TELECOM Digest Fri, 14 Oct 94 15:49:00 CDT Volume 14 : Issue 399 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Testing 1-800-CALL-INFO (Mark Pulver) Re: MCI's 1-800-CALL-INFO (Carl Moore) Re: Calculating Cost of Cellular Call While Roaming (Andrew Laurence) Re: Calculating Cost of Cellular Call While Roaming (Paul Beker) Re: AT&T Easylink Information Wanted (Paul Robinson) Re: Class Use of Telephone (Alan Boritz) Re: Class Use of Telephone (Martin McCormick) Re: RI Installs Speed-Bumps For the Information Superhighway (Alan Boritz) Re: GSM SIM Card: Different? (Timo M. Ahomaki) Re: UDI vs RDI in ISDN (Chip Sharp) Re: MCI Employee Charged in $50 Million Calling Card Fraud (Haber- Schaim) Re: MCI Employee Charged in $50 Million Calling Card Fraud (Tom Kunselman) Re: $50 Million in Quarters? (Stan Brown) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available at no charge to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: 9457-D Niles Center Road Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 708-329-0571 Fax: 708-329-0572 ** Article submission address only: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu ** Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ********************************************************************** * * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ********************************************************************** * Additionally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: mpulver@netcom.com (Mark Pulver) Subject: Re: Testing 1-800-CALL-INFO Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 1994 17:47:51 GMT Les Reeves wrote: > As a test, I called and asked for the number of a Patrick Townson in > Chicago, IL. I figured this was a good test since Pat has moved in > the past year and I wasn't even sure he was still in Chicago proper. > After giving the operator Pat's name and city, and waiting about 45 > seconds, I was told that there were two listings, one non-published > and one unlisted. Hmmm. I asked for another name and the operator > informed me that I had used up my two searches. This is a bit on the side of the topic, but I offer this as an example of other way to get this information, (since Pat had added to this message a query of how MCI is able to do this in the first place ...). Compuserve has the PHONE*FILE databases online. These are commercially available databases that have more info on you than you would generally like the public to have. To play, do GO MET-4 from a CIS menu ... Anyway ... I fed PHONE*FILE a state of "IL" and a surname of "TOWNSON". What I got back was: Last Name: TOWNSON MARION G 708/824-xxxx DES PLAINES, IL 60016 ALLEN 708/244-xxxx GURNEE, IL 60031 M J 708/675-xxxx SKOKIE, IL 60076 CAROLE S 312/664-xxxx CHICAGO, IL 60614 DARRYL W AND KERMIT 312/221-xxxx CHICAGO, IL 60617 HELEN 309/444-xxxx WASHINGTON, IL 61571 FRED W 309/698-xxxx EAST PEORIA, IL 61611 I've delete the street addresses and the last four digits of these folks phone numbers, but trust me, they're all there. While this information is garnered from public records like mortage documents, phone book listings, etc, it's the power of the search engine that scares me. With only knowing someone's state and last name, you can have their full address, phone number, length of residence and spouses name, (that data was not directly in this search result, but it's available if you start from knowing the phone number). Oh ... another side, (bringing this back to the MCI CALL-INFO issue ...), This search took me less than five minutes to do (shelled out of my reader, telnet'd to CIS, did the query and blew out), and had a CIS service surcharge of 50 cents. Wild stuff ... mpulver@netcom.com -or- analog analog analog and um, analog mpulver@lante.com Voyetra 8, Xpander, P5, MKS-70, other toys [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Some of those are very distant cousins of mine I think. I know Carole is related distantly, with our common ancestor being a g.g.g.grandparent in the early 1800's. I don't know any of those people at all otherwise. The last name spelled with /son/ is not that common; /send/ is a much more likely spelling. In my family it was /send/ until the late 1800's, then the branch that came via my g.g.grandfather went with /son/ for whatever reason. There is a person named Patrick Townsend in Chicago presently -- in my old neighborhood in fact -- I have no idea who he is other than seeing his name in the phone book a few years ago. He was listed once in the phone book and since then has been non-pub; I wonder why? ... grin ... there is, or was a few years ago, a Patrick Townson in Fruitland, Idaho. (?!?) PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Oct 94 18:34:03 GMT From: Carl Moore Subject: Re: MCI's 1-800-CALL-INFO OK, I tried it from a Bell Atlantic phone here in Maryland and got an operator who said "1 800 CALL INFO, how would you like to bill your call?". So the phone I used was indeed noted as a pay phone. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: So was the one I tried here. PAT] ------------------------------ From: laurence@netcom.com (Andrew Laurence) Subject: Re: Calculating Cost of Cellular Call While Roaming Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 1994 17:57:39 GMT Sheldon W. Hoenig writes: > My daughter and my wife are going to travel to a number of colleges in > the midwest in a few weeks so that my daughter can be interviewed for > grad school. When each interview is complete, my daughter wants to > call my wife on the cellular telephone so that my wife can pick her > up. The cellular telephone has a 703 area-code telephone number. If > the telephone is set for roaming in each city, what type of > call -- local or long distance -- will be charged to the cellular > telephone number and to my telephone credit card for the pay-phone > call that my daughter will make? The land-line to cellular call that your daughter makes will be billed by the long-distance carrier as a call from that phone to the home location of the cellular phone (area code 703). The cellular phone company will then charge you airtime plus roaming fees plus long-distance charges from area code 703 to the physical location of the cellular phone. Roaming fees vary widely, and you should pick up a copy of The Cellular Travel Guide (a very thick $20 book) which shows maps, roaming fees, and which cellular companies have roaming agreements with which other cellular companies. Some areas have a daily roaming charge which is tacked onto the first call of that calendar day. > I asked this question twice of my Cellular-1 supplier and I received two > vastly different answers. Interesting. What were the two answers? Andrew Laurence Oakland, California USA laurence@netcom.com Pacific Daylight Time (GMT-7) ------------------------------ From: pbeker@netcom.com (Paul Beker) Subject: Re: Calculating Cost of Cellular Call While Roaming Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 1994 20:01:13 GMT Hmmm. Well, there are two vastly different ways to do this. Method #1 (and costs): o Turn on "Follow Me Roaming" or "Nationwide Call Delivery" or whatever it's called by your cellular provider. This is, typically, done by dialing *18 or *350 on your cellular phone once you're in the market where you want to be reached. o Your daughter will call your "home" cellular number from a payphone using a calling card; then the network will forward the call to your location, and your cellular phone will ring. o Costs: (approximate) Calling card surcharge: $0.85 Call Card LD Loc -> 703: actual LD minutes used Cellular LD 703 -> Loc: actual LD minutes used Roaming airtime: $0.65 - $1.09 / minute "Daily roamer charge": $0 - $3 / day Method #2 (and costs): o Get a copy of your cellular provider's Roaming Information Guide. This book will list "Roamer Access Numbers" for every cellular system in North America, based on the Band your phone is homed in (A or B - you must know this info - your cellular provider should give you the info, where A="Wireline", and B="landline"). These roamer numbers are LOCAL calls from each market that they serve. Also, calling a roamer access number directly will usually (not always) get you "home" airtime charges instead of "roamer" airtime charges. This, of course, depends on the two cellular providers involved. o When your daughter needs to call you, she will use the payphone to dial the roamer access number (a local call - $0.25). o When the access number answers, she will hear either a second dial tone, or a series of beeps. Either way, your daughter should then dial the full 10-digit "real" cellular number of your phone (703-XXX-XXXX). Assuming your phone is on, the call should go through normally. o Costs: (approximate) Local call - payphone: $0.25 Airtime (see above): $0.18 - $1.09 / minute "Daily roamer charge": $0 - $3 / day Good luck! Paul Beker pbeker@netcom.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Oct 1994 22:34:34 EST Organization: Tansin A. Darcos & Company, Silver Spring, MD USA From: Paul Robinson Subject: Re: AT&T Easylink Information Wanted > Does anyone know what exactly AT&T Easylink is and what > services it offers. Apparently it is some kind of commercial > service available in Kenya. Is it something like the Internet? TELECOM Digest Editor noted in reply: > AT&T Easylink is one of the older email services here in the USA... > Is AT&T still operating Easylink as a stand-alone product in some > parts of the world? I guess there are countries where Telex is > still the primary way of doing email. AT&T Easylink is still operational in the U.S. If you want a standard telex number of either seven digits or a 710 number, you use Easylink. One reason for having it is the Western Union Datagram service where you can allow people to call an 800 number in the U.S. and send a collect telex to you. It is useful for accepting written instructions. Easylink isn't