Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id XAA23610; Thu, 27 Mar 1997 23:49:05 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 27 Mar 1997 23:49:05 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Message-Id: <199703280449.XAA23610@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #76 TELECOM Digest Thu, 27 Mar 97 23:49:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 76 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Book Review: "Network and Internetwork Security" by Stallings (Rob Slade) Book Review: "The Online 100" by O'Leary (Rob Slade) Conference: Wireless Telephones and Hearing Aids (BethTAP) Ameritech Complaint (Dan Neumann) Re: Problem with NPA 760 (CA) Test Numbers (Linc Madison) Re: Problem With NPA 760 (CA) Test Numbers (Michael R. Collins) 911 From Cellular Phone in Chicago (Seymour Dupa) Re: Reverse Directory - Online? (John Cropper) Re: Reverse Directory - Online? (Jim Reynolds) Re: Reverse Directory - Online? (Michael Schuster) Re: Reverse Directory - Online? (Brian Cox) Re: Reverse Directory - Online? (Jonathan I. Kamens) 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 12:00:20 EST From: Rob Slade Subject: Book Review: "Network and Internetwork Security" by Stallings BKNTINSC.RVW 961130 "Network and Internetwork Security", William Stallings, 1995, 0-02-415483-0 %A William Stallings ws@shore.net %C One Lake St., Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458 %D 1995 %G 0-02-415483-0 %I Prentice Hall %O +1-201-236-7139 fax: +1-201-236-7131 beth_hespe@prenhall.com %P 462 %T "Network and Internetwork Security" Once again Stallings has produced the classic textbook in the field. Concentrating primarily on encryption, he gives the concepts, background, and technical detail necessary to understand, develop, and evaluate security for networks. Written in a textbook style, this work does not cover the hands-on minutiae or proprietary sets of commands for specific systems or products. The basics, however, are covered thoroughly and well. Chapter end questions are provided, as well as recommended reading lists and appendices with detail specific to particular technologies. This does not in the least preclude it from being a valuable resource for the developer or manager. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1996 BKNTINSC.RVW 961130 roberts@decus.ca rslade@vcn.bc.ca slade@freenet.victoria.bc.ca link to virus, book info at http://www.freenet.victoria.bc.ca/techrev/rms.html Author "Robert Slade's Guide to Computer Viruses" 0-387-94663-2 (800-SPRINGER) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 12:01:58 EST From: Rob Slade Subject: Book Review: "The Online 100" by O'Leary BKONL100.RVW 961127 "The Online 100", Mick O'Leary, 1995, 0-910965-14-5, U$22.95 %A Mick O'Leary %C 462 Danbury Road, Wilton, CT 06897-2126 %D 1995 %G 0-910965-14-5 %I Pemberton Press Books/Online Inc. %O U$22.95 +1-800-248-8466 +1-203-761-1466 fax: 203-761-1444 online@well.com %P 256 %T "The Online 100" A review of the 100 "best" (commercial) online databases. Each entry describes the database and contents, as well as noting search capabilities and topics or searches that you might think are included, but aren't. Some interesting trivia is included, alongside contact information and a rough idea of search charges. Major topic areas covered are news, business, company information, law and government, science, medicine, technology, intellectual property, social sciences, and general reference. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1996 BKONL100.RVW 961127 roberts@decus.ca rslade@vcn.bc.ca rslade@vanisl.decus.ca ------------------------------ From: bethtap@aol.com (BethTAP) Subject: Conference: Wireless Telephones and Hearing Aids Date: 25 Mar 1997 19:47:11 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Department of Communication Arts Technology Assessment Program 800 Florida Ave. NE Washington, DC 20002-3695 (202) 651-5257 (V/TTY) (202) 651-5476 (Fax) http://tap.gallaudet.edu http://commarts.gallaudet.edu Please mark your calendar now for a conference to be held May 8 and 9 at Gallaudet: WIRELESS TELEPHONES AND HEARING AIDS: New Challenges for Audiology This will be the first opportunity to get a comprehensive update on this issue since the Summit conference of January, 1996. This is the Fifth Annual Robert Monzon Memorial Conference, sponsored by the Rehabilitation Engineering Research Centers at the Lexington Center and Gallaudet University, in association with The League for the Hard of Hearing, and Self Help for Hard of Hearing People, Inc. This e-mail includes the full conference program, including speakers and registration information. Please feel free to share this with other interested people. We hope to see you there. -------------------------------------------- The Rehabilitation Engineering Research Centers at the Lexington Center and Gallaudet University, in association with The League for the Hard of Hearing and Self Help for Hard of Hearing People, Inc., are pleased to present a two-day conference WIRELESS TELEPHONES