Received: by bu-cs.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7) id AA11701; Sat, 21 Jan 89 01:33:08 EST Message-Id: <8901210633.AA11701@bu-cs.BU.EDU> Date: Sat, 21 Jan 89 0:52:11 EST From: The Moderator Reply-To: TELECOM@bu-cs.BU.EDU Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #23 To: TELECOM@bu-cs.bu.edu TELECOM Digest Sat, 21 Jan 89 0:52:11 EST Volume 9 : Issue 23 Today's Topics: Re: Bad payphone experiences (MILFORD, PA) Re: Bad pay-phone experiences while travelling Re: Fraudulent use of 900 #'s Re: Pacific Bell Calling Card Blunder SL/IP over X.25 International Phone Calls Re: New way to donate money Re: How To Locate Your Ringback Code The Last Word on 'AT&T Alleges Dumping' ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 20 Jan 1989 09:22-EST From: Ralph.Hyre@IUS3.IUS.CS.CMU.EDU To: TELECOM@bu-cs.bu.edu Cc: crew@polya.Stanford.EDU Subject: Re: Bad payphone experiences (MILFORD, PA) [copied without permission. Sorry , Roger] > ``You're travelling right?'' > ``Yup.'' > ``Go down the road about 20 miles until you're out of that service >area and try again...'' I'd guess closer to 10 miles, there is a Bell payphone at the Exxon station the exit before (to the west of) Milford, PA. Once you cross into New York State toward Newburgh, you are still in Contel territory. At least I was with the apparently-more-easily-reachable MCI when it happened to me. although it was getting covered with ICE last time I used it. Maybe we should keep a database of Bad Phone locations? - Ralph ------------------------------ To: comp-dcom-telecom@decwrl.dec.com From: jbn@glacier.stanford.edu (John B. Nagle) Subject: Re: Bad pay-phone experiences while travelling Date: 20 Jan 89 17:29:20 GMT It can get much worse. A few months ago, I attempted a call from a Pay-Tel Systems private coin station (at the Diana Market #2 on 9th Street in S.F.). The call was to a S.F. suburb, and would cost about $0.75 from a Pacific Bell phone. The Pay-Tel unit's voice synthesizer came out with a demand for $18.75. John Nagle ------------------------------ To: comp-dcom-telecom@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU From: desnoyer@Apple.COM (Peter Desnoyers) Subject: Re: Fraudulent use of 900 #'s Date: 20 Jan 89 00:49:39 GMT >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, Wait a minute. The phone company collects for 900# calls and splits the money with the 900 operator. If the bill is legally uncollectable (for instance in some cases when run up by a minor, or when the calls were solicited by illegal means) then the phone company does not LOSE any money, as it never had rights to it in the first case. If the 900 operator was already paid their split, the phone compyany is being dumb. >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 Are you really implying that a customer is fully responsible for all fraudulent use of their card in the event that it is stolen? I can see why it was difficult to collect, and I have no sympathy whatsoever for the difficulties you encountered. Peter Desnoyers [Moderator's Note: Under federal law, any person whose credit card(s) is stolen can be held responsible for the first $50 in charges or the amount incurred until the matter has been reported to the card issuer, whichever is less. Credit extended by a telephone company is not an exception. PT] ------------------------------ To: uunet!bu-cs.BU.EDU!telecom@uunet.UU.NET Subject: Re: Pacific Bell Calling Card Blunder Date: 20 Jan 89 10:15:47 EST (Fri) From: john@jetson.UPMA.MD.US (John Owens) I have a few comments on the question of PINs on calling cards, after which I'll actually answer the posted question. :-) There's one major difference between calling card PINs and ATM PINs, which is the scope of charges and effects of having the PIN compromised. With a stolen ATM PIN, someone can empty your bank account, and if any recourse is possible, it will be after the fact. In the mean time, you're left with a serious cash-flow problem. With a calling card PIN, someone can make phone calls that are charged on your telephone bill, which you can contest before the money actually leaves your control. In addition, since card reader phones are quite rare, and the vast majority of calling card use is not card reader use, there's practically no purpose to a calling card without a PIN printed on it. Anyway, opinions aside: > As I have already destroyed the offending card and plan to cancel it > (I have been using it regularly for AT&T long distance; it seemed to > work just fine) and replace it with an AT&T card, can someone explain > what the practical differences, if any, are between the AT&T card and > a calling card issued by a telco? I'm not sure that "cancelling" your calling card would be very useful. AT&T gets its PIN number for you from your telco, so any change they would make would (eventually) propagate to AT&T, and if they do disable it, AT&T might not have a hassle-free method of assigning you a number independently. Besides, AT&T isn't allowed to carry intra-LATA calls, and you still want to make local calls from payphones without change, don't you? The only real difference I know of, besides the International Number being on the AT&T card, is that AT&T card reader phones (with the video displays) won't take BOC cards, and that the card reader phones placed by BOCs don't claim to take AT&T cards. And, finally, the AT&T card DOES print the PIN on the card, as do all