TELECOM Digest Tue, 18 Oct 94 16:31:00 CDT Volume 14 : Issue 402 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Dynamic Negotiation in the Privacy Wars (Ross E. Mitchell) Virtual Phone Numbers Are Not the Same as Real Ones (Paul Robinson) Will Video Dial Tone Have the Same Old Vices? (John Robert Grout) Voice, Data, Video All at Once? (Greg Corson) A and B Boxes (Clive D.W. Feather) Cellular Local/Long Distance Problem (Jeff Bamford) MCI Local Service in Chicago? (Robert A. Book) Do I REALLY Need an EIR? (Mike Lyman) What Does *67 Do? (Robert Patterson) 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 18 Oct 1994 00:46:06 EDT From: Ross E Mitchell Subject: Dynamic Negotiation in the Privacy Wars The following article, which I co-authored, has just appeared in the November/December 1994 issue of MIT's Technology Review. This article is distributed with permission of the publisher. The entire issue is available on the World Wid Web. The home page can be found at: http://web.mit.edu/afs/athena/org/t/techreview/www/tr.html If you would like to re-post this article elsewhere, please be sure to include the Copyright notice. Also, if you discuss "dynamic negotiation" in relation to electronic privacy issues, I would appreciate it if you would credit me as the source of the term/concept. ----------------------------------- Dynamic Negotiation in the Privacy Wars Ross E. Mitchell and Judith Wagner Decew New telecommunications technologies are undermining our ability to remain anonymous. The situation has inspired a sensible solution that would make privacy self-regulating. People want information about others but are reticent to divulge it about themselves. Nowhere is this conflict more apparent than in the telephone feature known as caller identification, or caller ID, which allows those receiving calls to see the telephone number and name of the caller before answering the phone. Telephone companies are promoting and installing caller ID throughout the country. Proponents of the technology argue that it provides a valuable service to those pestered by obscene or harassing phone calls or persistent telemarketing. But some privacy advocates vehemently disagree, maintaining that callers should be able to choose to remain anonymous. In a world of interlinked computer networks and massive data banks, they say, people already give away too much personal information without their knowledge and consent. They further worry that the prospect of identification will deter anonymous police tipsters and callers to hot lines for drug abusers, AIDS victims, or runaways. There is, however, a logical and intuitive way to implement this technology that should satisfy both camps. This new way of thinking about privacy regulation, which we call "dynamic negotiation," permits us to enjoy the benefits of new telecommunications technologies - including, but not limited to, caller ID - without sacrificing our right to privacy. Most caller ID systems automatically release the caller's phone number. To prevent this information from being divulged for a particular call, the caller must enter a code (typically *67) before dialing the number. In other words, callers must take an extra step to retain the privacy that they had taken for granted. They must learn how to block transmission of the data, and must remember to dial the code each time. This is known as "per-call" blocking. Some phone systems allow "per-line" blocking - the caller's number is kept private by default and is released only when the caller enters an "unblocking" code. But in rules scheduled to take effect next April, the Federal Communications Commission has decided that the potential public value of caller ID outweighs the privacy concerns of those who want automatic blocking of numbers. The commission stated that per- line blocking was "unduly burdensome" and ruled that on interstate calls, only per-call blocking is to be permitted -- preempting state regulations that allow per-line blocking. We propose an alternative - a system that allows people to dynamically negotiate the degree of privacy they wish to sacrifice or maintain. Here's how such a system would work with caller ID. Initially, all phone subscribers' lines would, by default, block the release of the caller's number. Subscribers could choose to release their number on a per-call basis by dialing an unblocking code (other than *67). So far, this is just per-line blocking. But in the system we suggest, phones with caller ID displays can also be set up to automatically refuse calls when the number has not been provided by the caller. When an anonymous call is attempted, the phone doesn't ring. The thwarted caller hears a short recorded message that to complete the call, the originating phone number must be furnished. This message then instructs the caller what code to dial to give out the number. Otherwise, the call is incomplete and the caller is not charged. Thus, a caller has the chance to decide whether a call is important enough that it is worth surrendering anonymity. This solution preserves choice and ensures privacy. Callers can control, through a dynamic and interactive process, when to give out their numbers; recipients can refuse anonymous calls. Most callers, of