TELECOM Digest Thu, 12 Jan 95 13:12:00 CST Volume 15 : Issue 27 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Cell Phone PINs (Jeffrey Mattox) Re: Cell Phone PINs (Matthew P. Downs) Re: Cell Phone PINs (Alan Boritz) Re: Atlanta Airport's Pay Phones Reject 1-800 Numbers Randomly (K Gooding) Re: Atlanta Airport's Pay Phones Reject 1-800 Numbers Randomly (G Hlavenka) Re: Wireless CO's Challenge New NPAs? (James M. Roden) Re: Need an EBCDIC Spec (Paul Robinson) Re: SNA Over Token Ring (Paul Robinson) Re: Some Questions About the LDDS Calling Card (sm@infinet.com) Re: Chatter Heard on Scanner Leads to Criminal Charges (Bob Keller) Re: Procedure for Obtaining a 10XXX Code (Daniel Fandrich) Re: Urgent Help Needed With European Phone System (Wolf Paul) Re: Is TeleScript Already Available? (Michael Libes) Last Laugh: Speaking About Who is Boss (TELECOM Digest Editor) 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 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. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. 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: jeff@cher.heurikon.com (Jeffrey Mattox) Subject: Re: Cell Phone PINs Date: 11 Jan 1995 16:42:08 GMT Organization: Heurikon Corporation In article , Carl Oppedahl wrote: > I was reading a book about the cellular system that was published > eight years ago ... it identified the problem that if people copy down > the ESN and phone number they could get free calls ... despite this > the cellular industry moved ahead with the present system. Somewhere, the person(s) that made the design/political decisions to implement the system this horrible way are watching. They probalby even have cellular phones themselves. I wonder what they are thinking. "Gosh, I was a dumb so-an-so for ..." I wonder if it's the same guy who invented the VCR programming scheme -- in which case he's probably more of the mind to be laughing at the mess he's created. Jeffrey Mattox -- jeff@heurikon.com ------------------------------ From: mpd@adc.com (Matthew P. Downs) Subject: Re: Cell Phone PINs Date: 11 Jan 1995 16:47:50 GMT Organization: ADC Telecommunications seydell@tenrec.cig.mot.com (Steve Seydell) writes: > padgett@tccslr.dnet.mmc.com (A. Padgett Peterson) writes: >> Sorry but I seem to be missing something here. If the PIN is sent in >> the clear then anyone grabbing the cell phone number off the air will >> also get the PIN. > The PIN is sent as DTMF across the voice channel. The ESN and mobile > ID are currently stolen by listening to the reverse signalling > channel. It is technically possible to steal the PIN, but it will > take some time for thiefs to catch up. The money saved by the telcos > will easily cover the cost of purchasing and operating this feature. Determining DTMF tones is very easy. It seems like they could come up with a better method which would be as cheap. Matt ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Cell Phone PINs From: drharry!aboritz@uunet.uu.net (Alan Boritz) Date: Wed, 11 Jan 95 21:35:20 EST Organization: Harry's Place - Mahwah NJ - +1 201 934 0861 seydell@tenrec.cig.mot.com (Steve Seydell) writes: >> Sorry but I seem to be missing something here. If the PIN is sent in >> the clear then anyone grabbing the cell phone number off the air will >> also get the PIN. > The PIN is sent as DTMF across the voice channel. The ESN and mobile > ID are currently stolen by listening to the reverse signalling > channel. It is technically possible to steal the PIN, but it will > take some time for thiefs to catch up. The money saved by the telcos > will easily cover the cost of purchasing and operating this feature. CellularOne, in the New York City area, seems to have no concern about this issue. Their "pin" numbers aren't required if you roam outside your home area (even for NYC area customers roaming in southern New Jersey). It would seem that while exposing their NYC roamer customers to potential fraud, they have not implemented their fraud-protection system in such a way to protect their home customers from fraud while roaming. ------------------------------ From: impact Subject: Re: Atlanta Airport's Pay Phones Reject 1-800 Numbers Randomly Date: 11 Jan 1995 19:27:03 GMT Organization: CompuTech >> Today, I was in the airport that serves Atlanta, GA. I tried to place a >> few 1-800 toll free calls, and had a lot of trouble. Numbers I know >> to be good got responses of "invalid number". I'd reach for another pay >> phone, and got thru to the number. I tried the same numbers later that >> day (while getting hung up with the dead Newark airport mess) in the >> Atlanta airport and got more "invalid number"; another attempt got me >> thru, then I got cut off. Pay phones were labeled "PTC" (or something >> like that) and also said that the local exchange didn't "own" these >> phones. Some phones didnt work at all (bad keypads, or just dead). I >> don't know who "PTC" is, but they really SUCK! When I worked as an operator for an AOS, we had many many reports of payphones that would not