply-to: Msg of 4 Dec 1984 15:36-EST from Jon Solomon (the Moderator) Call forwarding: If the phone is ON-hook you will hear one ring. If the phone is OFF-hook (even with call-waiting) nothing will happen. The call will be forwarded but you will not know of it. Keith Also, Forwards don't seem to be able to be made to Non-Supervised numbers (ie, numbers that don't cost; recordings, weather, time). ---- Does anyone by chance know what the "INWRD" (INWARD, next to emergency interrupt) button on the TSPS console does. I realize it lights up if the operator must become and inward, but it is also a button and doesn't seem to do anything when presses (and no operator I have talken too has ever had a reason to use it or knows what a reason would be to use it) ------------------------------ Date: 6 Dec 84 18:16:33 EST From: Eric Subject: Allnet ??? To: telecom@BBNCCA.ARPA Hi, I was up fairly late the past two nights, and at the same time (around 1:30 A.M.) saw a commercial for ALLNET. Well, the first night it really caught my attention - the commercial went something like this: When you hang up the phone with some long distance services you keep paying up to a minute after you hang up the phone! Tired of paying after you hang up?, then subscribe now to Allnet, where after the first minute we update your bill every six seconds! Tired of high long distance rates? Well here's something new: long distance for free! That's right, sign up now for Allnet long distance service and get 2 hours long distance time free anywhere in the U.S. and even Alaska and Hawaii. Not only that, but our rates are up to 60% lower than AT&T and lower than many other long distance services etc etc... Call now at 1-800-etc. etc. (I don't remember the exact number). Well, I couldn't pass this up: I called immediately to get more information. I got a recorded message first telling me that all the operators were busy and then someone cam on the line telling me the same and asking me for my name and number and that they would call me back in a few minutes. About 20 minutes later the same fellow called me back and said: " I'm sorry, we don't have service to your area right now, why don't you try calling back after the first of the year." Boy was I pissed! - are these people for real or are they advertising stuff they don't even have? If I thought it was worth it I'd sue them for false and misleading advertising. Their ad claimed 'service to anywhere in the USA' !!! They won't be getting my business - I'll probably go with MCI or some such company. Has anyone else had any experiences with Allnet? Eric ------- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 Dec 84 15:26:30 pst From: dual!fair@Berkeley To: TELECOM@BBNCCA Subject: Introducing... Hello folks! Just wanted to say that Cap'n Crunch is now on line and I can be reached Via the following Electronic address and wish to participate in the telecom discussions (Legal!! of course). I will be reading the digest on a USENET site just a few hops off of Berkeley: dual!proper!crunch@Berkeley.ARPA. My land line is (415) 540-7058 so drop me a line. John T. Draper [I'm just letting John send this from `dual' because `proper' has decided to be flakey tonight. Please direct responses to the address he gave above - Erik E. Fair] ------------------------------ Date: Tuesday, 4 December 1984 14:27-EST From: "Bob Parnass, AJ9S" Subject: air-to-ground phone scanner freqs Anyone heard any air-to-ground telephone conversations yet? Here's a start: Illinois Bell Telephone, domestic public air-to-ground [Illinois]___________ 454.6750____KSC881 (govt recd s) " [Illinois]___________ 454.9500____KSC881 (govt recd s) unidentified: air-to-ground telephone, only the aircraft side of conversation heard, strong signals 12/3/84 [location?]__________ 459.9750_mo_callsign? (B. Parnas s) -- ============================================================================= == Bob Parnass, Bell Telephone Laboratories - ihnp4!ihu1h!parnass - (312)979-54 14 ------------------------------ From: hou4b!dwl@Berkeley (d.w.levenson) To: Telecom-Request@BBNCCA Date: 5 Dec 1984 16:44 EST Subject: 950+ handling Having used an OCC for the past year or so via a 950+ access code, I have found several anomalies in the way it is handled from coin phones in New Jersey. I'm wondering if others have similar experiences or explanations. Most coin phones allow me to dial the 950+ and do not require a coin deposit. The rest of the call, is handled as if from a non-coin station. Most coinless public phones work the same way! The coin phones in Morristown go to a no-such-number recording after only three digits, if they are 950. If I dial 1+201+950+ the call is handled the way I would expect, from coin phones. From non-coin "Charge-a-Call" phones, this results in a "can't be completed as dialed" recording. Then, I can dial 0+201+950+. I wait for the logo tone, and dial my AT&T Calling Card number. The dial tone from the OCC is the next thing I hear, and the call is processed normally. (No billing to the calling card results.) The coin phones in Ft. Lee tell me a twenty-cent deposit is required. If I deposit twenty cents and then place the call, it is handled correctly but the coins are then collected, not returned as I would expect. Using 1+201+950+ seems to work there, and does not ask for coins. Any thoughts on this? ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Dec 84 14:37:20 pst From: hpda!hptabu!dclaar@Berkeley (Doug Claar) To: Telecom-Request@BBNCCA Subject: Can anyone identify this modem? I have a modem device that consists of a single acoustic coupler which fits over the telephone microphone. My understanding is that it transmits data at 1350 baud, half duplex. Is this any kind of standard modem? If so, can anyone tell me what the standard is, and where I might get the receiving half? Thank you, Doug Claar HP Computer Systems Division UUCP: { {ihnp4 | decvax }!hplabs | ucbvax}!hpda!dclaar ARPA: hpda!dclaar@ucb-vax.ARPA ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ****************************** ----------kgd Subject: TELECOM Digest V4 #134 From: telecom@ucbvax.ARPA Path: watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ucbvax!telecom Organization: University of California at Berkeley Date: Thu, 13-Dec-84 05:26:21 EST Sender: daemon@ucbvax.ARPA From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) TELECOM Digest Wed, 12 Dec 84 17:25:36 EST Volume 4 : Issue 134 Today's Topics: Telco directory service Re: Allnet Re: Call forwarding 950 strangeness ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue 11 Dec 84 12:38:34-EST From: Marvin Sirbu Subject: Telco directory service To: jbs@MIT-XX.ARPA The New England Telephone company's directory service computers for 617 went down this morning and there was no directory service to be had for quite a while. They clearly don't have a distributed database with multiple servers as with domain names. Marvin Sirbu ------- ------------------------------ Date: Tue 11 Dec 84 19:09:47-EST From: Robert S. Lenoil Subject: Re: Allnet To: telecom@BBNCCA.ARPA Their ad said "service TO anywhere in the USA." This is true, as you can reach any phone in the USA from Allnet. That may be misleading, but it is not supposed to imply that Allnet is offered FROM everywhere. I use Allnet under 1+ dialing. If you live in an equal access area, their access number is 10444, and they encourage you to use it (it's not just for subscribers as other company's numbers are). They are resellers of AT&T trunks, and as such the quality is just fine. Their rates are MUCH better than either AT&T, MCI, or SPRINT, and their six-second increment billing does save you lots of money (US Tel also uses six second billing). ------- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 Dec 84 17:48:56 EST From: Ron Natalie To: TELECOM@BBNCCA.ARPA Subject: Re: Call forwarding Carl: As I recall, no indication is given to the person on the line. If I recall correctly, call waiting doesn't even go off. -Ron ------------------------------ Date: 11 Dec 84 20:46:47 EST From: *Hobbit* Subject: 950 strangeness To: telecom@RUTGERS.ARPA Morristown? My old stomping grounds. Having to dial 1+201+950+ sounds *very* strange, to wit, a *bug* that should be corrected. 1+201+ should not route any different from if you simply dial the seven digits, and if it is, the office is screwed up. Does this happen from the fones in the 455 office [which 267, 538/9, etc are part of]?? Naturally, if you try to explain this to a repair person, they won't understa nd a thing you're driving at. Try to determine exactly what is softwarily wrong, and call the BSC [*not* the residence office] at 267 9900, or maybe the Admin HQ at 649 9900. You have to bypass a lot of front-end people by asking for supervisors. Both those numbers are official and therefore toll-free if you dial through the operator. G'luck! _H* ------- ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ****************************** ----------kgd Subject: TELECOM Digest V4 #135 From: telecom@ucbvax.ARPA Path: watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ucbvax!telecom Organization: University of California at Berkeley Date: Thu, 13-Dec-84 19:22:45 EST Sender: daemon@ucbvax.ARPA From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) TELECOM Digest Thu, 13 Dec 84 16:34:20 EST Volume 4 : Issue 135 Today's Topics: 718 area (specifically, 976) MCI Mailbox Charges Equal access dialing ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 13 Dec 84 8:27:15 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) To: telecom@BRL-VGR.ARPA Subject: 718 area (specifically, 976) I just got my phone bill with a call to 718-976 New York, NY (although 718 does not include Manhattan). Does this have something to do with 718 not yet being fully cut over? (Full cutover to take place around New Year's?) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Dec 84 11:16:12 EST From: Brint To: telecom@BRL-TGR.ARPA Subject: MCI Mailbox Charges Ralph was told by MCI that their new mailbox charge would not be billed until December 1985? MCI has just informed me via a piece of MCI Mail that my first $18.00 would be billed in January, 1985 ! Brint ------------------------------ From: ima!johnl@bbncca Date: Thu Dec 13 11:22:00 1984 Subject: Equal access dialing To: bbncca!telecom Just got my latest Boston white pages from NYNEX Information Resources (since when do phone companies need a separate division to publish the phone book?) and I am amazed at the total lack of information they give on dialing. For intra-lata calls, the usual stuff is there about 1+number and 0+number, and for non-equal-access areas the same stuff applies, with a warning that you go to AT&T unless do you something else that your OCC should have told you about. But for the equal access areas, they say that 1+NPA+number goes to your preferred carrier and other than that, you're on your own. So I have a few questions. If you dial 0+NPA+number, what happens? At this point I gather than only AT&T has operators, so other LD carriers presumably say no. So how do I dial AT&T and ask for an operator? The obvious thing would be this: 00ATT+NPA+number but I gather that's not it. Perhaps 10ATT+0+NPA+number. Perhaps not. And for international calls, they don't tell you how to dial at all! They give the country and city codes, but no hint on how to dial. I thought that 011+country+city+number was standard, but evidently not. And how do you dial international through a non-preferred acarrier? Don't tell me, it's 10XXX+011+country+city+number. By the time you dial all that with a rotary dial, you could have written a letter. Aargh. John