cheap either. It's US $25 a month plus any transmissions. Datagram Service is an additional $50 a month in minimum transmission charges. One thing it does provide which if you need it for large volumes is cheaper than any other way is a means to have E-Mail delivered to a fax machine. AT&T Easylink will allow you to dial up their computer and download your messages, or at no extra charge, will send messages to a fax machine. There can be additional reasons for continuing to keep telex service. In some places, outgoing international telephone calls are very expensive while international telex service is relatively cheap; in the U.S. it's the exact opposite. So, what some people do is set up an incoming telex number in the U.S. for that party to send messages to. They then fax responses back to them. I helped one party test this by offering to let their correspondent send me a telex and I would forward it to their E-Mail address. It worked, and it convinced them to obtain an account. For persons in the U.S. who want the ability to receive telexes, a much cheaper alternative is MCI Mail. For a $30 a year subscription fee, the user gets a mailbox that has both an Internet account, can send facsimiles and can send and receive telexes. For example, I have the additional Internet address 0005066432@MCIMAIL.COM By changing the '000' to 650, this becomes my telex number: 6505066432 There is no charge to receive messages, and telex rates are about the same with all carriers. MCI will charge for messages forwarded to a fax machine which makes it inappropriate if the account is heavy volume traffic; for light traffic it may be considerably cheaper than AT&T. ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Class Use of Telephone From: drharry!aboritz@uunet.uu.net (Alan Boritz) Reply-To: uunet!drharry!aboritz@uunet.uu.net (Alan Boritz) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 94 08:13:54 EST Organization: Harry's Place - Mahwah NJ - +1 201 934 0861 stuart.whitmore@uninova.com (Stuart Whitmore) writes: > One of my professors brought into class one of > those conference telephones like you find in the Hello Direct catalog > (in fact, that might be where he got it, I don't know), and the whole > class made a call to a retired person who could speak as an authority > on the class topic. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It certainly sounds like a great idea > for a presentation to a class; having authorities meet with the class > via speakerphone. PAT] New York Telephone was pitching (though not very heavily) the enormous speakerphone as a conference tool in the late sixties. An FCC official spoke, via a speakerphone device, at a conference, I attended about ten years ago. The speakerphone didn't seem to catch on until (it seemed) the public had a greater awareness of ALL teleconference possibilities. aboritz%drharry@uunet.uu.net or uunet!drharry!aboritz Harry's Place (drharry.UUCP) - Mahwah NJ USA - +1-201-934-0861 ------------------------------ From: martin@datacomm.ucc.okstate.edu (Martin McCormick) Subject: Re: Class Use of Telephone Organization: Oklahoma State University Stillwater, OK Date: Fri, 14 Oct 1994 10:18:42 GMT In 1973 or 74, one of the Journalism and Broadcasting courses I took at Oklahoma State University held a conference with a person in Washington, D.C. who was able to discuss various issues concerning mass communications laws and how they were changing. This is a very good way to use telecommunications and I seem to recall that everything went nicely. I was impressed with the telephone which must have been fairly state of the art at the time. It had two hand-held microphones which the instructors brought to students when they wanted to ask a question and the system changed cleanly from receive to transmit mode based on whether the audio was coming from the microphones or the wire. There was no feedback and the transmit/receive function seemed to be an electronically-based circuit rather than a relay. Today, O.S.U. is very involved in this sort of thing, but the technology has evolved to video teleconferencing rather than just audio. We use various portions of a T1 line for educational While it is possible to set the CODECS to use anything from 64Kb/s to half of the T1 or about 750Kb/s, the best video comes from the highest speeds. The audio is delayed so that the sounds always correspond to the picture. The sound is fairly good, if a little scratchy, and the picture is excellent as long as there is not a tremendous amount of movement in it. Martin McCormick WB5AGZ Stillwater, OK O.S.U. Computer Center Data Communications Group ------------------------------ Subject: Re: RI Installs Speed-Bumps For the Information Superhighway From: drharry!aboritz@uunet.uu.net (Alan Boritz) Reply-To: uunet!drharry!aboritz@uunet.uu.net (Alan Boritz) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 94 22:01:47 EST Organization: Harry's Place - Mahwah NJ - +1 201 934 0861 