AND HEARING AIDS: New Challenges for Audiology on May 8-9, 1997 at the Gallaudet University Kellogg Conference Center in Washington, D.C. This is the Fifth Annual Robert Monzon Memorial Conference, featuring eminent audiologists, consumers and representatives from the hearing aid and wireless telecommunication industries. Are you ready for the 21st Century? Come learn about advances in wireless telecommunications and the opportunities and challenges they offer to hearing aid users and their audiologists. Topics include: - Trends in wireless telephones and personal communication - Hearing aid compatibility and assistive devices - Electro-magnetic interference of certain telephones and hearing aids - Research and standards activity directed at this problem - Progress toward solutions PROGRAM: Thursday, May 8 8:00 Registration 9:00 Welcome Katherine Seelman, Director, National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research 9:10 Robert Monzon Memorial Dedication Jane Madell, Director of Communicative Disorders, Long Island College Hospital Part I. Wireless Telephones and Hearing Aids: It Takes Two to Tango 9:20 Overview Mark Ross 10:00 Types of Wireless Telephone Systems and Implications Judy Harkins 10:40 Break 11:00 Assistive Technology and Hearing Aid Compatibility in Wireless Telephones Larry Eng 11:40 Questions and Answers 12:00 Lunch (Dining Area) Part II. Research and Standards Activities on Digital Wireless Telephone Interference with Hearing Aids 1:00 Wireless Telephone Interference: Searching for Realistic Measurement Methods Harry Teder 1:30 Field Studies of Interference from Digital Wireless Telephones Harry Levitt 2:00 Laboratory Research at the Food and Drug Administration Marlene Skopec 2:30 Research at the Center for the Study of Wireless Electromagnetic Compatibility Robert Schlegel 3:00 Break 3:20 Standards: Working Toward a Middle Ground Stephen Berger 4:00 Questions and Answers 5:00 Closing Remarks 7:00 Banquet (Ballroom) Invited Speaker: Michele Farquhar, Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Federal Communications Commission _________________________ Friday, May 9 Part III. Progress on Solutions 9:00 Introduction Michael Buas 9:15 The Australian Experience Denis Byrne 10:35 Break 10:55 R&D Progress and Solutions in Wireless Telephones Panelists from Wireless Telephone Manufacturing Companies: R.E. "Skip" Bryant, Ericsson (to be announced), Motorola (to be announced), Nokia 11:40 R&D Progress and Solutions in Hearing Aids Panelists from Hearing Aid Manufacturing Companies: Thomas Victorian, Starkey Labs Horst Arndt, Unitron Nikolai Bisgaard, Danavox 12:20 Lunch (Dining Area) 1:30 Providing Accessible Wireless Service Panelists from Wireless Telephone Service Companies: Laura Ruby, AT&T Michael Patrick, Pacific Bell (to be announced), Sprint Spectrum 2:15 Consumer Perspectives Brenda Battat Mark Ross Donna Sorkin 3:00 Break 3:20 Policy Issues Panel of Policy Experts: Karen Strauss, National Association of the Deaf Teri Cygnarowicz, Food and Drug Administration Elizabeth Lyles, Federal Communications Commission 4:05 Issues for Audiologists and Hearing Aid Dispensers Barry Freeman Holly Kaplan 4:50 Closing Remarks, Harry Levitt Real-time captioning provided at all sessions. Assistive listening devices and sign language interpreters available. ASHA and AAA CEUs applied for. Registration fee includes continental breakfasts, buffet lunches, refreshments and handout materials. Full Conference - $175 One Day Only - $100 Student Rate - $50 per day Hard of Hearing/Deaf Consumers - $50 per day Accessible guest rooms available at the Gallaudet University Kellogg Conference Center. Please mention your participation in this program to obtain our special discounted rate, guaranteed until April 8, 1997. $89 per night (single) or $99 per night (double), plus tax. Triple and quad rates also available. For reservations contact: GUKCC: V/TTY 202-651-6000 FAX 202-651-6107. For registration/information contact: University Conference Management Gallaudet University 800 Florida Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002-3695 TTY/V 202-651-6060/6053 FAX 202-651-6074/6038 E-mail: conference@gallua.gallaudet.edu This Conference Series was made possible by the generous financial support of: Argosy Electronics Oticon Philips Hearing Instruments ReSound Corporation Siemens Hearing Instruments Starkey Labs 3M Hearing Health and The National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR), U.S. Dept. Of Ed. Grants #H133E30015, #H133E50002 ------------------------------ From: dneumann@edwpub.com (Dan Neumann) Reply-To: dneumann@edwpub.com (Dan Neumann) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 18:57:20 -0600 Subject: Ameritech Complaint Organization: Edwardsville Publishing By using Deja News service, I have been able to read MANY complaints about Ameritech. However, so far, no one has filed a class action suit, or explained how to DO ANYTHING to get their attention. If anyone can provide any information or suggestions, I would greatly appreciate