course, will want to release their number when calling friends and associates. And if such calls dominate their use of the phone, they might choose to change the default on their line so that it automatically releases their number unless they dial in a blocking code. Thus, a dynamic negotiation system may well lead many people to change from per-line to per-call blocking - precisely what the phone companies and the FCC favor. But when these customers change their default setting, they will know what they are choosing and why; they will be actively consenting to give out their numbers as a matter of course. Most businesses will want to take all calls, whether numbers are provided or not. But certain establishments might want to reject anonymous calls - for example, pizzerias that want incoming numbers for verification to avoid bogus orders. Most callers will happily unblock their numbers when such a business asks them to. Some display units that can be purchased for use with caller ID are already able to reject anonymous calls, but they are a far cry from the dynamic negotiation system that we propose. With these caller ID units, every call, whether accepted or not, is considered to have been answered - and charged to the caller. But a call that is rejected because of its anonymity should entail no charge. This requires that the call be intercepted by the phone company's central office switchboard before it reaches the recipient's line. Although inspired by the debate over caller ID, the concept of dynamic negotiation of privacy can apply to other telecommunications technologies. One likely candidate is electronic mail. With traditional paper mail, people have always had the right - and the ability - to send anonymous correspondence. Delivery of the envelope requires neither that a letter is signed nor that a return address is provided. On the receiving end, people have the right to discard anonymous mail unopened. Applying the principles of dynamic negotiation, senders of electronic mail would have the option to identify or not identify themselves. Recipients could reject as undeliverable any e-mail with an unidentified sender. The sender would then have the option to retransmit the message - this time with a return address. As with caller ID, the users negotiate among themselves. The system itself remains privacy neutral. Several criteria guide such an approach: the need to protect individual privacy for all parties to a communication, the importance of letting new technologies flourish, and the need for national guidelines to provide consistency in system use and privacy protection. Since technological innovation proceeds rapidly, we must continually examine how best to make possible new features while preserving or enhancing our existing level of privacy. The technology for implementing dynamic negotiation is already available. All that is needed is for the FCC to amend its recent ruling. If the FCC refuses, the House Telecommunications Subcommittee should propose legislation to require dynamic negotiation. With this system as the national norm, privacy concerns would become self-regulating. ----------------------------------- ROSS E. MITCHELL, based in Newton, Mass., is a designer of telecommunications software. JUDITH WAGNER DeCEW is a professor of philosophy at Clark University in Worcester, Mass.; she is working on a book on legal and ethical disputes over privacy protection, to be published by Princeton University Press. ------------------------------------ TECHNOLOGY REVIEW ON-LINE COPYRIGHT NOTICE Technology Review (ISSN 0040-1692) , Reg. U.S. Patent Office Copyright 1994, Technology Review, all rights reserved. Published eight times each year by the Association of Alumni and Alumnae of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The editors seek diverse views, and authors' opinions do not represent the official policies of their institutions or those of MIT. Articles may not under any circumstances be resold or redistributed for compensation of any kind without prior written permission from Technology Review. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Oct 1994 11:51:03 EST Organization: Tansin A. Darcos & Company, Silver Spring, MD USA From: Paul Robinson Subject: Virtual Phone Numbers are Not the Same as Real Ones Due to new hardware and software, Bell Atlantic offers several new features for telephones including a "virtual telephone number" feature, which is marketed under the service mark "Identa-Ring". A virtual telephone number causes the ring cadence to change when that number is dialed in place of the "real" number, "real" being the one generated for ANI or Caller-Id when the line with a virtual number places a call. A real number will ring with "RING! (5 second pause) RING!", repeated until answered. A virtual phone number generates a ring similar to the one used in Great Britain, which consists of "RING-RING! (5 second pause) RING-RING!", repeated until answered. One day I was out of change at a pay phone and didn't want to try to find my credit cards which were back in my bag, so I decided to call my number collect. I dialed 0+301+ the virtual, Identa-Ring number and when the automated attendant asked me to dial my credit card or 11 for