TELECOM Digest Fri, 20 Jan 95 23:40:00 CST Volume 15 : Issue 51 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Is the Pentium Bug Really That Bugging? (Andrew Laurence) Re: LD ISDN Service (Martin Carroll) Re: Legal Problem Due to Modified Radio (Bill Tighe) Re: Long Distance Caller ID/Cellphones? (Don Skidmore) Re: Format of Telephone Number/Fax Numbers in Germany, France (L. Madison) Re: Long Distance Blocking, was Re: Old Rotary Service Question (J. Galt) Re: Is the Pentium Bug Really That Bugging? (Linc Madison) Re: North Korea Holds US Representative Over $10K Phone Bill (Dan Kahn) Re: Looking up Addresses and Phone Number From Just Names (Linc Madison) Re: Always Busy 800 Number? (bkron@netcom.com) Re: FCC PCS Auction Information (Bob Keller) Re: Cattle Call (Andrew Laurence) Re: Cellular Fraud: How Much of it is Real Money? (Paul Robinson) Re: Cellular Fraud: How Much of it is Real Money? (Larry Schwarcz) Re: Cellular Fraud: How Much of it is Real Money? (Michael P. Deignan) 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: laurence@netcom.com (Andrew Laurence) Subject: Re: Is the Pentium Bug Really That Bugging? Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Date: Sat, 21 Jan 1995 02:11:10 GMT clifto@indep1.chi.il.us (Clifton T. Sharp) writes: > In article laurence@netcom.com (Andrew > Laurence) writes: >> The Pentium bug affects only floating-point calculations, not overall >> system performance. Whether you NEED to have it replaced depends on >> what type of work you do. Spreadsheets and mathematical modeling, and > I disagree. Which application do you run on a computer from which you > would accept an incorrect result? If the answer is "all of them", > then you don't need your Pentium replaced. Otherwise ... > Personally, I want a computer at least as consistently accurate as my > $6 pocket calculator. Yes, but unless you perform floating point calculations, you will not RECEIVE incorrect results, so whether they are acceptable or not (of course they aren't) is irrelevant. I do concede, however, that some users may not always be aware of whether they perform floating point calculations or not. Andrew Laurence laurence@netcom.com Certified NetWare Administrator (CNA) Oakland, California, USA CD-ROM Networking Consultant Pacific Standard Time (GMT-8) Phone: (510) 547-6647 Pager: (510) 308-1903 Fax: (510) 547-8002 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Jan 95 16:33 EST From: Martin Carroll <0006014478@mcimail.com> Subject: Re: LD ISDN Service John Schmerold (john@katy.com) wrote: > At long last, Southwestern Bell is offering ISDN service in St. Louis. > We need to select a LD company, our current carrier LDDS says they > don't offer it. Any recommendations from the crowd? MCI will be more than happy to meet your long distance ISDN needs. MCI offers ubiquitous ISDN PRI service nationwide and ISDN BRI service in connection with the local provider. For more information, contact MCI's local sales office in St. Louis at the numbers below: Joe Rodriguez, Sales Manager 314-342-8568 (3880757@mcimail.com) Jim Brann, Manager Technical Consultant 314-342-7422 (3679735@mcimail.com) In other areas, contact the local MCI sales office listed in your telephone directory. Martin Carroll ** Richardson, TX ** martin_carroll@mcimail.com ------------------------------ From: bill@noller.com (Bill Tighe) Subject: Re: Legal Problem Due to Modified Radio Date: 20 Jan 95 16:39:48 GMT mudaw@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (David A. Webb @ Educational Computing Network) once wrote: > The reason I have opted to do this on my own is that the radio isn't > worth more than a few hundred bucks. I am pursuing this on the > principal. My radio is legal for me to own, and I am tired of the > harassment from university police. > Please send your comments to me at mudaw@ecom.ecn.bgu.edu. Try contacting the radio manufacturer. They have a large interest in maintaining the legality and saleability of their product. They should have plenty of information to back up your case and perhaps even a lobbyist in Washington to give support. Its people like you who maintain our freedom. Good Luck, Bill Tighe Email: bill@noller.com ------------------------------ From: dskidmo@halcyon.com (Don Skidmore) Subject: Re: Long Distance Caller ID/Cellphones? Date: Fri, 20 Jan 95 17:02:34 PST Organization: The Lone Net-Surfer :-) ! In article , zawada@ncsa.uiuc.edu says: > I had read somewhere that the FCC was going to require carrier (both > LEC and IXC) to pass CPN info back and forth where SS7 was in place. > Sure enough, I dug a little and found that a "Report and Order and > Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking" was issued with such a requirement. > (URL= http://fcc.gov:70/0/Orders/Common_Carrier/orcc4001.txt.) > However