it. If you respond publicly, please "cc" a private E-Mail reply to dneumann@edwpub.com A few months ago, we moved from one house to another, about two miles apart. Due to a series of errors on the part of Ameritech (Illinois), we were without phone service for TWENTY NINE DAYS. I filed a complaint with the Illinois Commerce Commission, but as far as I can tell, all they did was forward the complaint to Ameritech. After weeks and weeks, and more and more phone calls, we finally discovered that Ameritech had been installing new lines about ten miles away, at a similar address. I had provided the EXACT address, and the name of the people who had just moved out of the house on at least two occassions. Ameritech seems to be very good at ignoring any information OR REQUESTS from their customers. I will not go into the details of all the trouble I had trying to get them to re-establish phone service for us at the old house, and other requests. In most instances, they appeared to be quite incompetent. We tried to minimize the use of our cell phone, but the total bill went from the usual amount of $50 to about $150 during that time period. I have requested that Ameritech pay for the difference, but so far, they have totally ignored my request. Don't they have some obligations, by law, to their customers? After all, they are a MONOPOLY. Any ideas or suggestions would be greatly appreciated. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Something seems very funny here. What about the occupants of the 'similar address about ten miles away' ...? Didn't *they* say anything or complain or question the new phone services being installed in their premises, presumably without any work order, etc? If you think those premises 'ten miles away' were unoccupied -- thus no one to make a complaint about the sudden and unexpected appearance of a phone installer -- then how does one account for the fact that Ameritech -- most telcos in fact -- get a little bit schitzy about being asked to do an installation in a place where there is no apparent sign of any business or residence. They rightfully feel there may be some fraud occuring when they are unable to find some responsible person to admit them to the premises, sign for the work which was done, etc. Since you moved from one house to another, presumably you ordered residence service. Is the 'similar address' also a residence? I am sure if it was a business place -- occupied or not -- the phone installer would have gotten real nervous and called his office. Did he install stuff in a vacant residence, and la-dee-dah just walk off and leave it there? If an occupied residence you mean no one at all protested or questioned it? What is the whole story on this? How did you find out about the 'similar address ten miles away'? And it took 29 days for Ameritech to respond to (a) the certain to be complaints of that location and (b) your complaints? Something indeed is very strange. Tell us a bit more. I've had Ameritech pull down my pairs by accident and take a day or two to make corrections; I've had them working on the pole behind my house and had to call 611 and literally threaten their lives to get them to call the guy on the pole to get his hands off of stuff out there that did not concern him. I've paid them and still had their collectors cut me and demand payment only to have to restore the service and then apologize. But 29 days? An address ten miles away? Personally I find Ameritech a little too much on the ball for my comfort if you get my drift. Tell us please a bit more about your discussions with them. It all sounds quite incredible. I am not saying it is untrue; just difficult to understand. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.NOSPAM (Linc Madison) Subject: Re: Problem with NPA 760 (CA) Test Numbers Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 15:53:30 -0800 Organization: No unsolicited commercial e-mail! On 3/24/97, Mark J. Cuccia wrote: > 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_. Actually, Victorville is in the Los Angeles LATA, not the San Diego LATA. The Palm Springs area is almost surrounded by the Los Angeles LATA, with only a small border to the San Diego LATA, which is approximately San Diego and Imperial Counties. Calling on Sprint from here in Pacific Bell land, I get "You have reached the 760 area code test number in Victorville, California. We are sorry, all circuits are busy. Please try your call again later. 