other long distance carrier cards I've seen. ------------------------------ To: TELECOM@bu-cs.bu.edu Subject: SL/IP over X.25 Date: Thu, 19 Jan 89 08:55:56 PST From: kent@wsl.dec.com In 1983, a CSNET-sponsored project at Purdue implemented a system for running TCP directly over X.25. It required that you had "real" X.25 access on your machine, not just a PAD; in our case, we used a board from ACC, with certified ROMs from Interactive Systems (I think). In the US, it's not a terribly cost effective way to operate (SLIP is much cheaper, since it isn't necessarily subject to usage-sensitive charging), but it might be useful in Europe. I'm sure the CSNET folks can still supply a version of this if someone is interested. chris ------------------------------ To: munnari!comp-dcom-telecom@uunet.UU.NET From: munnari!psych.psy.uq.oz.au!jonathan@uunet.UU.NET (Jonathan Dwyer) Subject: International Phone Calls Date: 18 Jan 89 01:32:01 GMT About 6 months ago (I think) a posting referred to the Telecom Australia prefix for international toll-free calls (0018 instead of 0011?? or something similar). In the posting or resulting replies a contributor mentioned that STD codes could be used to dial New Zealand (but didn't mention the actual code). What I'm after is the STD code to PNG..... Can anyone help?? ,-_|\ jonathan@psych.psy.uq --\ / \ <-----------------------/ \_,-._/ "proofs have been omitted in v the interests of clarity" ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Jan 89 15:57:43 pst From: mtxinu!excelan!chuck@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Chuck Kollars) To: bu-cs.bu.edu!telecom@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Re: New way to donate money It is indeed true that the California Public Utilities Commision, after being deluged with consumer complaints, had to _order_ the local telcos to allow blocking of 976 numbers, and also that the telcos originally were going to charge for blocking. -- Chuck Kollars, Excelan, Inc. chuck@EXCELAN.COM (or mtxinu!excelan!chuck@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU) ...!{mtxinu,leadsv,cae780}!excelan!chuck ------------------------------ To: comdesign!bu-cs.bu.edu!telecom@apple.com From: comdesign!ivucsb!dan@apple.com (Dan Howell) Subject: Re: How To Locate Your Ringback Code Date: 19 Jan 89 14:11:09 GMT |[Moderator's Note: The main thing that I do not like about this approach |is the ringing of *random telephones looking for something else.* This is |just a variation on the programs which search for carrier by dialing |everyone else in the community without regard to their desire to be left |alone. I do not like 'demon-dialer' software. It causes an invasion of |privacy of others. P.Townson] It would seem that if 952 is a ringback exchange, it would not be listed in the phone book as a normal exchange. Then couldn't all the exchanges listed in the phone book be eliminated? Then you could dial all the remaining exchanges without worrying about bothering anyone (unless you happen to get a new exchange which wasn't listed in the phone book yet). -- Dan Howell <...!pyramid!comdesign!ivucsb!dan> ------------------------------ To: hafro!comp-dcom-telecom@uunet.UU.NET From: mcvax!rsp.is!orn@uunet.UU.NET (Orn E. Hansen) Subject: Re: AT&T alleges dumping Date: 20 Jan 89 22:57:29 GMT In article , algor2!jeffrey@uunet.UU.NET (jeffrey) writes: > > AT&T is perfectly capable of beating the Japanese by producing a quality, > reasonably priced product--and of selling it in Japan. Not to even try is > unworthy of a company which represents the very best of business in > America, and therefore the world. > -- > As a non-American it is very annoying to read statements like the one above in articles. If you'd care to re-read your artice, you will notice that you tend to talk of America as it was the whole WORLD. The total population in America is only about 1/10th of the world. Americans are not Europeans, Asians etc., even though you sometimes seem to think so. Further more, some products I have seen and used made in the US are not made in top quality. Years ago, when you peeked into products made in Europe and America you'd notice that Europeans had everything neatly positioned while Americans obviously were manufacturing cheap, but good compared to it's price. The Japanese have outsmarted you on that one, they produce quality products at low cost. Quality manufactured cheap. Europeans are beginning to produce DRAM's that are bigger and even East-Europeans are gaining on the West's lead in Electronics. The space shuttle the russians manufactured showed that their Computer knowledge is far far far greater than anyone suspected. So, mine freund, it's not only the Japanese! =========================================================================== [Moderator's Note: I had sworn off publishing *anything* further in the 'AT&T alleges dumping' category. This Digest is not really the proper forum for a long-term discussion on the merits of American made versus foreign made anything. But this one item did come in which rebutted an earlier message and in the interest of fairness I am including it today, assuming that our overseas correspondent may get the Digest or comp.dcom.telecom on a somewhat delayed basis and not been able to answer until now. But as of now, please move the discussion elsewhere. Thank you. P. Townson] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest *********************