the order doesn't seem to have any effective date and seems a > bit wimpy to me ... My recollection is that the effective date is mid April 1995 - providing the various carriers use any SS7 services--doesn't appear to be any dead-line to start doing so. However, I thought I heard somewhere that most enhanced services were SS7 dependent and that billing data was going SS7 -- is that wrong? > Does the NT DMS-100 (with the proper software of course) support SS7? > I find it hard to believe that there is no SS7 capability for the > DMS-100 ... can someone prove me wrong? If not, a lot of us are going to be out of luck. I am counting on the new rule to improve my experience re your next question -- hope it's not in vain. > How useful is Caller-ID in other parts of the country? Do other folks > that have the service get "OUT OF AREA" for 99.5% of their interstate > calls, or am I just in the wrong city to get that info? I'd be > especially interested to hear how well it works in the Chicago area > since Chicago is also served by Ameritech Illinois. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well I can tell you that north of you in > the Chicago area of Ameritech's territory, we have been getting very good > results on Caller-ID for awhile now. Lots of long distance calls are having > their ID shown ... interestingly, even some recent calls from California > in the 415 area code were displayed. Of course all this is relevant to > *where* most of your calls originate, and maybe I just lucked out but I > would say about 90 - 95 percent of my incoming calls now show Caller- ID, > or they show that the caller is blocking it, etc. PAT] I am in the Seattle area. I checked my last 99 calls -- 21 were blocked, 50 were "out of area" and 28 had the calling number or the number and name. This is not particularly great from my perspective. One problem is that GTE serves part of the local calling area, but apparently declines to pass CID to USWest customers. I was hoping the new rules would have a positive influence even though they are about long distance -- hassle factor if nothing else. Can anyone address how the new rules affect cellphone calls? All cellphone calls report "out of area" around here. Presumably this is because the cellphone customer has to pay air charges for all calls. Will they have to pass CID info under the new rules? Don dskidmo@halcyon.com dskidmo@eskimo.com Bellevue, Washington USA ------------------------------ From: lincmad@netcom.com (Linc Madison) Subject: Re: Format of Telephone Number/Fax Numbers in Germany, France, UK Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Date: Sat, 21 Jan 1995 01:04:46 GMT Tom Barrett (tjbarre@srv.PacBell.COM) wrote: > I've been asked about the format of telephone numbers and fax numbers > in the three countries above ... specifically if fax numbers in these > countries have different numbers of digits than a phone number in the > same locale? Telephone numbers in France are always eight digits for the local number, whether it's a voice line or a fax. The UK is in the process of standardizing the length of phone numbers so that all numbers in any given city will have the same number of digits. This is already true in all the major cities (anything with city code 01x1 or 011x), which have seven-digit numbers. In Germany, they still use a "decimal tree" system. For example, the main switchboard at a hotel where I stayed was XXXX1, but you could dial directly to my room phone by calling XXXX375. Most local numbers in this town were six digits. Linc Madison * Oakland, California * LincMad@Netcom.com ------------------------------ From: John_David_Galt@cup.portal.com Subject: Re: Long Distance Blocking, was Re: Old Rotary Service Question Date: Fri, 20 Jan 95 15:36:10 PST This reminds me of a prank I saw done in my college dorm, in the 70s. The two guys in the room next to mine lived about two hours' drive away, and would often go home on the weekends. They also used the phone a lot, and on weekend nights it would ring and ring, so that I and their other neighbors couldn't get much sleep. The dorm had the standard, wall-mounted dial phones. After several months of this, the guys on the far side of these two got fed up. So one night, when they left the room for a minute, we stuck a one inch square chunk of pencil eraser under the offending phone's switch-hook, then hung up the phone. Result: the phone was off-hook but it didn't show. A few minutes later, one of the phone's owners comes back in, tries to make a call, and gets no dial tone and nothing happens. He tries three or four times. Then he proceeds to take the handset and beat the living s__t out of the phone! It was down for about ten days, and guess who got stuck with the bill! John David Galt ------------------------------ From: lincmad@netcom.com (Linc Madison) Subject: Re: Is the Pentium Bug Really That Bugging? Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Date: Fri, 20 Jan 1995 23:40:06 GMT Clifton T. Sharp (clifto@indep1.chi.il.us) wrote: > In article laurence@netcom.com (Andrew > Laurence) writes: >> The Pentium bug affects only floating-point calculations, not overall >> system performance. Whether you NEED to have it replaced depends on >> what type of work you do. Spreadsheets and mathematical modeling, and > I disagree. Which application do you run on a computer from which you > would accept an incorrect result? If the answer is "all of them", > then you don't need your Pentium replaced. Otherwise ... The question is not that simple. Your question should be something more like "which application do you run on a computer *that uses floating point* *and* from which you would accept a result that is only reliable to 0.001?" The worst error in the Pentium floating-point divide is in the fourth decimal place. There are plenty of applications in which that is adequate precision for everyday use. I'm not saying that anyone with a Pentium should consider keeping the defective chip, only that some people don't need to RUSH OUT to get the replacement RIGHT THIS MINUTE. > Personally, I want a computer at least as consistently accurate as my > $6 pocket calculator. My, my. Demanding, aren't we? ( ;-P for the humor-impaired) Linc Madison * Oakland, California * LincMad@Netcom.com ------------------------------ From: kahn@physics.unc.edu (Dan Kahn) Subject: Re: North Korea Holds US Representative Over $10K Phone Bill Date: 20 Jan 1995 23:06:52 GMT Organization: UNC Dept. of Physics and Astronomy > In Jack Anderson's column today, he reports that when Representative > Bill Richardson (D-New Mexico) tried to cross the DMZ (Demilitarized Zone) > between North and South Korea, with the casket carrying the remains of > Chief Warrant Officer David Hilemon, North Korean officials refused to let > him cross until the bill was paid. > In Cash. [stuff deleted] > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: They don't need any collection agencies > over there do they? Just keep the people there until they pay their > bills. Remind me not to go visit there anytime soon! I would never get > back home. PAT] Several years ago the Honduran government confiscated the passports of (mostly US) residents of Honduras because they had really big phone bills. The government wanted to be sure they got their money in case the callers had time to leave the country. At least one debtor claimed the calls had been made when she was not at home (or in the country). Some of the calls were international which makes me think that the phone company discovered the fraud themselves but didn't want to take the loss by paying fees for the other end of the connection so they called in the army. Just food for thought the next time you have to contest a long distance call with AT&T or MCI:) dan ------------------------------ From: lincmad@netcom.com (Linc Madison) Subject: Re: Looking up Addresses and Phone Number From Just Names Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Date: Fri, 20 Jan 1995 19:14:43 GMT Tim Bach (timb@europa.com) wrote: > I have a bunch of names I need addresses and phone numbers to. They > are all mostly in the same local calling area. Is there a service or > product I can buy that will allow me to take a ASCII file of names and > have it try and lookup the addresses plus phone numbers? The phone books on CD products I have seen will do this. If you only need to go from name (with or without partial address) to phone number, the entire US fits on a single CD-ROM. Of course, the quality and current- ness of the listings may vary. úÿ > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: > ...why don't you ask the telco serving the local calling > area for a copy of their directory. Most telcos will send it free of > charge, or they may get some small handling/postage fee. This has been covered somewhat, but to clarify, the policy here in Pac*Bell land is that you get white pages within your LATA for free. If the white pages and yellow pages are in the same book, the yellow pages are free. If the yellow pages are separate, you pay a per-book fee. Thus, the San Francisco YP (2 books) costs twice as much as the Oakland YP (a single book), even though the Oakland YP is almost as large as the combined SF books. As a point of reference, I believe that the only cities in the San Francisco LATA with separate YP's are S.F., Oakland, and San Jose (two books). Of course, all this may change soon with the advances in deregulation, but don't expect the change to favor the consumer in this area. Linc Madison * Oakland, California * LincMad@Netcom.com ------------------------------ From: bkron@netcom.com (BUBEYE!) Subject: Re: Always Busy 800 Number? Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Date: Fri, 20 Jan 1995 06:54:27 GMT > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Here is a good one for you to figure out. > I have two 800 numbers ... well, when I use the phone to dial the 800 > numbers, one of them does in fact go off somewhere, set up the call, > come back to me and give me a call-waiting tone. Obviously it leaves > my switch and returns. That's right. Your line is in the "not able to get call waiting" state and will return the busy signal to anyone who calls until your call, completed or not, leaves your switch. > Now the other 800 number on the other hand is quite a mystery to me > -- how it operates, that is. When I dial it the call goes through > *instantly* as though it were a local call, and if I dial it from the > phone it terminates on, I instantly get a busy signal. That's because this line happens to terminate on a switch that they are also using as a LATA tandem. The translation happens on the same switch. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Jan 1995 05:33:08 EST From: Bob Keller Subject: Re: FCC PCS Auction Information In an earlier post I gave a pointer to the file: ftp://ftp.clark.net/pub/rjk/pcs_mkts.txt.Z It has come to my attention that the file that was there was an older version that had some sorting errors, glitches, and inaccuracies. It has since been replaced. Anyone who ftp'd the file prior to approximately 5:30 am EST on Jan 20, 1995 should delete the file and get it again. I apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused. Bob Keller (KY3R) Email: rjk@telcomlaw.com Law Office of Robert J. Keller, P.C. Telephone: 301.229.5208 Federal Telecommunications Law Facsimile: 301.229.6875 ------------------------------ From: laurence@netcom.com (Andrew Laurence) Subject: Re: Cattle Call Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Date: Sat, 21 Jan 1995 02:12:24 GMT rice@ttd.teradyne.com (John Rice) writes: > I can't feed my dog for $18/month, which is what I can get pager service > (tone only) for, around here. One page a day is well under most limits > for maximum pages/month. Wow! I get numeric paging, unlimited airtime, for $8.50 per month on a six- month contract. Andrew Laurence laurence@netcom.com Certified NetWare Administrator (CNA) Oakland, California, USA CD-ROM Networking Consultant Pacific Standard Time (GMT-8) Phone: (510) 547-6647 Pager: (510) 308-1903 Fax: (510) 547-8002 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Jan 1995 15:24:59 EST From: Paul Robinson Organization: Tansin A. Darcos & Company, Silver Spring, MD USA Subject: Re: Cellular Fraud: How Much of it is Real Money? Paul Barnett wrote me in response to my message: > Paul Robinson said: >> I'm going to raise an issue here because I think it relates to the >> issue of why nothing beyond lip service seems to be done by carriers >> about cellular fraud. > I think you made some good points about the impact of cellular fraud, > but I think you missed an important one (I didn't read real carefully, > so the omission may be mine): > Unlike software piracy, cellular bandwidth is a limited commodity. > Every fraudulent call has the opportunity to block a legitimate call > that would have resulted in some additional revenue. I did make that point in part. Additionally, and if a particular system is saturated, then some additional fraudulent unpaid traffic might cause legitimate, paid traffic to not get through. > Furthermore, there is the capital investment required to build and > maintain the facilities to provide the additional increment of bandwidth > used by fraudulent calls, in order to provide a satisfactory level of > service to the legitimate subscribers. Yes, but again, how much of the claimed losses are real chargebacks and out of pocket costs, and how much of it is illusory lost profits (some of which might never have occurred). If someone who can't afford cellular service places fraudulent calls, certainly the cellular company loses revenue and perhaps has out of pocket costs, but those calls would never have been made, so the company would never have received the revenue from it. About the only place where lost revenue might be a valid issue is for people who use fraudulent time, not because they can't afford to use the service, but because they cannot afford to have a particular call tracked to a phone issued in their name, again typically because they are involved in the manufacture and sale of unauthorized dried plant residues, and referred to by police and prosecutors as drug dealers. This was the point I probably should have made: that if the cellular companies were actually getting hit for $1 million a day in settlements, I find it likely that they would have pushed for encryption a long time ago. What the $1 million figure probably represents is imaginary lost profits from unbilled fraud, which is a whole different matter altogether. It means that their overall profit margin is less, it does not mean they are actually *out* any money. And this may be the reason cellular companies have essentially either made customers eat most of the fraud, or barely done anything beyond lip service to stop it. ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Cellular Fraud: How Much of it is Real Money? Date: Fri, 20 Jan 95 16:49:54 -0800 From: Larry Schwarcz Paul Robinson says: > I'm going to raise an issue here because I think it relates to the > issue of why nothing beyond lip service seems to be done by carriers > about cellular fraud. > I got thinking about the issue and wondered: of the industry claimed > more than $1 million a day in fraud that occurs, how much of this is > real money, how much is it lost profits, and how much is sheer > imagination? > And then Patrick Townson says: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Does it matter, Paul? Does it really > matter? Should stealing someone's 'profits' be any less severe an > offense than stealing their actual cash? You may not be condoning cell- > ular phone fraud, but you sure know how to speak the language of the > phreaks and hackers. Well, I don't know Paul's motives, but, one good reason for asking this is in relation to my cellular bill. It's my understanding that cellular carriers can bill back 100% of their fraud losses to subscribers. So, if joe-hacker steals a MIN/ESN and starts making calls (lets assume all local and no LD carrier is involved), the carrier may claim $100 in losses. That $100 is paid for by all of the other subscribers via higher rates. Now, if, as Paul suggests, those losses are just "paper" losses, the carrier is now ahead by $100 and I'm out a bit by higher rates. So, my interest is in how much higher my rates are due to my cellular carrier inflating their losses. How much lower would my rates be if the carrier could only claim their actual cash (as Paul defined) losses? Keep in mind that I'm in the San Francisco/Bay Area and my rates are: $30/month with 5 free minutes; $0.85/min peak and $0.20/off- peak. So, the carriers out here are making a KILLING to start with! Just my $0.02 worth (+/-), Lawrence R. Schwarcz, Software Design Engr/IND Internet: lrs@cup.hp.com Hewlett Packard Company Direct: (408) 447-2543 19420 Homestead Road MS 43UK Main: (408) 447-2000 Cupertino, CA 95014 Fax: (408) 447-2264 ------------------------------ From: md@pstc3.pstc.brown.edu (Michael P. Deignan) Subject: Re: Cellular Fraud: How Much of it is Real Money? Date: 21 Jan 1995 04:23:36 GMT Organization: Population Studies & Training Center > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Does it matter, Paul? Does it really > matter? Should stealing someone's 'profits' be any less severe an > offense than stealing their actual cash? You may not be condoning cell- > ular phone fraud, but you sure know how to speak the language of the > phreaks and hackers. If I develop a concept or invent a device or > otherwise devise something you could not possibly do on your own, and > then I have the audacity to ask to be paid if you wish to benefit from > my work, how can you say your refusal to pay me is any less wrong than > taking a gun, holding it to my head and demanding my purse? I think Paul raises an interesting point, and I believe that you trivialize it. Nobody denies that cellular fraud happens. I believe, though, that the cellular industry's dollar figures are overinflated, just as the SPA's estimates of software piracy are overinflated, purposely so in a self- serving interest. The key issue is cost versus selling price. The per-minute selling price of a cell call may be, in Paul's case, $.50. But, what is the actual cost of providing that minute to Paul, including depreciation of network infrastructure construction, salaries, software development depreciation, research and development, etc? $.35? Can you really say when a fradulent call is placed that the loss is $.50? Not really. Loss implies that you're depriving the company of something that they otherwise couldn't sell. In a cell call case, its bandwidth. Unless bandwidth is saturated, the "fraudulent" cell call is simply using unoccupied bandwidth that would simply be assigned to a legit call. In this case, the only real "loss" to the carrier is the cost of providing the service (with those depreciated costs, etc.), not the loss of profit from being unable to make a profit by selling that amount of bandwidth. Now, if the network were