collect, I dialed 11 and got a recording saying the number did not accept collect calls. That's funny; I've never asked Bell Atlantic to refuse collect calls. I tried MCI's 1-800-COLLECT. It also told me that my number refuses collect calls as does AT&T's 1-800-32-10ATT. I walked back, got my credit card and placed the call. Once I got hone I tried some tests. I have three phone lines in my house. I used the restricted one to call the other line collect and it accepted it; the other way was refused. So I called repair service and explained the problem, giving them the main number all three lines are billed under (the one that a collect call works to). I had the repair service woman call me back so I could demonstrate the problem from my third line. I demonstrated that if I called my number collect it refuses it. If I call the number she had called me on, the call goes through for collect and is stopped because it is busy. So she suggested that maybe it has something to do with the identa-ring number. I had to go and find an old bill with the number on it; I don't even use the main number of that line (the only person who calls that number is my sister and the occasional telemarketer.) I tried calling that number collect and the system attempted to do so; I sheepishly admitted that this is the problem, e.g. that an identa-ring number can't be called collect. So this capability works either as a problem or as a feature; if you only give out a virtual telephone number, people can't call you collect on it, but neither can you. But you still have the main number if you can remember it. ------------------------------ From: jg2560@cesn7.cen.uiuc.edu (John Robert Grout) Subject: Will Video Dial Tone Have the Same Old Vices? Date: 18 Oct 1994 20:08:19 GMT Organization: U of I College of Engineering Workstations Reply-To: j-grout@uiuc.edu Two incidents (one in the late 1980's near where I used to live in NJ, and one here in Illinois in 1994) have made me wonder about the role of the US Federal government in guaranteeing competition in the new, supposed Golden Age to come of "video dial tone" (telecom-carried television programming). In the late 1980's, a condo complex in Mahwah, NJ wanted to set up their own program delivery system which would act like a cable operator ... it would combine community antenna service and redistribution of cable networks fed to them through their own large satellite dish. When the complex tried to get zoning approval for the satellite dish, the township government fought them. During the ensuing legal proceedings, it was revealed that the township government was acting mostly to protect the exclusive cable franchise they had signed with the local cable operator ... and (if I remember correctly) they won. Earlier this year, the cities of Champaign and Urbana in Illinois signed a new, fifteen-year exclusive cable franchise with the local cable operator (Time-Warner of Champaign-Urbana), who promised a new system (the "Gateway System") to provide many channels at low cost ... but the catch involved did not become public knowledge until six weeks ago. To avoid stringing fiber-optic cable to households (which, admittedly, is expensive), Time-Warner will only string fiber-optic cable to whole neighborhoods and convert them all, en masse, to the "Gateway System". However, when a neighborhood is converted, the conventional cable into their homes will have only TWELVE unscrambled, uncompressed channels. Receiving any of the others must be done with a converter box which serves as a TV tuner for every TV, every VCR on which one wants to pick up a separate channel, and every "picture-in-picture" feature; and each one must have a separate box. Because the boxes are brand-new, the FCC is allowing Time-Warner of C-U to charge $4 a month for them ... and, because they are descramblers (not just decompressors), they can't be purchased. To make things even worse, the initial software release for the stupid boxes wouldn't even change the channel at a preset time to allow recording of multiple programs on different channels ... but, in recent weeks, Time-Warner announced that a new version of the software will allow such things. Since a clear majority of Time-Warner's customers in Champaign-Urbana have expanded basic service (about 35 channels) without any premium channels which require a descrambler (e.g., HBO, Cinemax), this franchise agreement has become a political hot potato (e.g., a local attorney running for State Assembly is a law partner in the firm which represented Time-Warner during the franchise negotiations). In the discussion which has followed the announcement of the "converter box" requirement for the "Gateway System", people here are beginning to question the advisability of allowing municipalities to sign any such exclusive franchise agreement for television programming. Picture the following scenario ... It's October 2004... Ameritech (our local telephone company) now provides "video dial tone" throughout Champaign and Urbana, and several different program providers (ITT/Cablevision, IBM and SunSoft, among others) offer their wares through Ameritech. Even though Federal law doesn't require a program provider whose programs are distributed through a common carrier to obtain a franchise agreement with a municipality [the result of a recent real-life court decision], program providers and municipalities are still allowed to negotiate such agreements voluntarily [are they? will they be?]