Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id JAA21836; Tue, 25 Mar 1997 09:09:36 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 09:09:36 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Message-Id: <199703251409.JAA21836@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #75 TELECOM Digest Tue, 25 Mar 97 09:09:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 75 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson EIA-553 (AMPS) ESN Allocations (Glenn Shirley) Problem with NPA 760 (CA) Test Numbers (Mark J. Cuccia) Re: Where to Find the XDSL Beta's and Active Installs (Anthony Pelliccio) Re: Where to Find the XDSL Beta's and Active Installs (Tony Toews) Re: Where to Find the XDSL Beta's and Active Installs (Mike Stump) Reverse Directory - Online? (John Mianowski) Setup Charge per LD Call? (Bill Jenney) Caller Id From Cellular Calls (Chris Farrar) More NYNEX Sillyness (Roy Smith) Slamming by Business Discount Plan (Mike Seebeck) Re: Slammed Again: NYNEX's Response (Dave Stott) Re: What's This Scam? (Bill Stevens) Re: What's This Scam? (Edwin Collins) New Papers Available On Line (David E. Colton) Re: Cyberpromo Got Hacked (Bruce Pennypacker) 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: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.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: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 847-329-0571 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu. The URL is: http://hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to tel-archives@massis.lcs.mit.edu to receive a help file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom Archives. ************************************************************************* * 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. * ************************************************************************* Finally, 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: Glenn Shirley Subject: EIA-553 (AMPS) ESN Allocations Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 12:25:00 -0800 Organization: ADI Limited Reply-To: Glenn.Shirley@sg.adisys.com.au Hi all, I hope someone can help me with the following (vague) question. EIA-553 defines the 32 bit ESN field for a cellular phone as: bits 31 24 23 18 17 0 MFR Code RESERVED Serial Number where RESERVED bits should be zero. Does anyone know if the FCC or EIA has put out a bulletin which now allows the RESERVED bits to be used or if some sort of batch information should be put in the serial number or RESERVED sections. Either an EIA document number (so I can order it) or a web address for an FCC document would be nice. If such a document doesn't exist, is there a de-facto standard for putting batch or version info into the serial number. Regards, Glenn Shirley. ADI Limited, Systems Group Telecommunications Division telephone: +61 9 273 0767 18 Hasler Road .-_|\ facsimile: +61 9 445 1988 Osborne Pk. WA 6017 / \ home: +61 9 367 5607 Australia P_.-._/ mobile: +61 411 243 489 v e-mail: Glenn.Shirley@sg.adisys.com.au ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 10:43:11 -0600 From: Mark J. Cuccia Subject: Problem With NPA 760 (CA) Test Numbers Area Code 760 in southern and eastern California, splitting from 619, took effect in permissive dialing this past Saturday, 22 March 1997. Mandatory dialing with the new 760 NPA begins on 27 September 1997. The San Diego metro area will remain NPA 619. There are _three_ different (non-suping / non-billing) test numbers for checking the routing to the new 760 NPA. Each one routes to a different LEC toll/tandem switch in the area: 760-200-0760 routes to GTE/Contel in Victorville CA (switch ID 619-79-T; this ID might need to be changed to 760-79T). It seems that GTE/Contel has its own toll/tandem switch, even though it is in Pacific Bell's San Diego _LATA_. 760-400-0760 routes to Pacific Bell in San Diego CA (switch ID "San Diego 91-T"). Even though the San Diego area remains NPA 619, the calls to area code 760 locations in the San Diego LATA, directly served out of the Pac*Bell toll/tandem switch, probably continue to route via San Diego. 760-600-0760 routes to GTE in Palm Springs CA (there is no switch ID code, although it does announce "Palm Springs"). BTW, GTE in the Palm Springs area is its own _LATA_, not part of Pac*Bell's San Diego LATA. When I use AT&T (10(10)288)+ to call the 760-200- and 760-600- test numbers, I reach a successful test announcement from the corresponding LEC. When I use _other_ carriers such as MCI (10(10)222)+, Sprint (10(10)333)+, and others with their own (10(1X)XXX)+ codes, I am successful in reaching _all_three_ test numbers, _including_ the Pac*Bell recording for 760-400-. But when I use _AT&T_ to call the (Pac*Bell) test number 760-400-0760, I seem to be failing. I do _not_ get an _AT&T_ rejection recording, but a recorded male voice announcing that my call cannot be completed as dialed. It seems to be a Pac*Bell recording, as the recorded male voice seems to be the same voice announcing a successful test to 