49-8-6-5." > 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. Here in PacBell land on Sprint, I get "We are sorry, your call cannot be completed as dialed. Please check the number and try your call again." This intercept comes after dialing the full number. Routing to MCI with 10222, I get the correct recording that I have successfully completed a call to the new area code seven-sixty, with the switch ID "San Diego 91-T." The same on AT&T with 10288, but not with Sprint, even with 10333. > 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. "You have reached the 7-6-0 test number in Palm Springs," on Sprint from PacBell. > 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. Odd. I get through fine on AT&T, but not on Sprint. Perhaps there is some very peculiar bug in the system that you can only reach this test number on a carrier that is not your presubscribed choice ... ** Do not spam e-mail me! ** Linc Madison * San Francisco, Calif. * Telecom@Eureka.vip.best-com >> NOTE: if you autoreply, you must change "NOSPAM" to "com" << [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: But we know that presubscribed choice or not, a call will not progress past the local central office if the tables are incorrectly loaded at the CO. Before handing off any call to a long distance carrier -- presubscribed or via 10xxx -- the local CO examines what you have dialed and decides whether it is good or not. If the local CO is happy with what you dialed, *then* it is handed off to the long distance carrier. If the CO is not happy with what you dialed, it goes to intercept right at that point and is never given to a carrier. You can prove this occurs by dialing some- thing known to be good that your CO has not yet found out about. You will get bounced. Now try dialing the very same thing via the long distance carrier's direct number and watch it go through just fine. Example: dialing 1-new-AC-xxx-xxxx or 10xxx-1-new-AC-xxx-xxxx gets you sent straight to intercept locally. You then dial 1-800-CALL-ATT followed by the same number and it goes through just fine. Of course that time you in effect bypassed the CO. Now you know it is the CO at fault. Now let's say the local CO has correct and up to date tables. It will hand your call over to the carrier of choice. Maybe the carrier of choice has bum information, so he bounces the call. Maybe the carrier of choice has several switches; some have been loaded correctly while others have not been updated. A caller in New Orleans tries to go through default dialing and his CO is happy with it so it goes to the long distance carrier. But the carrier for some reason does not yet have the information loaded in the switch serving that user. In some other part of the country it does have the information loaded, only maybe in that (other part of the country) a CO is at fault. I think you have to detirmine exactly *who* is giving the intercept in each case. There ought to be a standard which says when a new area code or new exchange is cut in, all telcos, all central offices, all long distance carriers and their switches get the information at the same time. It is a lot like the story in this Digest a couple days ago about the operator who was unable to place a call to Fargo because 'there was no Fargo hole on her switchboard'. Any number of places up and down the line can deny that some exchange or AC exists. The first place you hit that cannot deal with the information given just dumps the call. Objective: find out *who and where* says seven sixty is an invalid choice. You would think though these days with the rapid increase in area codes it would be just as simple or more so for the local CO to just accept whatever it was given and if it did not work out locally simply hand it over to the long distance carrier and say, "here, you try to figure it out ..." PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 20:52:10 -0400 From: Michael.Collins@squam.org (Michael R. Collins) Subject: Re: Problem With NPA 760 (CA) Test Numbers Organization: Collins family/la famille Collins - Toronto In article , Mark J. Cuccia wrote: [snip] > 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. [snip] I called each of the three numbers tonight through Bell Canada [from a Toronto number] and through Sprint Canada [using my "calling card" - I think it's a "FonCard" or some similar, ugly spelling]. All three calls though Bell Canada connected with the test recording. Two calls through Sprint Canada ("200" and "600") connected with the test recording. The calls to "400" met with SIT + "Your call cannot be completed as dialed", but it didn't sound like a Sprint Canada recording; must be the Pac*Bell intercept you describe. Michael R. Collins | Michael.Collins@squam.org Toronto, Ontario Canada ------------------------------ From: grumpy@en.com (Seymour Dupa) Subject: 911 From Cellular Phone in Chicago Date: 25 Mar 1997 15:08:35 GMT Organization: Exchange Network Services, Inc. You mean it's not available *now*? What happens when a user dials 911? In Ameritech/Cleveland, calls are answered by PSAP (Public safety Answering Point). John > [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] [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: At the present time, star-999 will connect the cellular caller to the division of the Illinois State Police which handles expressway duty. 911 goes to a recorded intercept which says, "If your call is an emergency, please hang up and dial the operator. Be prepared to tell the operator your approximate location as best you know it and the nature of your emergency. If your call is not an emergency, dial the seven digit number of the