Received: by bu-cs.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7) id AA13917; Wed, 18 Jan 89 03:19:07 EST Message-Id: <8901180819.AA13917@bu-cs.BU.EDU> Date: Wed, 18 Jan 89 2:58:00 EST From: The Moderator Reply-To: TELECOM@bu-cs.BU.EDU Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #18 To: TELECOM@bu-cs.bu.edu TELECOM Digest Wed, 18 Jan 89 2:58:00 EST Volume 9 : Issue 18 Today's Topics: 1+ dialing and new AC for SF Bay Area? Re: Telephone gizmo for one-line customers Fraudulent Use of 900 #'s Re: Fraudulent use of 900 #'s Re: Race conditions in a PBX Free Trip to Florida (for $5.95 a call!) [Moderator's Note: By now everyone should have issues 13-14-15-16-17, although you may have received them somewhat out of order. Unfortunatly I have no control over the mailer programs used. If you did not get one or more of these, please advise. This is *part 1* for Wednesday; *part 2* will follow in a few minutes as issue 19. P. Townson] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To: comp-dcom-telecom@uunet.UU.NET From: wales@CS.UCLA.EDU Subject: 1+ dialing and new AC for SF Bay Area? Date: 14 Jan 89 03:31:59 GMT My parents (in San Mateo, CA -- a suburb of San Francisco -- "415" area code) told me that, starting in February, they will have to start dial- ing "1" before area codes. (Up till now, they've just dialed the area code and the seven-digit number.) At about the same time, my MCI bill contained a short announcement of this same thing (why they told me, in Los Angeles, I have no idea), and it said this was part of a plan by Pacific Bell to introduce a new area code in the San Francisco Bay area. I'd be interested in any comments from the net about this development. -- Rich Wales // UCLA Computer Science Department // +1 (213) 825-5683 3531 Boelter Hall // Los Angeles, California 90024-1596 // USA wales@CS.UCLA.EDU ...!(uunet,ucbvax,rutgers)!cs.ucla.edu!wales "Now, if you do see me again today, I want you to report it to me immediately." ------------------------------ To: comdesign!bu-cs.bu.edu!telecom@apple.com From: comdesign!ivucsb!steve@apple.com (Steve Lemke) Subject: Re: Telephone gizmo for one-line customers Date: 16 Jan 89 21:47:11 GMT In article soley@ontenv writes: }In article , black%ll-micro@ll-vlsi.arpa (Jerry Glomph Black) writes: }: I just read a short review in PC Week about a $400 gizmo which }: answers your phone, then issues a robot-voice announcement to the }: caller requesting that the (hopefully touch-tone-equipped) person }: press the '3' button. The caller is then connected to your voice }: phone, which rings as usual. If '3' is not pressed, the gizmo }: box assumes that a fax or modem is calling, and your data }: equipment receives the incoming call. Seems like a good way to }: get double use of one line. }: }: The $400 seems overpriced for what you get } }I think what you were reading about is a product called Watson, in }addition to doing what you say it also is a modem and comes with }voicemail software for the PC (a little rudimentary, but workable) }considering this the price is quite reasonable. Actually, I was just at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas, and I think that what you're after is a neat new device I saw there called The Eliminator - Autoswitch TF-300, made by Command Communications, Inc. Their number is (303) 750-6434, and they also have another device called the Autoswitch TF-500. The Autoswitch TF-300 will handle a FAX machine, answering machine, and normal voice telephone, and the Autoswitch TF-500 adds modem handling. The details of how these devices work is a bit too complicated to mention here (and besides, I'm not feeling well and don't feel like typing it all in) but it was discussed on page 22 of the November, 1988 Radio Electronics and is described in detail on the product brochures available from the company. I believe the prices were $195 (TF-300) and $295 (TF-500) but I'm not sure. They'll also be coming out with a TF-400 which is like the TF-300 but works with a modem instead of a FAX machine. ----- Steve Lemke ------------------- "MS-DOS (OS/2, etc.) - just say no!" ----- Internet: steve@ivucsb.UUCP CompuServe: 73627,570 ----- uucp: apple!comdesign!ivucsb!steve GEnie: S.Lemke ----- Quote: "What'd I go to college for?" "You had fun, didn't you?" ------------------------------ To: telecom@bu-cs.bu.edu.UUCP From: arizona!naucse!kwc Subject: Fraudulent use of 900 #'s Date: 12 Jan 89 19:42:37 GMT I saw an interested approach to the illegal use of 900 numbers on a T.V. news program the other night. It seems that a man in New York city set up a 900 number for his home and proceeded to place an advertisement in the New York Times to the effect that he had a "free" house for rent in trade for upkeep and maintenance on the house. I can't remember what percentage of the income went to the phone company and what percentage went to the guy in NYC but he got significantly more than 50%. Finally, after enough complaints, the FBI launched an investigation and told this guy to remove the add. He did remove the add but one week later he took out another add for some other deal which was "too good to pass up" using the same 900 number. After several weeks the FBI was again notified and they investigated again. This time the investigation was more significant and the whole affair may eventually go into litigation. But as of the news report that I saw, all money received by this man was still in his possession. It seems to me that the advent of 900 numbers has opened up a whole new category of fraudulent crimes (recall the Portland Santa Claus 900 number discussed on the net not long ago), as well as all of the problems parents have making sure that their