Levine, ima!johnl (uucp), Levine@YALE.ARPA (internet) ------------------------------ From: Jon_Tara@Wayne-MTS Date: Wed, 12 Dec 84 23:55:30 EST From: Jon_Tara%Wayne-MTS%UMich-MTS.Mailnet@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA To: telecom-request%BBNCCA@MIT-Multics.ARPA The information that appeared here on Allnet was a bit misleading. Yes, they have six-second billing, but they also have a 1-minute minimum. They also charge more for the first minute than they do for subsequent minutes. Their salesman told me that they don't bill for calls under 1 minute at all, but they same salesman told me that the first minute was NOT loaded, which turned out not to be true. (I haven't gotten a bill yet, so I don't know about not billing under 1 minute - I'll report back - my FIDOnet system should give *that* a good test...). Personally, I've found the quality to be as rotten as any of them. They proudly enclosed a review from Data Communications showing that they had better data quality than anyone (ATT included!) It hasn't been born out in practice, at least not by me. I'm using a small company called Telemarketing Communications, Inc. (TMC) They have true six-second billing, and claim to use ATT Watts lines exclusively. I still can't say that their quality is as good as ATT, but it's the best of the alternate services that I've tried (Allnet, Sprint, MCI, and SBS Skyline.) Each service seems to have it's own "typical" problem. Skyline's is satellite delay. Allnet, Sprint, and MCI have chronic low levels. TMC has a peculiar crosstalk problem, which I've never noticed anywhere else. Suprisingly, though, my modem seems to ignore the phantom voices. One final note: the salesperson for Skyline specifically said that they weren't "tarrifed for data", but that "many people have satisfactory results" (they must have slooooow reflexes...). The TMC salesperson claimed that they *are* tarrifed for data. I have a feeling that this means that if you call and complain about your data connections, that they don't have any obligation to fix it or refund your money. Anyone know for sure? ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ****************************** ----------kgd Subject: TELECOM Digest V4 #136 From: telecom@ucbvax.ARPA Path: watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ucbvax!telecom Organization: University of California at Berkeley Date: Fri, 14-Dec-84 22:55:04 EST Sender: daemon@ucbvax.ARPA From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) TELECOM Digest Fri, 14 Dec 84 16:53:06 EST Volume 4 : Issue 136 Today's Topics: "The Hot Line" is good business in Sweden MCI Mailbox Charges PHONE CO's UNION BUSTING MCI mailbox charges ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thursday, 13 Dec 1984 17:22:49-PST From: minow%rex.DEC@decwrl.ARPA To: telecom@bbncca.ARPA Subject: "The Hot Line" is good business in Sweden With the recent discussion on the California "party line" phone proposal, I thought it was about time to translate this article from the Stockholm Newspaper, Svenska Dagbladet, dated July 25, 1983. The article was written by Marianne Roennberg. Note: the Swedish crown is now worth about 11 cents. It was slightly higher when this was written. "Televerket" is the Swedish Telephone Authority. Televerket Earns Millions: "The Hot Line" is a brilliant affair "The Hot Line" is more popular than ever. The Stockholm numbers were called 2.5 million times both in May and June [1983]. Teen's need for contact gives Televerket a million kroner per week. "Hello" sounds in the phone now and then. Many call one of the 400 lines just to listen. There's no doubt that "Hot Line" calls are are a popular pasttime for summer-vacationing youths. The number of calls to the three Stockholm numbers has quadrupled since school vacation started. In March, Stockholmers called 700,000 times; in May 2.8 million, and in June 2.5 million. "The Hot Line" had been open between 1700 and 0800: i.e., after office hours, so as not to overload business exchanges. After July first, it will be open 24 hours every day. "If we notice that the traffic interferes with business users, we'll cut back on the hours", says Sven-Ingvar Larsson, Televerket superintendent for Stockholm. _Not Free_ The calling-game isn't free. Each call lasts five minutes and costs 0.23 kroner [about 3 cents]. "We earn a million per month from 'The Hot Line.'" Slightly more than half of that is paid by Stockholm residents. "The Hot Line" came to be by chance. Youths discovered that many could speak at the same time if they called a number with a refrence-tone [an non-existant number]. The pressure on the technology became so great that the reference-tone had to give way. Televerket cut wires as fast as they could to stop the operation. Then the youths got angry, demonstrated, and demanded a completely legal "hot line" from Televerket. _Legal Line_ The profit-making company realized that they could make a profit from loneliness even among the young and Stockholm got three numbers and 400 lines to play with. Since then, even Helsingborg, Gothenburg, Umeaa, Skelleftiaa, Koeping, Enkoeping, and Uppsala have started their own lines. Shocked parents have accused Televerket of lacking morals: it encourages youths to call and astonished parents discover "The Hot Line" only when an unexplicably high telephone bill lands in the mailbox. "We have discussed the viewpoints and came to the conclusion that each subscriber must be responsible for the way their telephone is used," says Sven-Ingvar Larsson. -- Sidebar -- Sunday afternoon was beautiful. Despite that, a few preferred talking a while on "The Hot Line" instead of going to the beach. The line's hanger's on sit quietly listening to others who call. Whenever a new caller is added, you hear a click in the receiver. Then you hear a careful "Hello." All listen closely, but not everyone answers. When a -- judging from the voice -- young girl enters, a waiting man answers immediately. Hopefully, they throw out "The Hot Line's" standard questions to each other: "Who are you?" "Someone. And you?" "Maria. Where do you live?" "On Soeder [Southern neighborhood in Stockholm]. And you?" "Vallentuna [suburb]. How old are you?" "Nineteen. And you?" "Seventeen." "Oh damn!" That's how most calls sound. After that, many have a problem finding something to say. Those who follow the traffic for a few days recognize some frequently reappearing voices. "The Hot Line" doubtlessly pulls in people with many different contact-problems. Thousands of people enjoy "letting go" a bit but the limit of what one may say on "The Hot Line" is, for the most part, one's private phone number. ------ Sloppily translated by Martin Minow minow%rex@decwrl.arpa ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Dec 84 21:20:14 EST From: The Home Office of To: telecom@BBNCCA.ARPA Subject: MCI Mailbox Charges Ralph was told by MCI that their new mailbox charge would not be billed until December 1985? MCI has just informed me via a piece of MCI Mail that my first $18.00 would be billed in January, 1985 ! Brint ------------------------------ From: rhc%ucbjade.CC@Berkeley ( San Franciscan for Responsible Anarchy ) Date: 14 Dec 1984 0025-PST (Friday) To: telecom@bbncca.ARPA Subject: PHONE CO's UNION BUSTING From the Dec 5-18, 1984, issue of Grassroots, Berkeley's Community Newspaper ------- PHONE CO's UNION BUSTING ``We change janitors every 2-3 years ... just as we change our cars.'' -- Robert Roche, Pacific Bell Vice-President Comments at recent PUC meeting Local 87 members of the Service Employees International Union, AFL- CIO, joined by the San Francisco Organizing Project (a coalition of 21 church congregations, 16 unions, and the Citizens Action League) have asked for a moratorium until February on contracting changes which have already laid off 50 union janitors. In December 50 more janitors are expected to lose their jobs. This follows nearly a year of legal actions by Local 87 against ``union-bust- ing'' policies by Pacific Bell: * Union janitors have been systemati- cally eliminated from phone company facilities throughout the state. * New contractors have refused to hire former union workers. * Several non-union contractors have been proven to be violating state prevailing wage laws. This August Pacific Bell and its subcontractor, Stay-King, was fined over $18,000 by the State Labor Commission for paying substandard wages. Stay-King then disappeared, owing its employees over a month's pay. ``This is an important fight because we are the last union janitors working in Pacific Bell buildings in this state,'' according to Local 87 President Wray Jacobs. ``We think it's obscene that Ma Bell is asking for over $900 million in rate increases this year and $1.4 billion next year (approximately $10 per residential customer per month) ... while at the same time it is trying to skim a few dollars off the backs of this city's janitors. The California Public Utilities Com- mission law requires that Pacific Bell subcontractors pay ``prevailing wages'' and that such contracts be given to the lowest ``reasonable'' bidder. ``Pacific Bell claims it has no responsibility for its subcontractor's violations ... But it's Pacific Bell that pockets the difference when non-union janitors are paid less than the prevailing wage,'' said Jacobs. -- Fred Kotler & Jean Quan, Local 87 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13-Dec-84 17:00:38 PST From: Lauren Weinstein Subject: MCI mailbox charges To: TELECOM@MC While I was expecting them to pull the rug out from under the freebie mailboxes for quite some time, their decision may have been hastened by a procedure that some users were apparently following. Apparently some people were transferring messages across the country by setting up a "free" mailbox, having the access known by people in scattered geographic areas, then transferring messages as mail creation "temporary" files within the account. That way, they didn't have to even "post" the messages--they just waited for the next person to login and read the temp file. --Lauren-- ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ****************************** ----------kgd Subject: TELECOM Digest V4 #137 From: telecom@ucbvax.ARPA Path: watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!telecom Date: 21 Dec 84 04:33:07 GMT Sender: daemon@ucbvax.ARPA From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) TELECOM Digest Thu, 20 Dec 84 23:10:04 EST Volume 4 : Issue 137 Today's Topics: Using Other Inter-Lata Carriers "Improved" tone switching circuitry CrosstalkModem Creosstalk. 2400 baud modems New 2400 baud modems 8/19/84 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: hou4b!dwl@Berkeley (d.w.levenson) To: Telecom-Request@BBNCCA Date: 14 Dec 1984 15:07 EST Subject: Using Other Inter-Lata Carriers If AT&T is not your default inter-lata carrier, you can still dial 0+ for assistance, on intra-lata calls. If you dial 0+ on an inter-lata call, you will be routed to your default carrier's operator (if any) or to a recording telling you you can't do that. To place an operator-assisted call where AT&T is not your default carrier, assuming that your carrier does not provide operator assistance, you must dial 10ATT-0-NPA-NXX-XXXX. To dial internationally, you dial 011+ etc for your default carrier, or 10ATT-011+ for AT&T. If you don't have equal access yet, dial 950-10XX+-011+ to call internationally using a non-AT&T carrier. This comes from "Notes on the BOC Intra-Lata Network", 1984 edition, published by Bell Communications Research. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 Dec 84 13:12:23 cst From: nather%utastro.UTEXAS@ut-sally.ARPA (Ed Nather) To: Telecom-Request@BBNCCA Subject: "Improved" tone switching circuitry The phone company in Austin, Texas has replaced the local switching system on my exchange with "...new, digital switching..." and has caused an interesting problem, starting the day of the switchover. When I call a modem on another exchange, the carrier is interrupted at regular intervals by a short noise burst that, at 1200 baud, always yields the "{" character on my display, and no other. With different routes through the new switching system, the noise pip comes every 0.8 seconds or every 80 seconds, exactly. And it is always one-way: the distant modem doesn't see it, but mine does, always. Has anyone had a similar experience? Any advice or suggestions would be welcome. And how do I explain this to the phone company??? Ed Nather Astronomy Dept., U. of Texas {allegra,ihnp4}!{noao,ut-sally}!utastro!nather ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Dec 84 09:21:59 cst To: telecom@Berkeley Subject: CrosstalkModem Creosstalk. From: fidder%isucs1@csnet-relay.ARPA I had a new variation on the crosstalk problem the other day. The lines I use for long distance calling are very poor when it comes to crosstalk (you can offen make out entire converstions without problem). Well for this call I was not meet by human crosstalk but that of a modem! I finally had to hangup and redial. Kinda makes me wonder what is going to happen as more and more modems come on line, and phone lines get worse. Ted Fidder Iowa State University CSNET: fidder@iowa-state ------------------------------ Date: 20 Dec 1984 06:52 MST (Thu) From: Keith Petersen To: Info-Cpm@AMSAA, Telecom@MIT-MC Subject: 2400 baud modems This is file 2400BAUD.TXT - relayed from the RCPM circuit: --Keith From: Wayne Masters, Potpourri sysop (408) 378-7474 300/1200/2400 baud San Jose, Ca. Subject: New 2400 baud modems 8/19/84 Many of you have asked technical questions about the 2400 baud modems now on the market (and more being introduced monthly). As most of you know by now Irv Hoff and I have been beta testing 2400 baud for several months. The test results are amazing to say the least. Running controlled tests on standard dial-up phone lines with random "noisy connections", the number of "hits" on a given file transfer is less by a factor of 10 using 2400 baud vs 1200 baud. So it is concluded that 2400 baud technology is working and will soon be available on most commercial and private dial-up systems. Now, what is a "standard" 2400 baud modem? You will no doubt see various technical descriptions of a given 2400 baud modem touting it's features. Be sure the modem you choose has this specification: CCITT recommendation for a V.22 bis modem communicating at 2400 bps. Further explanation of this CCITT standard: Frequency- Bell 212A Encoding modulation- 16 level psk (quadrature AM or QAM) This sounds a lot like the Bell 212A standard for 1200 baud--and it is. The difference is in the encoding or modulation scheme. Bell 212A 1200 baud uses 4 level psk and 2400 baud uses 16 level psk. If you "listen" to the 2400 baud carrier it will sound exactly like the familiar 1200/212A- like "static" or a scratchy noise. Features to look for in your search for the "right" 2400 baud modem: 1. Does it retain 300 baud bell 103 capability? (most offer 1200 baud as a "fallback") 2. Is it "smart"--a biggy if you intend to call other systems a lot. 3. Does it offer autoanswer--a biggy if you run a remote system. 4. Price--a real biggy So far, none of the modems on the market offer all these features in a "standalone" modem. That is one big reason why Irv Hoff and I have been involved with Racal-Vadic--not only beta testing to prove 2400 baud technology...but to get the features most users prefer designed into the modem. Others may follow some day but Racal Vadic will introduce their "standalone" modem in time for Christmas 84 with the following features: 1. Smart-autodialing. It will recognize both the Hayes and Vadic commands. 2. 0-300 baud at both Bell 103 and Vadic protocols 3. 1200 baud at both Bell 212A and Vadic protocols 4. 2400 baud CCITT V.22 bis 5. Price is expected to be $695.00 retail The first release will be an external RS-232 model. Early 1985 will see the single card slot version for IBM PC's and compatiables. In order for 2400 baud to be in "great demand" there must be systems available for the users to access. I am working with Racal-Vadic to identify RCP/M and RBBS systems where 2400 baud modems could be placed to generate public interest in 2400 baud. Sysop's should contact Potpourri at 408-378-7474 if interested in participating. Now about software to support 2400 baud. Both MDM7 and MEX will support 2400 baud if the user modifies his port overlay to setup his port for 2400 baud. For sysops who use BYE3, the problem is different. Most implementations of BYE rely on the hardware's Data Available signal (DAV) to trigger a check-for-carriage-return sequence at different baud rates. If most hardware is like mine (Z80 SIO), if the hardware is set to look at 300 baud and the modem answers at 2400 baud the DAV is never set and you are in an endless loop. Same thing happens if you set the hardware to 2400 and the modem answers at 300. I modified BYE3 (version 26 and up) to handle TSTBAUD differently. I chose to look at each baud rate in 2 second windows, 300 first, then 1200 and 2400, and loop thru this sequence until a C/R or L/F is detected. The caller is never more than 4 seconds away from his calling speed but must continue to issue c/r's until the familiar message "Nulls, if needed" is displayed. Sysop's who choose to use BYE3 need only add the "SET2400" code into their port insert. Well, enough for now. Feel free to contact me if you are more confused now than you were before reading this. -wayne masters, Potpourri sysop- 408-378-7474 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ****************************** ----------kgd Subject: TELECOM Digest V4 #138 From: telecom@ucbvax.ARPA Path: watmum!