. Since many residents have complained about the high cost of programming delivered through Ameritech, IBM offers the cities of Champaign and Urbana a wonderful deal ... they'll provide programs at a lower cost for everyone ... but there's a catch: Champaign and Urbana must sign a franchise agreement which will require Ameritech to unplug all rival program providers from its network in Champaign-Urbana. Back to the present ... I would like to see Federal laws enacted which will prevent consumers from being tied by their municipalities into the kind of provider- friendly practices we have endured here in Champaign-Urbana ... such as the Gateway System's converter box, Time-Warner of C-U's refusals (before the Gateway System) to carry Showtime (because their parent company owns rivals HBO and Cinemax), and the hypothetical right of program providers to voluntarily franchise themselves through municipalities. úÿ (continued next message) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Date: 10-18-94 Msg # 587634 From: TELECOM Digest (Patrick Conf: (700) email To: ELIOT GELWAN Stat: Private Subj: TELECOM Digest V14 #402 Read: Yes ------------------------------------------------------------------------ To borrow a slogan from the candidate running against the attorney mentioned above ... once common carriers provide "video dial tone" to an area, I believe that local municipalities should be "unplugged" from any power to make exclusive agreements with program providers. John R. Grout Center for Supercomputing R & D j-grout@uiuc.edu Coordinated Science Laboratory University of Illinois at Urbana- Champaign [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Why John, that would take all the fun out of local politics. Imagine the Chicago City Council for example, with one less source of bribe money. Nah, your idea will never work. PAT] ------------------------------ From: milo@mcs.com (Greg Corson) Subject: Voice, Data, Video All at Once? Date: 17 Oct 1994 23:36:36 CDT Organization: MCSNet Subscriber Account Chicagos First Public-Access Internet! Ok ...this is probably a question that's been done to death ... but here goes anyway. I'm trying to figure out how to setup a private "internet" between a number of locations scattered across the US. There is a fair amount of data, fax, telephone and videophone calling between these locations and we want to get it all onto a private network where we can consolidate all the data and have better control. Right now each site uses a combination of dedicated ISDN and analog lines/modems. What I'm looking for is some sort of "all in one" setup that works as a phone switch for analog, ISDN, PBX-style phones and can accept sync, async or ethernet as data inputs. On the phone company side would be something like PRImary rate ISDN, a frame relay cloud or something similar. Most of the suppliers I've talked to have offered only very expensive solutions that involve stringing together a lot of boxes from different companies. I'm thinking there must be a better, more integrated solution by now. Whatever the network is that connects all the sites together, within the site we need 10 voice phones, FAX, at least one routed ethernet and in some cases a switched async connection with another site running around 128kbps. An automated operator feature is also required to answer incomming calls and play messages about store hours and such. Any site must be able to contact any other site through the private network using voice, FAX, videophone, ethernet or by the async line. The sites must also be able to make and receive normal local/long distance telephone calls. If anyone knows of some kind of box that knows how to integrate all these functions, please contact me. As I've said, all the non-integrated systems I've looked at come out too expensive because of all the hardware needed to interface one communications "world" with another. Greg Corson Virtual World Entertainment Inc. (312) 243-6515 milo@mcs.com ------------------------------ Subject: A and B Boxes Date: Tue, 17 Oct 1994 14:04:06 GMT From: Clive D.W. Feather Pat: The following just appeared on uk.telecom. I'm sure your readers would be interested. From: flavell@v2.ph.gla.ac.uk (Alan J. Flavell) Subject: Re: Badly designed payphone Date: Sun, 16 Oct 1994 12:55:36 GMT I thought I would have a go at writing up the rudiments of the old button A/B boxes. I'm sure there are plenty of people on uk.telecom who can correct or expand any points. Are you sitting comfortably...? Remember that we are back in the days when only local calls could be dialled, all trunk calls had to be made through the operator. (Hmmm, well, that was the theory, eh Robin?). All coins referred to below are what we would now call "old" or "pre-decimal" coinage. And AFAICR local calls were always untimed. It its "normal state" the button A/B box had its handset active but the dial was inoperative, apart from digits 0 (for operator), 9 (for emergency) (and, I think, later on, 1 for transition to