teenagers are not running up hundreds of dollars in bills from 900 numbers. Add to that all of the complaints about telephone solicitation and it makes me wonder if the phone company is in the service of the business world rather than individual users. I guess whoever has the most money wins! -- Ken Collier ...arizona!naucse!kwc College of Engineering and Technology Bitnet: collier@nauvax Northern Arizona University Flagstaff, Arizona From: rebel@swbatl.swbt.com To: telecom@bu-cs.bu.edu Subject: Re: Fraudulent use of 900 #'s Date: 13 Jan 89 15:42:50 GMT Organization: Southwestern Bell Tele. Co. - Advanced Technology Lab - St. Louis In article <1121@naucse.UUCP> kwc@naucse.UUCP (Ken Collier) writes: >It seems to me that the advent of 900 numbers has opened up a whole new >category of fraudulent crimes.... >...and it makes me wonder if the phone company is in the service >of the business world rather than individual users. I guess whoever has the >most money wins! Now exactly who do you think ends up paying for telephone fraud???? The telephone company. When a teenager runs up $2,000 in 900# calls and the parents complain, the phone company ends up footing the bill, the parents aren't about to pay $2,000 and the sure don't want to have to discipline their children or even worse actually "supervise" them!!! (Whats really weird, and of course kinda off the subject, but my parents would have skinned me alive if I had run up that kind of a bill, and probably would have made me pay for it...) The phone company pays for all kinds of fraudulent phone calls. College students from foreign countries who call home and then skip out leaving a bill of about $3,000, stolen calling cards that are used by the thief, etc, etc. I could go on and on. How do I know??? Well I used to work in the Security Department and the toughest thing to do is collect money from customers who aren't responsible for their card being stolen or their kid calling whomever. Businesses stay in business by making money. Plain and simple. Try to run a business that loses money and see how long it lasts. And when the phone company makes money, I make money being an employee. But then I turn around and buy a new car, and that keeps Ford in business, and I rent an apartment, and that keeps the landlord in business, and it goes on and on..... =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- \ Sharon Deetz, System Administrator / "The only trouble with / Southwestern Bell Telephone - Advanced Tech Lab \ being in the rat race \ 1010 Pine St. - Room 502 - St. Louis. MO. 63101. / is even if you win / UUCP: {pyramid, uunet, bellcore}...!swbatl!rebel \ you're still a rat!" =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- ------------------------------ From: hou2d!peter@clyde.att.com To: comp-dcom-telecom@clyde Subject: Re: Race conditions in a PBX Date: 13 Jan 89 20:25:10 GMT The condition with PBX's where two simultaneous seizures (call attempts) may be connected together is called glare. In PBX trunking, there are two common signaling arrangements: loop start and ground start. Loop start is a two state signaling (on-hook and off-hook), which may allow simultaneous seizures. That is, an outgoing call may, in the absense of ringing, seize a trunk at the same time as an incoming call is waiting for the ringing generator to place ringing on the line. Remember that there is a pause in the ringing signal which is typically four seconds. To eliminate this condition with loop start signaling, PBX trunks are usually engineered as one-way in or one-way out. This directionality refers to the call set up direction, not the transmission path. From the PBX's perspective, a one-way in trunk can receive outside calls, but the PBX cannot place calls on that trunk. This eliminates the possibility of a trunk being seizied from both ends simultaneously. The other PBX signaling, ground start, uses more than two states to contain signaling information. A seizure from central office to PBX is initiated by placing a ground on the tip. A PBX to office seizure is initiated with a ground on the ring. After detecting a ground, the trunk is considered busy, and is not seized at the detecting end. >From here ground start gets complicated. In the office, a ring ground is responded to with a tip ground and a dial tone, the tip ground causes a loop closure at the PBX, which is detected in the CO, and a DP or DTMF detector (where applicable) recieves the digits (and causes dial tone to vanish). The call is now set up from the station set to the office. On an incoming call, an office tip ground is also accompanied with office ringing, which initiates a loop closure in the PBX, and sets the call up. (Disclaimer: I haven't studied this in a while, and address signaling isn't addressed here.) Hope this answered your questions... ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Jan 89 09:14:27 EST From: prindle@NADC.ARPA (Frank Prindle) To: telecom@bu-cs.bu.edu Subject: Free Trip to Florida (for $5.95 a call!) This scam is being operated by Integrated Information Services (how typical!) at 402-330-5150. They issue their calls from local nodes in major cities. I called to suggest that they block our PBX exchanges before systematically ringing all 3000 phones here at NADC (fortunately, outgoing 976 calls are blocked by the PBX). Their representative, Marilyn Gore, said she would try, but it would take a few days! I sure hope the FCC or PUC or whoever soon puts an end to these people. Junk mail is one thing, but charging people to get hooked into one of these land deals takes a lot of guts! Sincerely, Frank Prindle Prindle@NADC.arpa ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest *********************