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!ucbvax!telecom Date: 24 Dec 84 23:08:36 GMT Sender: daemon@ucbvax.ARPA From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) TELECOM Digest Mon, 24 Dec 84 17:45:26 EST Volume 4 : Issue 138 Today's Topics: Getting {'s to death? Maintaining the network and invading the house ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Friday, 21 Dec 1984 05:57:25-PST From: goldstein%donjon.DEC@decwrl.ARPA (Fred R. Goldstein) To: telecom@bbncca.ARPA Subject: Getting {'s to death? The V.22 (212) type modems use a "scrambling" scheme to keep the bits density up to par, and the chip set decodes the bit stream as it comes in. If for some reason (like noise on the line) it can't decode a character correctly, then it puts out a { character. It's not really being received; instead, it's your modem's way of telling you it missed something (or missed a "nothing"). If your CO is digital, one possible explanation of why it has a regular error every 80 seconds is if the T-carrier span lines connecting it to the CO where the computer is, or the toll switch, aren't in sync. Then you may see a "slip", as the 1.544000 Mbps clocks drop a bit here and there. This will manifest itself as an inaudible phase shift in the received signal. V.22 modems are phase modulated (4psk), and generally work by timing the peaks of the waveforms. So if you lose 1/8000 of a second, the 2400 Hz modem tone will be phase shifted, changing the meaning of the bit and munging the descrambler. Although all digital transmission systems in the public network try to maintain sync to the master clock in Kansas City, most long-haul toll circuits are still analog, so you have "digital islands". With neither end of the circuit officially in sync, somebody at telco may have slipped up and let both ends be free-running (instead of master- slave). That's my guess. At 300 bps you shouldn't have any problems with this, not that it's much consolation. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 23 Dec 84 23:35 EST From: Frankston.SoftArts@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA Subject: Maintaining the network and invading the house To: telecom@MIT-MC.ARPA The planned converted of Newton Mass to a DMS-100 switch apparently did occur as scheduled last weekend. One side effect was to misprogram my residental hunt group so that all incoming calls came into the same number. I reported it to service. The next day I got a call at the office that the problem was resolved. Fine. But than a while later a get a message from home that there is a telco person on my premises trying to fix a problem. My first reaction was to tell him to get out. Hist story is that he was sent since they were checking out my repair order and couldn't clear it until they dealt with an "80% short" they found on my line. There are a number of issues here: 1. People first reaction is to allow telco people in the house instead of requiring positive confirmation from me that it is at my request. This is a long standing problem for those of us with foreign equipment such as computers on the network. I've trained my wife but people still don't understand that I must be present before people muck with the circuits in my house. 2. I presume the "80% short" is found by diagnostic support in the new exchange? What is an 80% short? 3. The real issue here is that if there truly is this problem, then they should phone me, or better yet, send me a letter, saying that they have found this problem and advise that I resolve it. If it doesn't threaten the network, then it is my problem. If it threatens the network, then they should install an interface to isolate my house from the network. I am not objecting to their willingness to check out my house to resolve the problem, even if they do charge me. What I am concerned about is that telco (Nynex in this case) doesn't seem to be prepared for the new world in which I am responsible for maintaining my premise system. They should simply inform me of the problem. If I elect, they can come and fix it. Since the problem, I have not heard anything from them about the problem. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ****************************** ----------kgd Subject: TELECOM Digest V4 #139 From: telecom@ucbvax.ARPA Path: watmum!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!ucbvax!telecom Date: 28 Dec 84 22:13:06 GMT Sender: daemon@ucbvax.ARPA From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) TELECOM Digest Fri, 28 Dec 84 16:36:19 EST Volume 4 : Issue 139 Today's Topics: lost message Setting Up Call Forwarding From Another Telephone? 511 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 28 Dec 84 16:34:48 EST From: Jon Solomon Subject: lost message To: telecom@bbncca.arpa During the processing of today's digest, I lost a long message rating several 2400 baud modems and the companies which sell them. Will whomever sent that message please resend it to TELECOM@BBNCCA and I will be sure and post it on the digest. Sorry! --JSol ------------------------------ From: Date: Thursday, 27 Dec 1984 14:29-PST To: randvax!telecom@BBNCCA Subject: Setting Up Call Forwarding From Another Telephone? Is it possible to set up (or cancel) call forwarding for a given telephone from any other telephone normally or by phone-phreakish methods? I assume call forwarding can be set up and/or cancelled from the central office. Yes? No? A. R. White ARPA: tp3!nomdenet @ Rand-UNI X UUCP: ... randvax!tp3!nomdene t ------------------------------ Date: 27 Dec 1984 0824-EST (Thursday) From: vax135!peora!jer@Berkeley (J. Eric Roskos) To: telecom@BBNCCA.ARPA Subject: 511 Being new to this conference, I just now tried out the various methods suggested for identifying your own phone number. None of them worked (200- 555-1212 came closest, giving various unusual and nondeterministic results after the first 5 was dialed), but dialing 511 caused the phone to go completely dead (as someone else mentioned). My question is... why? Is this a feature, a way of discouraging people from experimenting (it works well for that), or just a bug? The phone stayed dead for quite some time. Here in Orlando we are presently a market test area for a very useful software product called "Touchstar", which provides blocking of calls from unwanted numbers, redialing of the last person who called you (for missed calls), repeat dialing (every 40 seconds for 30 minutes (45 tries in all, which exceeds the purported limit for "attack dialing")), a special ring for calls from "special people", customer-initiated call tracing, forwarding of only selected callers, displaying of the number calling you (requires special equipment), and the ability to "list the numbers of incoming calls on computer equipment". (Both of the latter properly protect non-published numbers). Hence I assume we have one of the newer switching systems here, though I don't know which one. Any ideas on what 511 is for? ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ****************************** ----------kgd Subject: TELECOM Digest V4 #140 From: telecom@ucbvax.ARPA Path: watmum!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ulysses!ucbvax!telecom Date: 31 Dec 84 23:54:10 GMT Sender: daemon@ucbvax.ARPA From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) TELECOM Digest Mon, 31 Dec 84 18:17:07 EST Volume 4 : Issue 140 Today's Topics: TELECOM Digest V4 #139 Odd phone problem 2400 baud modems Phone Surveys by Computer Equal access carrier codes new 2400-baud modem from R-V Q: telephone problem due to programming old use of 511 in Phila. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 28 December 1984 17:54-EST From: "Marvin A. Sirbu, Jr." Subject: TELECOM Digest V4 #139 To: TELECOM @ BBNCCA The service being tested in Orlando is being offered on an ordinary #1ESS. The reason for selecting Orlando is that, for the caller's number to be displayed ALL the switches in Orlando from which calls originate must be equipped with the appropriate software generic. Orlando is one of the few cities in the country where there are NO electromechanical switches still in servce -- everything is SPC. (Harrisburg, Pa is another such city which is why a similar test is being conducted there). The service being tested also requires the equivalent of CCIS (common channel signaling) between all of the local central offices to convey information such as the caller's number from the origin office to the final office. The special equipment needed to receive caller's numbers at the called number location essentially provides a CCS channel all the way to the customer. Lot's of interesting services will be possible when CCS channels are widely available to customer locations, as is planned for in ISDN standards. Marvin Sirbu ------------------------------ From: Christopher A Kent Date: 28 Dec 1984 1855-EST (Friday) To: TELECOM@BBNCCA.ARPA Subject: Odd phone problem I've been getting reports lately from people trying to call me that my phone will often ring 1 to 6 times and then go busy. I've reported this to GTE on the trouble number, they've supposedly checked things out and found nothing. Any ideas on what this could be? Could it possibly be my cheep phone? Cheers, chris ---------- ------------------------------ Date: 29 Dec 1984 12:30 MST (Sat) From: Keith Petersen To: Telecom@BBNCCA Subject: 2400 baud modems From: Bruce Factor To: All Re: 2400 baud modems Date: 5 Dec 84 23:27:16 GMT For those of you in the market to buy 2400 baud modems I want to inform you of a great deal. I would like to state that I am not affiliated with ANY of these companies, and I am not receiving and benefits by posting this information! After spending a few days pricing modems I have compiled the following information (saving the best for last). If anyone has any additional information I would greatly appreciate it. We were interested in rack mounting them so most of the prices given are for cards that would plug into a rack. "box" refers to a stand alone modem. DEC 1 - (800) 962 - 3244 now DF112-AM 300/1200 card $ 506 now DF126-AM 2400 only card $ 634 Racal Vadic 1 - (800) 482 - 3427 now VA212PAR 300/1200 card $ 445 3/85 VA4224 1200/2400 card $ 740 now VA1681 houses 16 rack $ not priced yet Concord Data Systems (617) 890 - 1394 Q10-24 now CDS224 AA/ORG 1200/2400 box/card$ 845 $ 825 now CDS224 Autodial 1200/2400 " $ 995 $ 975 now CDS224 ARQ 1200/2400 " $1295 now CDS224 ARQ Auto 1200/2400 " $1395 now CDS224 Super 1200/2400 " $1695 now CDSRM-07A houses 7 rack $ 750 Hayes 1 - (800) 241 - 6492 now Hayes1200 300/1200 box/card$ 499 2/85 Hayes2400 300/1200/2400 box/card$ none now 08-00056 houses 6 rack $ 766 Quantity Discounts are minimal. Micom 1 - (800) 527 - 0204 Q >16 now M3012 300/1200 box $ 495 now M3012 plus 300/1200 box $ 595 1/85 M3024 1200/2400 box $ 795 1/85 M3024 plus 1200/2400 box $ 895 $ 805 " " " card $ 845 $ 760 now M3200 houses 16 rack $ 750 General Datacomm (203) 574 - 1118 Q 10 - 19 now DC211AL 300/1200 box $ 675 $ 595 " " " card $ 585 $ 520 1/85 DC2412 1200/2400 box $1195 $1050 " " " card $1105 $ 790 " DS1 houses 16 rack $ 795 Paradyne 1 - (800) 482 - 3333 or 1 - (800) 342 - 3532 now DTU1200D 300/1200 $ now 1200/2400 $ 900 NEC 1 - (800) 538 - 8166 Q 11 -20 now N212BRL 300/1200 box $ 795 $ 669 " " " card $ 725 $ 606 " DSP2430 1200/2400 box $1095 $ 976 " " " card $ 965 $ 855 " N4083 houses 8 - 1200 rack $ 625 " SR0801 houses 8 - 2400 rack $ 900 QUADRAM (404) 923 - 6666 Q > 3 now QM10000 300/1200 $ 695 $ 625 not available ?