760-400-0760 when I dial it via carriers _other_ than AT&T. As of Monday morning (24 March 1997), I am still getting a (Pac*Bell) failure recording when calling 760-400- via AT&T, and other people originating from different parts of the US have told me the same thing as well. Any answers, AT&T? Pac*Bell? An interesting side note to this regards calls from Canada to the US, when placed through the toll services of their (traditional) Stentor-Canada LEC. Over the weekend, I asked two different Canadian telecom contacts to 3-way me to 760-400-0760: One telecom-friend was in Whitehorse YT, served by (BCE's) Northwestel. Up in northern territorial Canada, there is not yet equal access competition. All toll calls are handled and billed by Northwestel - and for toll calls to other parts of Canada, the Stentor LEC's it connects with, usually "Telus" in Alberta (formerly AGT) or (GTE's) BCTel in British Columbia. Calls to Alaska interface directly with (AT&T's) Alascom, and calls to countries outside of the US, it then (presently still) connects with Teleglobe. Calls to the 760-200- and 760-600- test numbers went through okay, however calls to the 760-400- test number failed in Pac*Bell, the same failure _I_ get via AT&T to the 760-400- test number. The other telecom-friend was in Toronto ON. His chosen 'default' toll carrier for calls within Canada and to the US is AT&T-Canada, formerly Unitel. Attempts at all three NPA 760 test numbers failed with 'reorder'. It seems that AT&T-Canada's switch in Toronto didn't have 760 yet loaded in as a valid new area code. When he tried using the 10(1X)XXX+ code for the traditional toll services of his Stentor-LEC, Bell-Canada, he sussessfully reached the 760-200- and 760-600- test numbers, however, the 760-400- test number failed at Pac*Bell, the same as _I_ get via AT&T. This leads me to believe that from Canada, originating via the traditional toll services of the traditional Stentor-LEC, calls to the (continental) US (except Alaska) are thus _still_ routed to AT&T-(US) when the calls reach the US side of the border, just as it had been done for _decades_, prior to competition in either the US or Canada. This is interesting, since the Stentor-LEC's (when providing traditional intra-Canada) toll services are in competition with AT&T-_Canada_, and the Stentor organization now has a business relationship with _MCI_ (US), which includes technical R&D. But then again, back in the 1980's when GTE (or jointly with United Telephone) owned Sprint, the 'traditional' inTER-LATA connections from GTE and United (as traditional independent LEC's) were to _AT&T_, not to Sprint-LD. As for NPA 760, my local #1AESS "Seabrook" switch (504-24x) has had 760 as a valid new NPA for about two months now. The AT&T 504-2T (or now ID'd as "060") toll switch for New Orleans has also had 760 NPA for about two months. The AT&T (Operator) #5ESS OSPS 601-0T in Jackson MS just had NPA 760 loaded in as valid one day last week. I have been able to reach the 760 test numbers for two months now (as 1+; 0+, 800-CALL-ATT, and BSMobility cellular origination for about a week now), and have known about this AT&T->Pac*Bell problem with 760-400- since then. MARK_J._CUCCIA__PHONE/WRITE/WIRE/CABLE:__HOME:__(USA)__Tel:_CHestnut_1-2497 WORK:_mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu_|4710_Wright_Road|__(+1-504-241-2497) Tel:UNiversity_5-5954(+1-504-865-5954)|New_Orleans_28__|fwds_on_no-answr_to Fax:UNiversity_5-5917(+1-504-865-5917)|Louisiana(70128)|_cellular/voicemail ------------------------------ From: kd1nr@anomaly.ideamation.com (Anthony S. Pelliccio) Subject: Re: Where to Find the XDSL Beta's and Active Installs Date: 24 Mar 1997 20:10:15 -0500 Organization: Ideamation, Inc. In article , Ray Sarna wrote: > Can you please help by adding to the "public" info base by posting > your answer to this very brief request? > Where are the Beta tests? Where are the Active Installs? -- for XDSL. There was recently an article in the Providence Journal, http://www.projo.com that stated RI's premier ISP is filing with the Public Utilities Commission to become a telecom carrier in order to co-locate it's xDSL equipment in other telecom providers facilities. I happen to know the president of the company and can confirm this is not a test but a real application of xDSL technology, and in Rhode Island of all places. If we waited for Nynex to try it out we'd be old and gray and while I'm on the subject I'm vehemently opposed to the BA/Nynex merger, why combine poor service with anti-competitive behavior? For anyone interested the ISP that's doing xDSL is Intelecom Data Systems or IDS http://www.ids.net Tony Pelliccio, KD1NR kd1nr@anomaly.ideamation.com Boston has the combat zone, Providence *IS* an erogenous zone. ------------------------------ From: ttoews@agt.net (Tony Toews) Subject: Re: Where to Find the XDSL Beta's and Active Installs Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 03:06:13 GMT Organization: TELUS Communications Inc. lpuadm.nospam@leonardo.net (Ray Sarna) wrote: > There's a "test"? at Sask Tel. What are the spec's on that? I was > told, "they were trying 6 mbit/sec downstream. Not sure on upstream." Not sure of the details but a Ken Ganshirt has indicated that portions of Saskatoon and Regina have ADSL available. It is available at the consumer level. I misremember the speeds he was quoting but "bat-outta-heck" comes to mind. > Their website is useless, imho. Nothing there but a sea of text > without logic, and last updated news March, 1996! I guess they're not > on the internet yet. ;-) Actually the provincal telco's in Alberta (privately owned) and Saskatchewan (govt owned I think) have made Internet access in *every* local calling area throughout the province. Including remote villages way up in the north with a total of 50 or 100 telephones. > Telus is the Alberta Province-wide telco, and I've been told, "they > are very slow to offer new service, and they charge way too much." True they are kinda slow. OTOH they do have Internet access in small towns which otherwise would likely never have had any. > If 64 Kbs is "medium-speed" up there, I'm > looking forward to Cadvision helping them redefine that ridiculous > observation. There are some areas where I'd sure like to see faster things. But then I live in a town of 4000 so I don't expect faster access than 33.6 modem for many years to come. So I think I'll be getting a small satellite dish soon. Tony Toews, Independent Computer Consultant Jack of a few computer related trades and master (or certified) of none. Microsoft Access Hints & Tips: Accounting Systems, Winfax Pro, Reports and Books at http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm ------------------------------ From: mrs@Kithrup.COM (Mike Stump) Subject: Re: Where to Find the XDSL Beta's and Active Installs Organization: Kithrup Enterprises, Ltd. Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 19:00:26 GMT In article , Ray Sarna wrote: > UUNet is testing IDSL 128 Kb symmetric in the Bay Area, but I heard > nothing about the users' results. Their pricing will be US $140+/mo, You missed a 0, it is $900+ a month for a 128Kb line. Man, are those prices good, I know I'm going to switch to them, it is so affordable now. ------------------------------ From: John Mianowski Subject: Reverse Directory - Online? Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1997 00:04:18 -0500 Organization: Just Me Reply-To: jmianows@ix.netcom.com I'm looking for a reverse telephone directory (i.e., look up directory numbers and find out who owns them). Can somebody point me toward a source? If anyone knows of an online version, that would be ideal. Thanks, JM ------------------------------ From: jenney@niktow.canisius.edu (Bill Jenney) Subject: Setup Charge per LD Call? Date: 25 Mar 1997 10:56:19 GMT Organization: Canisius College, Buffalo, NY 14208 We are considering use of the PSTN for a "signalling" application that would send a high volume of very short (0.1 to 0.2 minutes) messages via LD. With the recent reduction of LD rates below the $.10 level, many/most of these should be billed at only a penny (or 2), given that we would have 6-second billing as a firm requirement from our reseller(s). BUT do these resellers face any "hidden costs" in the form of call setup charges imposed by the IXCs? The concern is that we would produce a system where not everyone is gaining, which is not our intent. Technical comments/thoughts to the newsgroup, w/thanks. Offers from resellers to email only, please -- the Good Guys who moderate might become immoderate. Bill Jenney (E.E., but don't work w/telecom daily) ------------------------------ From: Chris Farrar Subject: Caller Id From Cellular Calls Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 12:20:15 -0500 Organization: Sympatico Reply-To: cfarrar@sympatico.ca In the Toronto area, Cantel AT&T is already sending Caller ID on calls made from cell phones, with the default being to block your number. (ie, shows up "PRIVATE NUMBER" on a caller id box.) However if you want your number to go out, dialing *82 and the number in one string allows the number to go out. Recently someone tried calling me on the Bell Mobility network (B side carrier) and they too kept coming up "PRIVATE NAME". As someone with a Caller ID box that does anonymous call rejection (and calls supervise, so there is a cost to the caller) the person had to find a landline to call. When he tried the *82 + number, Bell Mobility intercepted it with a fast busy. Does anyone know the star code to let Caller Id go through on Bell Mobility? Chris Farrar | cfarrar@sympatico.ca | Amateur Radio, a VE3CFX | fax +1-905-457-8236 | national resource PGPkey Fingerprint = 3B 64 28 7A 8C F8 4E 71 AE E8 85 31 35 B9 44 B2 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Just a quick mention of an interesting development here in the Chicago area ... Ameritech says 911 service is going to be available to cellular phone users this month. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 11:03:53 -0500 From: roy@mchip00.med.