Paul A. Lee writes: >> Here's the latest from our fine RI legislators: >> ... only licensed telelcommunications contractors, licensed >> telecommunications system technicians, and licensed telecommunications >> system installers shall engage in, or design, install, alter, service, or >> test telecommunication systems in the state of RI. > I guess you have to be licensed to sell modems in computer stores now. > Sounds like one of the following must have happened in Rhode Island: > 1) The state government let a telecommunications equipment contract go > to the lowest bidder, who botched the job > 2) A legislator had some phone installation work done, and the installer > butchered some trim in the fine old house > 3) An interconnect company that has the attention of an influential > legislator has been getting a lot of competition lately > 4) The state sees explosive growth ahead in telecommunications and wants > to control the direction and gain some revenue from licensing Any one of your examples could have been a contributing factor, but plain 'ole greed is probably the most contributory. Here are the annual license fees, from an application my boss handed to me today: Telecommunications System Contractor $100* Telecommunications System Technician $ 60 Telecommunications System Limited Installer $ 30 Telecommunications Apprentice $ 20 The contractor's license is held by an officer of the contractor corporation, however an additional "corporation" license is also required (along with registration with the RI Secretary of the State, and the Dept. of Finance). Unfortunately, there is no information available yet on exactly what it is or what the (inevitable) license fee will be (they're sending me the law, so I'll have it shortly). There is only one telecommunications license per category (contractor, technician, etc.), but there are four sub-categories that may be held concurrently: Data, Video, Telephony, and Sound. Applicants must submit proof that they've completed three projects of each sub-category for which they're requesting a license. In addition, a Contractor or Apprentice must submit proof that they've already had three years experience in those sub-categories, and an apprentice must submit a notarized letter from a RI licensed telecom contractor stating that they are employed by that contractor. The application also states that the employer or customer references may be sent forms to attest to the truthfulness of all statements on the application, and those forms must be notarized and returned before action will be taken on the application, if requested. It should be easy to think up some really foolish scenarios with that provision, especially when the applicant moves into the state of Rhode Island to start a new job, and he can't get his former employer, or his former employer's customers, to go to the trouble of filling out and notarizing all those forms. Another interesting note is that a technician can not be licensed until AFTER the technician's EMPLOYER is licensed. There are no "freelance" technicians in this program, since a technician who works for himself is a CONTRACTOR (read: higher license fee, registration with the State for tax purposes, etc.). > I would be interested in whether Rhode Island is promulgating a > practice code or a set of standards for licensees, and whether state > or commercial review or inspection will be required for designs and > installations. Licensing only provides some indication of basic > competence -- it does not provide a means of review and > accountability. I wouldn't expect too much in the way of quality inspection with this program. The person with which I spoke today at the Rhode Island Dept. of Labor said that they basically take the applicant's word for his qualifications (no examination is necessary until 1/13/95). And while there's lots of specifications on how to register, and the fees to be paid, there's no information available on what circumstances (if any) such a license can be revoked, or the enforcement activities that will monitor compliance. This licensing push really looks like an attempt to do away with all cottage-industry telecom contractors and collect taxes and license fees that they couldn't collect before. aboritz%drharry@uunet.uu.net or uunet!drharry!aboritz Harry's Place (drharry.UUCP) - Mahwah NJ USA - +1-201-934-0861 ------------------------------ From: ahomaki@tne01.tele.nokia.fi (Timo M. Ahomaki) Subject: Re: GSM SIM Card: Different? Date: 14 Oct 94 08:34:42 EET Organization: Nokia Telecommunications. In article , 100111.1007@compuserve.com writes: >> Is this true? As I understand, with only one SIM card you can use any >> GSM handphone in any country (of course as long as the countries have >> roaming agreement). > Well, yes and no: The SIM card exists in two physical formats: large > (credit-card sized) and small (chip sized, 1cm x 1.5cm). The Motorola [snip] The SIM chip itself is (or at least should be, otherwise your phone does not fullfill the spec.) the same. There exists an adapter to allow one to use the small SIM in a phone requiring the large variety. This is simply a piece of plastic with a hole for the SIM in the right place. If I were buying a SIM now, I would definitely take the small one and then buy this adapter. Timo Ahomaki, System Engineer Nokia Cellular Systems * Tel: +358 0 5619 9800 System Concept Development * Fax: +358 0 5619 9826 P.O.Box 44, FIN-02601, Espoo * Email: timo.ahomaki@ntc.nokia.