/2400 $ NO Rack mounting. Ven-Tel 1 - (800) 538 - 5121 Will Call me back. 300/1200 $ ?/2400 $ Promethus (415) 490 - 2370 (check 800) Distributor: Will call me back. 300/1200 $ ?/2400 $ Fujitsu (408) 946 - 8777 ext 576 not available 300/1200 $ now F1935B 1200/2400 $ 895 ------------------------------- CTS Datacomm (203) 743 - 3681 Pete Coccaro Distributor: Professional Network Services Harvey Schlesinger (617) 449 - 6460 Model: CTS2424AD These people had by far the best deal. The list price for the Stand Alone (box) modem is $ 795 The list price for the (rack) mounted modem is ~$ 700. Besides starting off $ 200 less than everyone else their quantity discounts are very good. The Stand Alone modem will be available starting January, and their rack mount modem should be available February. Here is a Quantity discount price list. Quantity %dicount S.A. rack ======== ======== ==== ==== 1 list $795 $700 2-5 10 % 716 630 6-10 20 % 636 560 11-25 25 % 596 525 25- 30 % 556 490 For all of you usenet sites that are still running 1200 (or possibly even 300) the modems will pay for themselves very quickly. From all of the literature that I have recieved here are a few of the advantages of this modem above the others: 1) works at 300 or 1200 or 2400 asyn (others only 1200/2400) 1200 or 2400 sync 2) Stores 10 numbers (40 chars each) (others only 1) 3) For tone dialing it dials ALL 12 (others only can generate tones including (* and #) numbers 0-9) This last one caused a nasty problem when we needed to generate the extra tones because some of the sites we talk to have switching systems that require them (Gandalf). 4) Will automatically change the speed (some of the others needed to the other modem. a manual intervention). --------------- usenet: {philabs, allegra}!sbcs!bruce Bruce Factor ------------------------------ Date: Sat 29 Dec 84 19:36:20-EST From: Andrew Moore Subject: Phone Surveys by Computer To: TELECOM@BBNCCA.ARPA Could someone explain how these phone surveys done by computers work?? I just got a call from one, and it wouldn't hang up if I put the phone on hook for a while, so I gave it (her?) a carrier tone and it tried to connect to my modem and then hung up. -dru ------- ------------------------------ To: telecom@BBN-UUCP.ARPA Subject: Equal access carrier codes Date: 30 Dec 84 00:32:18 EST (Sun) From: Mike O'Brien In the wonderful new world of equal access, where you can select your long-distance carrier differently for every call, there are assigned codes for a whole bunch of new long-distance carriers about which I basically know nothing at all. Some require that you sign up with them before you use them; some say you can use them at will and your calls will appear on your next bill. Can anyone tell me where I can get a list of all valid equal-access codes and the carriers they represent, together with an indication of which require prior sign-up and which you can just go use? ------------------------------ From: ihnp4!utzoo!henry@Berkeley Date: 30 Dec 84 00:40:34 CST (Sun) To: telecom@bbncca.ARPA Subject: new 2400-baud modem from R-V > ... Others may follow some day but Racal Vadic will introduce their > "standalone" modem in time for Christmas 84 with the following features... Anyone know if they actually did? It sure sounds good. Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: Sun 30 Dec 84 03:56:00-CST From: Werner Uhrig Subject: Q: telephone problem due to programming To: telecom@UTEXAS-20.ARPA after my phone stayed strangly silent on the 25th and 26th, I decided to call my 'listed' number from my second line, and sure enough, I got a fast, busy tone, which I have often heard when the lines in a certain area are overloade d. Strangely enough, other phones in the area, including my second line, did not show similar symptoms. Also the phone worked perfectly for dialing out. So, after the problem did not go away I reported it on the 27th, and was told that I should not expect anyone to check it out until the 31st or later. On the 28th, I decided that I was less than satisfied with that response time , which basically meant that noone would be able to reach me either for X-mas or New Year's as noone knows my second number. So I decided to inquire if it would be possible to put a recording on my first line, informing of my 'new' number, or to enable call-forwarding for the duration of the problem. Not surprisingly, really, I got the run-around, noone seemed to understand what or how to achieve the effects I desired, Repairs and the Business Office of Southwestern Bell gave me 'circular references' to talk to the other. Calls to me were not made or returned, as was promised, until, late Friday, a 'new voice' called, informing that it was all a computer error, which had caused the problem on several lines. When asked for more info on the problem , the person could not give more, as 'that was all she was told'. I intend to try to dig around some more and find someone to talk to who can give straight answers, but in the meantime, if anyone out there could add some factual knowledge to what might be going on here, or how one might penetrate the front-people of SouthWestern Bell and which department or job-title to ask for to get answers, mail me. One other "strange" matter: lately, I had noticed a strange ticking sound on that line, as well as a wooshing-sound, kind of like a tape-recorder, which has since disappeared. Could it be that I had been bugged ??? ------- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Dec 84 12:30:57 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) To: telecom@Brl-Vld.ARPA Subject: old use of 511 in Phila. In 1976, you could call 511 in Philadelphia for Bicentennial information. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ******************************