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) Subject: More NYNEX Sillyness Organization: New York University School of Medicine I got my phone bill yesterday. On it were 3 calls I made from NYNEX pay phones in Grand Central Station, 2 to one number in Westchester, the 3rd to a different number, also in Westchester, over a span of about 25 minutes, using my AT&T calling card. All three reached answering machines, and I hung up as soon as the machine answered. All three were recorded as being 1 minute long. There's two things that are wierd. First, of the 2 calls to the same number, one was charged at $0.45, the other (the later one) at $0.75. Do they just pick random numbers to charge for the calls? Second, the three calls, while shown in the correct order, and approximately the correct time intervals, are shown at the wrong times. The times on the bill run from about 1:00 PM to 1:30 PM. I made the calls sometime around 6:30 or so in the evening (I remember this clearly, I had just missed my train and had a 45 minute wait for the next one). Again, do they just pick random numbers for the times? Very strange. But given that it's NYNEX, not surprising :-) Roy Smith New York University School of Medicine 550 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016 ------------------------------ From: seebeck@lace.colorado.edu (Mike Seebeck) Subject: Slamming by Business Discount Plan Date: 24 Mar 1997 23:32:16 GMT Organization: University of Colorado at Boulder I work for a company with about 1,600 stores. Lately we have found our LD service being changed in a number of places from MCI to AT&T via a company called Business Discount Plan. The stores that have been slammed were at one time or another an AT&T account. When BDP calls the store they claim they are making a "courtesy call" and are offereing to consolidate the stores telephone bill. They ask the employee if they are authorized to take the call. The employee of couse says yes. They then tell them they are already their long distance providor and is it ok to consolidate the bill. When the employee says yes they trasfer the call to an operator for verification. If the employee listens very carefully to the very fast talking operator who is supposedly checking info like name, address, did they say yes, they might hear a quick reference to a "possible change in long distance carrier". When I have called these employees they had no realization that they had authorized a change of LD provider. How do I know the speil so well? They called our corporate headquarters and ran it against one of our telecom staff. She thought that during the call all she had done was verify information such as address, company name, and so on. She became suspicious during the verification call and wrote down their 800 number. I called the next day and found they had switched the main number to AT&T. AT&T claims they can do nothing about this. We are filing a complaint qwith the FCC. Since BDP is based in CA we are filing a complaint with the CA Attorney Generals Office. Is there anything else we can do to stop this company from slamming our stores from coast to coast? A complaint with the CA Attorney Generals Office. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You should see to it that the local telcos in each case are advised to freeze carrier changes. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 10:11:38 -0500 From: Dave Stott Subject: Re: Slammed Again: NYNEX's Response In TELECOM Digest #71, Alan Boritz wrote: > They don't need to steal your mail to change your PIXC. My boss's > brother-in-law signed up for an MCI calling card a while ago, using > his address (with permission, he travels a lot for business). MCI > slammed my boss's home phone, based on the calling card order. What > the morons at MCI didn't notice (and Bell Atlantic didn't challenge) > was that the name on the calling card didn't match the name on the > account for the contact phone. I had him file a PUC complaint against > Bell Atlantic, and MCI paid for the PIXC change. When I worked at one of the RBOC's, one thing I learned is that the local exchange company receives tens of thousands of PICx (Primary Interexchange Carrier x) changes per day via EDI or tape from the IXCs. Assuming there is no PIC freeze on the line indicated on the change record, the change is sent downstream through the billing and record systems, then off to the switch to change the PIC field on the line record. No one looks at a name or any other information on the record -- it just happens because the IXCs all have contractual agreements with the LECs to ONLY submit valid changes. It isn't the perfect system, but 99.5% of the time (or so) it works. The real culprits are the blatant slammers. BTW, each time a customer is slammed, the LECs are paid by the slammer for sending through a fraudulent record (at least at the old job). If you think it's bad now, just wait until the CLECs have electronic access to the LECs (or soon to be "wire companies") assignment systems. If you switch your service from Ameritech to CLEC A, and are then slammed by CLEC B, who helps you out? Ameritech won't care, CLEC B says you signed an authorization and CLEC A can't change you back _without_ an authorization. Things should be very interesting in a few years. Dave Stott McKenzie Telecommunications Group ------------------------------ From: Bill Stevens Subject: Re: What's This Scam? Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 12:45:41 -0800 Organization: This is my personal email account Reply-To: wmstevens@earthlink.net Lizanne Hurst wrote: > I'm hoping a kind TELECOM Digest reader can shed light on what we > suspect is some kind of scam. > Our students have reported three consecutive rashes of incoming calls > since January. A man rings in on an outside call, identifies himself > as a telephone repair person, and asks the student to hold on while he > "checks the line." He instructs the student to hang up after seven > minutes, and says he will then ring back to confirm the line is > functional. > We try to educate our user community to be conscious of potential > fraud, and the effort seems to be paying off because most of the > students hung up immediately. One student we spoke to, however, > followed the caller's instructions. After she waited the seven > minutes and hung up, she was then called back by another man making > sexually explicit suggestions. > What's the angle here? I've been reviewing our bills carefully and > have found no unusual charges or calling patterns. Are the students > assenting to some ungodly charge by hanging on, and it just hasn't > shown up on our bills yet? Or is the caller somehow trying to > appropriate our dial tone? I'm not sure how they can pull that off, > since they're coming in to our PBX via one-way DID trunks. I dare say that the most likely explanation has nothing to do with the phone usage. It seems more likely that sexual predation is being worked out by "testing" for females who are willing to follow bizarre instructions from unknown callers without question. Kinda narrows down the pool of likely victims. What the ultimate objective might be, I haven't a clue. But it sounds dangerous. I'd be very concerned if I were the object of such attention. The caller already knows a) my number, and b) that I am more susceptible to psychological tactics than the other callers who hung up right away ... ------------------------------ From: Edwin Collins Subject: Re: What's This Scam? Date: 25 Mar 1997 05:16:39 GMT Organization: InfiNet Most predators will test for compliance by making an intrusive request. If you comply, they will often escalate to more serious request. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 19:31:59 -0600 From: David E. Colton Subject: New Papers Available On Line Albert Halprin, former Common Carrier Bureau Chief and architect of the existing access charge system has posted on-line two papers dealing with the historical legacy of access charges and the prospects for meaningful reform. The papers were co-authored with a number of state commissioners who assisted in creating the system in the 1980s and have been submitted to the FCC as part of the access reform docket. The papers are available under the "What's New" directory of Albert Halprin's firm's web page, Halprin, Temple, Goodman & Sugrue at http://www.htgs.com. ------------------------------ From: Bruce Pennypacker Subject: Re: Cyberpromo Got Hacked Date: 24 Mar 1997 19:33:19 GMT Organization: Applied Language Technologies Darren Kruger wrote in article ... > Also, I've heard that Cyperpromo's web page also got hacked, but I can > not confirm this. There is an article on the CyberPromo hacking at news.com. Here's the URL for the article: http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,9022,00.html Somebody saved the hacked web pages before CyberPromo could fix everything. Check out these links: http://www.mediaeater.com/HACKED/SPAM/SPAM-1/index.html http://www.mediaeater.com/HACKED/SPAM/SPAM-1A/index.html http://www.mediaeater.com/HACKED/SPAM/index.html There's also been some discussion on news.admin.net-abuse.email suggesting that Wallace may have faked this entire incident to make CyberPromo look like a typical up-and-up internet company getting attacked by evil hackers. One comment a number of people have agreed with is that if Wallace actually did determine who did the hacking, as his web site and the news article claim, he would have let the whole world know his/her name and most likely taken them to court. The fact that he hasn't mentioned any details about the name/origin of the so-called "hacker" nor the "appropriate authorities" that were notified of the incident, as well as Wallaces reputitation in general, has a lot of people wondering just how much truth there is to this whole story. Bruce Pennypacker Applied Language Technologies Remove .nospam from my address to e-mail me 215 First Street http://www.altech.com Cambridge, MA 02142 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #75 *****************************