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Oct 94 09:51:22 EDT From: hhs@teleoscom.com (Chip Sharp) Subject: Re: UDI vs RDI in ISDN > I'm not sure if RDI is actually supported anywhere. The standards bodies (i.e., Committee T1 in the US) have been trying to get rid of RDI as a choice for placing a call. Instead, they will require the user to use Unrestricted Digital Information rate adapted to 56 kbit/s. Hascall H. ("Chip") Sharp Teleoscom Sr. Systems Engineer 2 Meridian Road Eatontown, NJ 07724 USA voice: +1 908 544 6424 fax: +1 908 544 9890 email: hhs@teleoscom.com ------------------------------ From: habersch@scunix1.harvard.edu (Oren Haber-Schaim) Subject: Re: MCI Employee Charged in $50 Million Calling Card Fraud Date: 11 Oct 94 22:51:05 GMT Organization: Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts TELECOM Digest Editor noted: > If convicted, 'Knightshadow' as he known to other phreaks and his > co-conspirators face ten years in a federal penitentiary. > It must be remembered that in the United States, our constitution > requires a presumption of innocence on the part of Ivy James Lay and > the other phreaks involved until their guilt is proven by the > government in a court of law. True, but of course the U.S Constitution does not bar citizens from drawing their own conclusions as to what is most likely the truth. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: This is correct, it does not. It merely states the posture which must be taken by the government. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Tom E Kunselman Subject: Re: MCI Employee Charged in $50 Million Calling Card Fraud Date: 14 Oct 1994 14:48:10 GMT Organization: University of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences awoolfso@uop.edu (Aaron Woolfson) writes: > detection devices for just for saying this. But I just do not see how > it can possibly really be hurting MCI. ... > Although I am not suggesting that it is not a big deal what happened, > I just don't see how MCI can be running around and crying that they > are losing all this money, when THEY REALLY AREN'T! They are just > not collecting nearly as much revenue as before. I agree, that it isn't hurting MCI. Who it is hurting is the MCI consumers. If people payed for the services they used, instead of stealing them, then they share in the maintenance cost of the MCI system. The more people using a system that is not filled to capacity, means that MCI could lower their charges to individuals and still maintain the same amount of profit. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Oct 94 13:53:00 EDT From: brown@ncoast.org (Stan Brown) Subject: Re: $50 Million in Quarters? Organization: nej tak! In article is written: > Unfortunately the answer is simple -- the courts have repeatedly > agreed with the service providers that *their customers* are > responsible for the charges. Thus there is no financial incentive > (and some disincentives) for the providers to do anything. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Padgett, what I do not understand and > believe to be wrong about the court rulings you cite is the apparent > conflict with federal regulations pertaining to fraud and misuse of > credit cards generally. To the extent that telephone calling cards are > credit cards -- and they are intended to allow you to pay 'later' -- > how can the user be held responsible for more than some minimal > amount -- usually fifty dollars -- in damages? Federal regulations > pertaining to credit cards are quite clear that the card holder will > not suffer as a result of fraud when the cardholder had nothing to > do with it. PAT] I'm not a lawyer, but I believe PAT is confusing "credit cards" with "bank credit cards". The $50 rule that PAT cites applies to bank cards but as far as I know it does not apply to T&E cards like American Express or to other forms of credit cards like oil-company and telephone credit cards; it also does not apply to bank debit cards. That's not to say that I agree with the anomaly; I don't. But I'm pretty sure it exists. Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems brown@Ncoast.ORG Can't find FAQ lists? ftp to 'rtfm.mit.edu' and look in /pub/usenet (or email me >>> with valid reply-to address <<< for instructions). I can also send "newbie" information on Usenet--just ask if you want it. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V14 #399 ****************************