police department you wish to reach." The reason we have not had 911 for cell phones here is the same reason it took *years* to get 911 installed in general across northern Illinois outside the city of Chicago: none of the municipalities could agree on who would take whose calls when telephone exchange lines did not agree with municipal boundary lines. Most of them were afraid that if something went right, the other guy would get the credit while if something went wrong, they'd be the ones to catch hell. In other words, politics as usual. Now telco is saying that with cell towers which are 'clearly within the boundaries of a given community' (meaning it is unlikely anyone picked up by that tower would not be somewhere in the community) could easily pass information to the ground stations to interpret 911 in the context of that local community. In other words, the tower which is right in the center of downtown Skokie could be reasonably certain that a 911 call received was from someone in Skokie; it is doubtful someone three miles away in Evanston would have hit that tower. So even though the tower sends its calls via a landline to (let us say) Schaumburg, Illinois where Ameritech is located, it could tell the switch at that point to use a Skokie FX (foreign exchange) line to dial out to 911, getting the call back to the Skokie Police. The police would get the cellular phone number and the general location of the tower handling the call. There are a huge number of towers in the city of Chicago which by virtue of their location are only going to be dealing with callers actually in the city; ditto the larger suburbs. Of course we have lots of towers around the community boundary lines also; I guess they finally have reached some agreement on who will handle what. How is this handled in other places, and how precisely is the caller's location known to the police? PAT] ------------------------------ From: John Cropper Subject: Re: Reverse Directory - Online? Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 16:06:29 -0500 Organization: lincs.net Reply-To: jcropper@NOSPAM.lincs.net John Mianowski wrote: > 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. www.databaseamerica.com Be aware that the data there is at least 7 months old... (August 27, 1996 was the last update) John Cropper, Webmaster voice: 888.NPA.NFO2 Legacy IS, Networking & Comm. Solutions 609.637.9434 P.O. Box 277 fax: 609.637.9430 Pennington, NJ 08534-0277 Unsolicited commercial e-mail is subject mailto:jcropper@lincs.net to a fee as outlined in the agreement at http://www.lincs.net/ http://www.lincs.net/spamoff.htm ------------------------------ From: reynolds@ece.vill.edu (Jim Reynolds) Subject: Re: Reverse Directory - Online? Date: 25 Mar 1997 22:01:45 -0500 Organization: Villanova University Check out http://www.555-1212.com. They have a reverse look-up facility available for free over the Web. I believe they distinguish between business and residential numbers, even if the business is listed in the White Pages. Admittedly, it's far from a complete source, but it's the only one I've found thus far. You're limited to the same imformation in phonebooks, and sometimes less -- I've only been able to get one number per household. YMMV. www.whowhere.com used to have a reverse look up as well, but dropped it due to pressue about privacy concerns. Personally, I don't see the problem. No new or previously unpublished data is now available, it's just organized differently (i.e. sorted by phone number instead of name). I'd be interested if any other web-sites offer this search capability, and which services offer it commercially (Lexis?). I'd like to find out what companies are really behind some of these telemarketing schemes ... ------------------------------ From: schuster@panix.com (Michael Schuster) Subject: Re: Reverse Directory - Online? Date: 25 Mar 1997 14:44:56 -0500 Try http://www.whowhere.com Mike Schuster | 70346.1745@CompuServe.COM schuster@panix.com | schuster@mem.po.com ------------------------------ From: Brian Cox Subject: Re: Reverse Directory - Online? Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 14:52:18 -0500 John, Try http://www.555-1212.com/ Regards, Brian ------------------------------ From: jik@cam.ov.com (Jonathan I. Kamens) Subject: Re: Reverse Directory - Online? Date: 25 Mar 1997 16:32:25 GMT Organization: OpenVision Technologies, Inc. Reply-To: jik@kamens.brookline.ma.us In article , John Mianowski writes: > 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. The Yellow Pages service provided by http://superpages.gte.com GTE SuperPages will let you look up a phone number and find out the business (if any) with which it is associated. I've not been able to find similar functionality on the Web for residential phone numbers; I believe that several sites which used to provide such functionality disabled it because of privacy (and safety) concerns. Jonathan Kamens | OpenVision Technologies, Inc. | jik@cam.ov.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #76 *****************************