complete toll-free calls, as well as those that would actually CHARGE the end-user for a toll-free call. My understanding is that the COCOT owner has the ability to program that phone any way that s/he sees fit, be it legal or not. Let's face it, if you're using that phone for a toll-free call, the phone owner is making no money from coin or card paid calls... Katherine Gooding ITC Teleservices - LDDSMetromedia - What? Now WilTel too? [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Yes you are correct that the person with the admin passcode can program the COCOT however s/he sees fit ... as you put it, legal or not ... and I will add, usually not. Now, we are expected to have sympathy for the poor person who owns the phone and is making no money during the time we are making our toll-free call. Well, that's just another example of how intricately the phone network is locked together. The way we *used* to do it was to have all pay phones owned by the telco. The telco in turn was part of a process at AT&T called 'separations and settlements' ... where telcos were paid for their share of traffic over internetwork facilities where they did not actually collect the money from the user. In turn, a portion of what they actually collected went into the pot to pay the other telcos involved. Gee, that method worked great for several decades ... then Judge Greene decided things needed to be fixed and changed. Now instead of separations and settlements done in a uniform way, every COCOT owner does his own thing with the public phone user being damned. PAT] ------------------------------ From: cgordon@vpnet.chi.il.us (gordon hlavenka) Subject: Re: Atlanta Airport's Pay Phones Reject 1-800 Numbers Randomly Organization: Vpnet - Your FREE link to the Internet (708)833-8126 Date: Thu, 12 Jan 1995 04:46:39 GMT wa2ise@netcom.com (Robert Casey) writes: > Today, I was in the airport that serves Atlanta, GA. I tried to place a > few 1-800 toll free calls, and had a lot of trouble. Numbers I know > to be good got responses of "invalid number". Andrew Laurence wrote: > Could it be that the numbers you were calling were not reachable from > that area? Some 800 numbers specifically include or exclude certain > states or regions. Recently I ran across a payphone in Oakbrook Terrace, IL which wanted fifty cents to reach an 800 number! Made me wish I had a tow rope in the truck :-) Payphone owners receive no revenues from 800 calls. Hence I'd imagine that they don't rate 800-access problems very high on their list of priorities. Gordon S. Hlavenka cgordon@vpnet.chi.il.us ------------------------------ From: jmroden@crl.com (James M. Roden) Subject: Re: Wireless CO's Challenge New NPAs? Date: 11 Jan 1995 21:47:49 -0800 Organization: CRL Dialup Internet Access (415) 705-6060 [Login: guest] Linc Madison (LincMad@netcom.com) wrote: > In some of the recent discussions of the swarm of new area codes > coming this year, I've seen notations that the wireless companies are > challenging plans to move wireless services (cellular, beepers, etc.) > into an overlay area code. The challenges are being made to the state > regulators and/or to the FCC. > My question is, on what grounds are they challenging the overlays? It > seems to me that the tariffs have always been pretty clear that the > telco does not in any way guarantee that you will be able to keep a > given number or area code. The real reason wireless (read cellular) carriers do not want to switch their entire customer base to another NPA is (think about this) _EVERY_ customer phone would have to be reprogrammed with the new NPA number. Going forward is one thing. Changing the base is quite another. Mike Roden / N5FL / jmroden@crl.com / San Antonio, Texas ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Jan 1995 14:08:00 EST Subject: Re: Need an EBCDIC Spec Organization: Tansin A. Darcos & Company, Silver Spring, MD USA From: Paul Robinson The specifications for EBCDIC are available in many IBM 370 Mainframe publications, as IBM is the inventor and primary user for the EBCDIC specification. If you have a college near you that has an IBM or equivalent mainframe and still teaches assembly language, their book store should have the Gold Card, which is a small pamphlet listing various assembly instructions and a list of the EBCDIC character set and the translation of the equivalent to ASCII. Most programming manuals for IBM Mainframe languages will include it, and if your local university or college has books on IBM mainframe themes, one of them will probably include a listing of the translation table, which is in the public domain. You may also want to take a look at: ds.internic.net:/rfc/rfc1345.txt Which contains a list of many character sets, and will probably include the listing for EBCDIC. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Jan 1995 14:16:36 EST Subject: Re: SNA Over Token Ring Organization: Tansin A. Darcos & Company, Silver Spring, MD USA From: Paul Robinson Timothy S. Chaffee , writes: > I am looking into moving our print traffic from a SDLC/SNA > connection to run over our Token Ring network. Can this be done? Any > pointers in the right direction would be greatly appreciated! There is a company -- the name escapes me -- selling a product called the "Hydra" which connnects in place of a terminal controller, and allows RS232 connections to look like 3270 terminals, allowing a person on a PC or a modem to call into an SNA terminal network as if their terminal WAS a 3270 terminal. If they can do this, they probably have something that will do what you want. Also, Black Box (someone here will have their number) has a statement in their catalog that if you can describe to them a box to do a protocol conversion they will see if they can find one if they have it, or will quote you a price to create it if they don't have it and their engineers can figure out how to make one. Considering the number of nice printers including postscript and laser that are out, I wouldn't be surprised if a device like this isn't already out there for sale, probably around $2-3000, or roughly whatever an internetwork device to connect SNA networks would cost, which I'm not really familiar with. ------------------------------ From: sm@infinet.com (SM Communications And Marketing) Subject: Re: Some Questions About the LDDS Calling Card Date: 11 Jan 1995 19:15:27 -0500 Organization: InfiNet - Internet Access (614/224-3410) In article , Yeechang Lee wrote: > Well, I got the fabled LDDS calling card in the mail. You know, the > one its salesmen annoy people in every newsgroup with ads about? It > _is_ supposed to have much better rates than my AT&T or Sprint cards, > and I guess I'll find out as soon as I need to use it. Yes it does and you'll see it when you use it and receive your bill. It is only 17.5 cents per minute and no surcharges. > Anyway, a few questions: > a) All I got in my envelope was the card (in a paper carrier). No > brochure w/rates or anything. I sorta know the rates but would have > liked a paper reference. Was there something missing? You could ask the sales person who sent you the application to send you a printed brochure. They have a nice brochure/order from that describes everything about the calling card. > b) My card has the logo of "American Travel Network" on the > upper-right-hand side. I also hear "Metromedia" associated with the > LDDS name, but it doesn't appear on the card. Who's ATN, are there > different versions of the card, and if so are there different rates? ATN is American Travel Network. They are the resellers of LDDS/Metromedia service. They are marketing the calling card and discount residential and business services. However, the billing is done by LDDS/Metromedia. LDDS and Metromedia were two different companies before, they merged (I think) September 1993 and formed the new company called LDDS/Metromedia. However sometimes you can see just LDDS or just Metromedia being used. (I am not sure about this but they may have some old stock supplies to finish!) :-) There are no versions of the card. It is one calling card with 17.5 cents rate. The rate would the same no matter which representative you get it from of directly from ATN. However, note that you cannot get the card directly from LDDS/Metromedia! since ATN is created this program and they have special conract with LDDS/Metromedia to market at this rate. LDDS/Metromedia does not market at that rate! Metin e-mail: sm@infinet.com Europe Frm $0.35 | FREE calling card, 17.5 cents, no surcharge. India $0.99 | Flat rate LD: As low as 10 cents per minute! Asia Frm $0.45 |***Free*800*service*as low as 12.5 cents flat rate*** Middle East Frm $0.89| Credit Card Merchant | Save 50-90% off your S.America Frm $0.75 | Accounts. As low as 1.65% | International Calls. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Sometimes I delete .signatures and obvious advertisements; sometimes not ... usually I do, but I saw this fellow's thing above and it reminded me of when I used to do Orange Card here ... as you who signed up through me will recall, Orange is still another of the resellers of LDDS. I hope *he* makes some money at it ... :) I still get my Orange Card residual checks every month, as pitiful as they are, now a couple years after getting involved. PAT] ------------------------------ úÿ Date: Wed, 11 Jan 1995 12:50:46 EST From: Bob Keller Subject: Re: Chatter Heard on Scanner Leads to Criminal Charges Hi Pat, > Most readers have been following this thread in the Digest in recent > days. Bill Sohl has written a final response on the topic, in which > he summarizes FCC regulations and responds to comments made by myself > in recent issues. I have _not_ been following the thread closely due to press of other business, but I could not resist agreeing with you and disagreeing with Mr. Sohl on one point ... > You (PAT) said: >> Aside from what the Electronic Communications Privacy Act says, the >> Federal Communications Commission addresses the question of radios >> which have been modified. Illegal modification (i.e. modification >> by an unlicensed person) voids your FCC authority to operate the >> radio. > Sorry, that is absolutely false. The FCC part 15 rules are the > specifc requirements for which RF devices must be tested against by > the FCC to CERTIFY them for initial sale to the public. That is all > that the rules govern ... initial certification. The rules do not grant > any "authority to operate" the device, nor do the forbid operation of > any certified device that has been modified after the initial sale nor > do they forbid operation of any uncertified device that may have been > built from scratch. Bottom line...Part 15 rules impose absolutely NO > duty on the consumer. I don't agree. Rule 15.1(b) provides: "The operation of an intentional or unintentional radiator that is not in accordance with the regulations in this part must be licensed pursuant to the provisions of Section 301 of the Communications Act, as amended, unless otherwise exempted from the licensing requirements elsewhere in this chapter." Note that this rule addresses _operation_ of the device. In most, if not all, radio services, the modified device would not be properly type accepted in the applicable service which would, in turn, preclude licensing of its use pursuant to Section 301 except in special cases (e.g., an experimental or developmental authorization, or possibly certain amateur radio uses within ham bands and subject to ham rules). > Anyone can buy any commercial receiver (or scanner, or TV, or > computer, etc.) and modify it in any way they want and not be in > violation (as you claim) of any law. Additionally, hobbyists have > been building their own receivers and/or modifying commercial (as well > as military surplus) receivers for years. Doing so is not a crime, > nor does it render the use of any such home built or modified RECEIVER > illegal. Furthermore, there is NO license required to build, modify, > repair or otherwise tinker with any radio receiving equipment used by > the general population. I am not sure that this statement can be squared with Section 15.21 of the FCC Rules which provides: "The users manual or instruction manual for an intentional or unintentional radiator shall caution the user that changes or modifications not expressly approved by the party responsible for compliance could void the user's authority to operate the equipment." While I would not necessarily go so far as to label scanner and other receiver adjustments and/or modifications as necessarily or even likely "criminal," it is nonetheless important to keep in mind two important factors: (1) A device or a circuit within a device that is "receive-only" may still be (and in the case of radio receivers usually is) either an intentional or unintentional radiator within the meaning of Part 15 of the Rules; and (2) Without even getting into the debate over the special statutory and regulatory provisions applicable to cellular-capable scanners, there is a _big_ difference between opening up a device to repair, allign, or adjust it and modifying the manufacturer's design features of the device. Bob Keller (KY3R) Robert J. Keller, P.C. Tel: 301.229.5208 rjk@telcomlaw.com Telecommunications Law Fax: 301.229.6875 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Thank you, Bob. Section 15.21 is all I was trying to get across to readers here. No, one does not have to have a 'license', ie. written document or whatever to operate a receiving only radio; authority is automatically given when you buy it from a licensed source. But as soon as you tamper with the innards and make changes in how or what the radio receives, and how it processes what it receives *and you are an unlicensed person* -- that is, you lack a tech ticket -- then according the FCC and 15.21 you lose your authority (albiet granted originally by default) to 'operate' the radio, which may amount to nothing more than twisting the off/on switch and the tuning dial. May I suggest to readers the next time you decide to purchase some sort of radio, or television perhaps, *look at the user manual*. Let's leave Radio Shack out of this since some people around here seem to think I am in cahoots with Tandy or somehow playing tricks using their name. Buy your radio from whoever. Read the manual. Note the legal verbiage in there somewhere about *losing your 'authority' to operate the darn thing if you make unlicensed repairs or modifications*. Why do you think General Electric, Best Buy, K-Mart, Wal-Mart, etc and oh yeah! Radio Shack put that admonition in there? The FCC *requires* them to do so. Radio Shack was putting in the FCC admonition, then their clerks were making mock of it. In essence, the FCC said, "We'll show who is boss ...' and they did. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Jan 1995 19:57:40 -0800 From: Daniel Fandrich Organization: Fandrich Cone Harvesters Ltd. Subject: Re: Procedure for Obtaining a 10XXX Code > And while we're at it, are there any 10XXX[X] codes assigned in > Canada? There are at least two "casual dialing" codes in BC: BC Tel (and probably all Stentor members) has 10323, and Unitel has 10869. Other companies I've talked to either claimed not to have a code (e.g. Sprint Canada) or simply refused to divulge theirs. I haven't gotten around to asking the CRTC if the complete list is public information. Using the 10323 code worked as expected -- the calls were billed as regular long distance calls on BC Tel's bill. Using 10869 on a line with BC Tel as the primary carrier resulted in charges showing up in a section titled "Other carriers' long distance" on BC Tel's bill. The number 1-700-555-4141 works the same here as in the U.S., giving the long distance carrier's name. Unitel's message is a bit misleading when it's dialed as 10869-1-700-555-4141, however, as it states, "Effective immediately, long distance calls made from the telephone number you are calling from will be on Unitel's long distance network." It seems they'd rather not acknowledge the existence of 10XXX codes in favour of signing you up for automatic dial-1 carrier access. Dan ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Jan 95 11:16:15 +0100 From: Wolf.Paul@aut.alcatel.at (Wolf Paul) Subject: Re: Urgent Help Needed With European Phone System In article 5@eecs.nwu.edu, petar@trance.helix.net (Petar Nikic) writes: >> What should I do to make a cordless phone work in Europe? I bought it >> in Canada. There are two problems with the plugs: the phone plug and >> the plug for the recharger. Both of them are different than those >> which Europeans use. This is not an easy question to answer since different phone plugs and power plugs are used in the different European countries. Additionally, the use of non-approved (i.e. foreign-bought) phones is illegal in many European countries, and is considered especially serious in the case of cordless phones, whose frequencies may interfere with local frequency assignments. However, if you are determined to take that phone with you, feel free to call me once you are in Europe, and I will try to help you find the necessary adapters. Regards, Wolf *** PLEASE NOTE MY NEW LOCATION, E-MAIL ADDRESS AND PHONE/FAX NUMBERS *** Wolf N. Paul, UNIX Support/KSR wnp@aut.alcatel.at Alcatel Austria AG +43-1-277-22-2523 (w) Scheydgasse 41/E26 +43-1-277-22-118 (fax) A-1210 Vienna, Austria (Europe) +43-1-220-6481 (h) ------------------------------ From: sharpen@chinook.halcyon.com (Sharpened Software) Subject: Re: Is TeleScript Already Available? Date: 11 Jan 1995 11:19:50 GMT Organization: Sharpened Software Inc. In article , Paul Boots wrote: > Would there be anybody who can tell me if TeleScript is allready > available. I heard and read a lot about it and I would love to get > hands-on experience. Yes and no. AT&T's new PersonaLink system runs the (currently) only Telescript service. There are a few developers working on more Telescript services, but the development environment is not yet available to anyone who want it. The SDK, and the shrink-wrapped Telescript engine are not yet stable and polished enough for general use. Michael Libes Sharpened Software Inc sharpen@halcyon.com Seattle, WA ------------------------------ From: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Subject: Last Laugh: Speaking About Who is Boss Date: Thu, 12 Jan 1995 13:00:00 CST On the topic of "we'll show who is boss" I am reminded of this delightful little story first told to me about thirty years ago ... One day the various parts of a man's body were having an argument among themselves over which of them was the most important part. The arms claimed to be the most important since they did whatever work was needed for the man. No, no, not so, claimed the legs. We are the most important because we convey the rest of the man's body, including his arms, to wherever he wants to go. Without us, how could the arms get to where they need to be to do their work? The man's eyes claimed they were much more important, since without them, the legs would not know where to walk and the arms would not know what to touch or work with. The brain kept insisting that it was the body part which coordinated all the rest; none of the others could function at all without it it kept arguing. All this time, the man's asshole had been sitting there listening quietly to the discussion. Finally it spoke up with disdain and said "I'll show who's boss!" Having said that, it went on strike; plugged itself up, and refused to allow anything to pass by. It went on for a couple weeks that way, and before long the man's legs and arms were sluggish; his stomach hurt; his eyes had a burning sensation, and his thinking process had slowed down quite a bit. He found himself sitting in one place for long periods of time each day getting nothing accomplished. Finally the asshole relented, and went back to work with the other body parts. The moral of this story? *To succeed as a boss you don't need to be a brain, just an asshole.* PAT ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V15 #27 *****************************