operator=100). The coin box accepted three different coins: the penny (1d), the sixpence (tanner) 6d, and the shilling (bob, 1/- , which was 12d for those who might not know that). When preparing for dialling a local call, one had to insert the correct fee, which at the time I remember was four pennies. Inserting the first coin had the effect of thrusting a bar aside, which disabled the handset microphone. The pennies collected in an internal bucket which acted as a kind of weighing machine - when four had been put in, the bucket dropped and enabled the dial to work. You then dialled the call and waited for the called party to answer, whereupon you would press button A. This deposited the contents of the internal bucket into the cash box, re-enabled the handset microphone, and brought the bar back across the coin slots and put the dial out of action again. As was remarked in an earlier posting, you could hear enough to recognise who had answered, and if you were not satisfied you could take the same action as you would if you got busy tone or no-one answered, namely to press button B. This caused the line to be disconnected and the contents of the internal bucket to be dropped into the coin-return chute, A noisy clockwork timer was then heard which kept the line disconnected for some tens of seconds, presumably to make utterly sure that the call had been disconnected before letting you try again. Just to remark that if you didn't have four pennies, you could not make a local call. No chance of inserting a sixpence or a shilling, and forgo the change, as they could not weigh down the bucket. In such a situation you might persuade the operator to do it for you. Now we come to operator connected calls. What I have not yet mentioned is that inside the coin box, the pennies passed a chime and the other coins passed a bell (single bong for sixpence, two bongs for a shilling), with a microphone inside the coin box to pick up the sounds. To make an operator call, you did NOT insert any money (otherwise the operator would not have been able to hear you), just dialled 0 and (after a sometimes considerable wait) got asked for the desired number. The operator would then tell you how much money to insert, and would count the jangles and bongs to see you had done it right. In the event of a disagreement you could not argue (your mike was dead after inserting the first coin, as I said) but had to press button B and start the whole thing again. The operator would then attempt to connect you and in the event of success would say the immortal words "Please press button A, caller" after which you had 3 minutes. You would then be offered the opportunity to insert a further 3 minutes worth or be disconnected. And so on. There were umpteen ways circulating amongst us schoolboys for getting local calls free. (Getting operator calls free was a matter of being able to make convincing jangles and dongs, I guess). This posting should not be read as a confession that I ever did any of these things ;-) The slotted pennies trick enabled pennies to be inserted without thrusting the bar aside and disabling the microphone. Five slotted pennies would be needed to get the right weight for the bucket to fall and enable the dial. After finishing the call, one pressed button B and recovered the slotted pennies. However, if discovered, there could be a prosecution for defacing coins of the realm, so it was better to use penny-sized disks, then the charge would only be misuse of the Postmaster General's electricity. (Is it really true that someone got off an earlier charge of "stealing the Postmaster General's electricity" on the grounds that it couldn't be theft because he hadn't actually taken any of it away with him?). Later models of box were designed to prevent the slotted pennies trick. Back-dialling was a reputed method of winding the dial up to the "free" positions 0 or 9 but only releasing it far enough to dial the desired number of pulses. One school friend claimed to have mastered the trick, but never successfully demonstrated it to me. There were several quite different designs of dial mechanism (as we assiduously read up in Atkinson in the local reference library) and this probably depended on getting a dial of a vulnerable type. I've forgotten the details. Briskly rattling the rest was another way to create dial pulses without needing a working dial. This was said to produce a characteristic irregular noise at the exchange, alerting the engineer and perhaps resulting in a call trace. As I said, 0 and 9 could be dialled freely, so a number such as 20109 would be a doddle. It's all a long while ago now... you can imagine the nostalgia seeing that Papa Stour box on the tv news. [Papa Stour 224 was apparently the last A&B box, and has just been replaced. Most went during the 1970s. Papa Stour 224 is +44 595 73 224.] Clive D.W. Feather Santa Cruz Operation clive@sco.com Croxley Centre Phone: +44 1923 813541 Hatters Lane, Watford Fax: +44 1923 813811 WD1 8YN, United Kingdom ------------------------------ From: jeffb@audiolab.uwaterloo.ca (Jeff Bamford) Subject: Cellular Local/Long Distance Problem Organization: Audio Research Group, University of Waterloo Date: Tue, 18 Oct 1994 10:24:42 -0400 Okay, here is the background: A couple weeks ago I went to Toronto, Ontario with a friend and brought along my Cell Phone. Since it was the weekend my air time was free, so I thought I'd use it. From Toronto I dialed back to Hamilton (a long distance call from a regular phone) calling my home phone number, I dialed as 905-570-xxxx. I got the message that "Long Distance Call, Dial 1 blah blah blah". I then tried calling the number to retrieve messages from the Telco's voice mail service, this number was 905-312-xxxx. This call went through as if it were a local call, i.e. there was no message to indicate that it was long distance. On the bill I was charged for the call to voice mail service. Cantel (Cellco) indicated that it would be Bell Canada's (Telco) that let it go through. They said they just put the call into Bell's network and whatever happens to it after that would be Bell's doing, i.e. In their mind, I dialed a number and it was long distance and since Bell accepted it I was dinged for the long distance charge. The Bell woman that I talked to was hopeless, she really didn't understand why it went through but wasn't willing to give me someone else to talk to about the problem. In this case I knew that Toronto-Hamilton was long distance but there could obviously be a time when I don't know that something is long distance. I had thought that maybe the 905-312 exchange was in a community between Toronto and Hamilton for billing purposed and hence local on a cell phone. This is the only time that this has ever happened. Any other time I call a long distance number the call does not go through unless I dial the 1 first. I always dial calls as 10 digits because outside of my home area code local calls don't go without the local area code, so that is not the problem. Anyone have ideas on this one? Jeff Bamford jsbamford@uwaterloo.ca -- NeXT Mail welcome Office/Lab: +1 519 885 1211 x3814 Fax: +1 519 746 8115 ------------------------------ From: rbook@Tezcat.Com (Robert A. Book) Subject: MCI Local Service in Chicago? Date: 18 Oct 1994 11:25:39 -0500 Organization: Tezcat.COM, Chicago I recently heard a news report on the radio that MCI will begin offering local telephone service in the Chicago area. As a Chicago resident intensly frustrated with the local provider (Ameritech), I want to be first in line for this. I called MCI and they said that they had planned to go on-line with this by the end of this year, but FCC regulatory problems were slowing things down, and they were hoping for the first half of next year. Does anyone know anything more about this? How will it work? In particular, (how) will MCI be able to provide the dialtone and local service on already existing wires? Robert Book rbook@tezcat.com (312) 465-8757 ------------------------------ From: Michael_Lyman@sat.mot.com (Mike Lyman) Subject: Do I REALLY Need an EIR? Reply-To: Michael_Lyman@sat.mot.com Organization: Motorola Satellite Communications Date: Mon, 17 Oct 1994 22:04:14 GMT Regarding the use of Equipment Identity checking in GSM or DCS1800 systems, I trust that those systems currently deployed are not using this mechanism ( since it's probably not available ? ). Has anyone working in any functioning GSM-type system really missed having an EIR? In general, I question the real usefullness or practicality of an EIR to prevent fraud. I'm wondering if the cost of purchase and maintaining this piece of equipment justifies it's existance? As a side issue, is the prevalence of fraud in GSM networks of the same magnitude as in traditional analog cellular networks (and can they be defeated by IMEI checking)? Michael Lyman Motorola S.E.D. ( Iridium ) Chandler, Az. lyman@sat.mot.com ------------------------------ From: rpatt@netcom.com (Robert Patterson) Subject: What Does *67 do? Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 1994 16:01:55 GMT I live in the San Francisco Bay Area under the auspices of PacBell. They do not offer CallerID. When I dial *67 (apparently the CallerID on/off signal) I get a couple of clicks and a dial tone. The switching department at PacBell vehemently claims that nothing is happening. Anyone with an idea? Bob Patterson (rpatt@netcom.com) [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: What's happening is that the local switch is accepting your command to 'do not pass calling number ID to call recipient' just as it is supposed to do. And then, it proceeds not to give out that information ... which it wouldn't do anyway under the present circumstances there, but that is beside the point. They are using a version of software which allows for *67 and it is probably easier for them to leave it as is rather than disable the use of that command (which does nothing anyway). For instance, in some exchanges in Chicago which were not Caller-ID equipped, meaning calls from phones in that area showed up as 'out of area' on caller identification boxes elsewhere, *67 still worked as you describe. I guess they figured soon enough it would have a purpose, so they just left it alone. I imagine PacBell feels the same way. Why bother to change/eliminate it everywhere then possibly have to go and put it back in at a future time. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V14 #402 ****************************