saturated, and by placing a fradulent cell call you permanently deprived the company of the ability to make a profit off that bandwidth, then you might be able to say the cost of fraud is $.50. I believe that the real reasons industries overstate losses from fraud is to make the problem appear larger than it really is. For example, the recent case of the guy who stole calling card numbers by collecting them through MCI's network software -- they estimated the fraud at what? 25 MILLION dollars? At $1 per minute, that requires 25 million minutes worth of long distance -- or 250,000 people making a 100 minute phone call. Unfortunately, the issue is really techy, and not many people are in a position to question the numbers -- even though, with a little high- school mathematics, running the numbers sometimes makes you stand up and scratch your head with a "wait a minute, something here doesn't juve." And, when people do raise a question, they're critized in the same manner that you address Paul. But, I guess telcos are just honest, trustworthy companies that we shouldn't question at all -- sort of like the attitude we should take with our government too, huh? [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I never said the telcos are always honest and I certainly do not believe the government is always honest. But even theives have property rights. You and Paul both bring up the same point about how 'it would not have been sold anyway' ... and while that may or may not be true, my response would be that whether or not it gets sold is my business, not yours. I have some commodity, whatever it is, maybe its capacity on a cellular switch; maybe its a cable television system. I make the statement, 'this is worth X dollars, and that is what you will pay me if you wish to have/use it.' The owner of a product or service is the sole person with the authority to decide what his product or service is 'worth'. If all you and Paul are saying is that people or companies who have things stolen from them occassionally inflate the value of what was stolen for reasons of their own, i.e. insurance payoff, then I would agree with you. Yes, they do that that. If they report what they sold as worth one dollar and what was stolen as worth two dollars (for the same quantity or product, etc) then that is wrong. If they report what was stolen as worth the same amount as that which was sold, then I don't think that is wrong. If you are attempting to trivialize the theft because 'it was not worth as much as they claim' or because 'they would not have sold it anyway' then I contend both those reasons are invalid, simply because what the other person claims is none of your business nor is what he manages to sell or not sell. You cannot trivialize theft based on how out of whack the property owner's ideas about his property's values are with reality. It is still his property. To put it another way, consider a large supermarket in a city like Chicago. Jewel Food Stores tosses a huge amount of perishable stuff out in the dumpster each week when their new stock comes in. Milk with an expiration date only two or three days away. Loaves of bread which have been around awhile or which got banged up and the wrapping slightly sliced open by accident in transit. Entire cartons of eggs where one egg got broken. Boxes of breakfast cereal smashed up in transit. In other words, perfectly good food, but American consumers are picky people. Homeless or other poor people with sophistication or 'street-smarts' know exactly what day, or rather night of the week each Jewel store in the area gets its deliveries and within minutes or maybe an hour what time to go hit those dumpsters and clean them out. Granted, you can't be too picky about variety; you can have a dozen boxes of corn flakes because they threw out the whole carton when the box on top got sliced open accidently by the stock clerk opening the carton, but don't look for any Raisin Bran this week. And in the middle of winter, all those gallon jugs of milk are just fine, but in the middle of the summer if they've been out there in the dumpster more than an hour or so, you don't want them ... otherwise, everything is fine. So since a grocery store is going to toss out all of its perishables when a new order comes in, and since they never manage to sell it all, and since the price tag for the item is probably five times higher than what they paid for it, what real problem is there if someone wants to shoplift a little right from the store? Right? Now substitute cellular carriers and/or telcos and/or software writers. If sneaking something out without paying is cool, then fine. If 'shoplifting' is wrong, then it is wrong. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V15 #51 *****************************