Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id DAA05568; Mon, 21 Apr 1997 03:06:03 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 1997 03:06:03 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199704210706.DAA05568@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #98 TELECOM Digest Mon, 21 Apr 97 03:06:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 98 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: PA PUC Reopens 412 Relief (Jeffrey J. Carpenter) Re: Ameritech Buys Sprint Local Company in Chicago (Adam H. Kerman) Re: Ameritech Buys Sprint Local Company in Chicago (Diamond Dave) Re: Internal Termination, Specialized Cable Runs (Michael N. Marcus) Some General Questions For Readers (Ernst Smith) Re: Are We to Believe This? (Dana Paxson) Re: Florida PSC to Revisit 904 Split (Thomas A. Horsley) NPA/NXX V&H Coordinate Data Question (Richard Eller) Re: Can Blocked Numbers be Displayed on Caller-ID? (Robert A. Rosenberg) Re: Can Blocked Numbers be Displayed on Caller-ID? (Jay R. Ashworth) Re: How to Interconnect Two Phone Lines? (David Clayton) UK Freefone Stuff (Joey Lindstrom) Cyberpromo's Upstream Provider (Steven Lichter) 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: * subscriptions@telecom-digest.org * 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: 847-727-5427 Fax: 773-539-4630 ** Article submission address: editor@telecom-digest.org ** Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is: http://telecom-digest.org (WWW/http only!) 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 archives@telecom-digest.org 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: Sun, 20 Apr 1997 22:58:27 -0400 From: Jeffrey J. Carpenter Subject: Re: PA PUC Reopens 412 Relief John Cropper wrote: > With less than two weeks to implementation (which might now have to > be delayed), the PA PUC has struck down Bell Atlantic's request to > maintain seven-digit home NPA dialing in the proposed 412/724 > overlay, effectively reopening the issue. The PAPUC stated that while such a plan might be 'convenient', a seven-digit dialing plan within an overlay would be 'impractical', and create customer confusion, while restricting resource usage. BA had originally filed a motion in favor of 7D HNPA dialing within the overlay area in response to negative customer sentiment with regards to 10-digit dialing. Well, this is not exactly how it went. The PUC ordered an overlay with 7 digit dialing on calls within area codes. This order was appealed to Commonwealth Court (the Pennsylvania Court that hears regulatory appeals) by MCI and Allegheny County because of the dialing plan (among other things). The PUC petitioned the FCC to waive the rule requiring ten digit dialing with this overlay. The FCC refused, and ordered that the PUC adopt ten digit dialing or a split. After the FCC order, Commonwealth Court remanded the case back to the PUC. The PUC now must reconsider the matter allowing for the parties in the case to provide input. I have been advised that this will include a hearing in downtown Pittsburgh on May 12. This 7 digit dialing plan was adopted by the PUC out of the blue. It was not part of any of the plans that had been submitted, and was not a plan submitted by any of the parties during the proceeding (or even discussed in comments). jeff jjc@pobox.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Apr 1997 23:17:37 CDT From: Adam H. Kerman Subject: Re: Ameritech Buys Sprint Local Company in Chicago TELECOM Digest Editor wrote: > The news from Chicago this past week is that Ameritech bought out > the old Centel local company recently. Over the years the company > name changed from 'Central Telephone Company of Illinois' to 'Centel' > and more recently to Sprint. The long distance carrier was trying > to operate local service in the Park Ridge/Des Plaines, IL area. > In addition, Centel/Sprint had a very tiny segment of the city of > Chicago on the far northwest side near (but not including) O'Hare > International Airport. Actually, a portion of O'Hare Airport, including the US military reservation, has been served by Centel. > Illinois Bell would have purchased Central Telephone years ago > had it not been for the court order going back many years which > prohibited AT&T from aquiring any more operating companies except > under extraordinary circumtances. Here's a fun fact: In 1897, the Des Plaines Telephone Company purchased the franchise from the Illinois Bell predecessor, and then bought the Park Ridge territory from Bell in 1905! The company later became Middlestates, and then Centel in the 1960's. Centel had Central Offices in downstate Illinois and some surrounding states. Sprint purchased Centel in 1993 not for the local telephone service, but because of the wireless services Centel owned (although not in Chicago) and telephone directory publishing. Centel used to have its own directory assistance call center, but Sprint took that over. For years, Ameritech provided operator service, but recently Sprint took that over, too. Sprint closed the directory sales office two years ago, and Reuben H. Donnelley (the Ameritech directory sales agent in the Chicago area) took that over. Little by little, they've been shrinking. Over the years, Centel typically had offered lower local phone rates than Ameritech, and maintained pre-paid geographic calling areas (mostly into Bell territory!) a long time after Illinois Bell dropped them. However, Sprint greatly jacked up the telephone rates after they took over. > Sprint wanted out; I think they are not all that happy in the local service > business. I haven't heard that Sprint sold off other LECs, though. I suspect that Ameritech's main motive was to head off competition. Owning two independent Central Offices in the midst of RBOC territory might have been advantageous. Well, Centel was always friendlier than Ameritech. You could still walk into their customer assistance center and talk to an actual person at a desk or behind the counter. It was never crowded. Ameritech will need to keep some Centel employees on hand to operate the nonstandard (from Ameritech's perspective) switches! [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The relationship between Illinois Bell and Centel was always very interesting. Centel published their own phone directory for Park Ridge/Des Plaines, but they also had a "Chicago" phone directory -- which they always identified as 'Chicago Newcastle' -- listing their Chicago customers. They had a central office known as Newcastle to serve the Chicago customers and Illinois Bell also had (still has) a central office known as 'Chicago-Newcastle'. Illinois Bell always printed the phone numbers of everyone in Chicago in the Chicago directory, even if they were Centel customers, but there was nary a word or hint that Centel's Chicago customers were in the Illinois Bell book as well as the Centel 'Chicago Newcastle' book. Centel only published their own customers in their directory. In the old days when every business office had its own phone number but they all ended in -9100 the front of the Illinois Bell directory had a page listing all the 'how to contact the business office' numbers and buried somewhere in the middle among all the -9100 numbers was the one for Centel, but it never said 'Centel', just that customers of the 693 exchange were to call whatever for their business office. In the early days of the 312-796-9600 reverse directory lookup service (when it was maintained manually and a clerk answered the line) you could get reverse listings by number for every exchange in Chicago except 312-693. If you asked for one of those the clerk would say she did not have them; it was a Centel number. Back when the recorded weather forecast was free of charge on WEAther-1212 (later 936-1212 and still later on 976-1212) and the Time of Day was available at CAThedral-8000, Centel maintained their own such service at 296-7666. Add '847' to the front of that and you can still get free time/temperature/short term weather information from Centel along with a little blurb about their service offerings. Ameritech has long since quit giving away free time and weather information. Regarding the old call pack plans, Centel had one version for all their customers *except* Chicago, and a second version for their Chicago customers only. I also remember way-back-when that Centel got their phone instruments from GTE/Automatic Electric; that was in the era when no one was allowed to purchase from Western Electric except the Bell Companies. Thinking back now to the 1960's style WECO desk phones, I remember walking down Irving Park Road on the far northwest side of Chicago past the small geographic area on the north side of the street which is Centel territory and seeing the 'funny-looking' pay phones from Automatic Electric and in a couple of cases from the Gray Pay Station Company. Then walk a few more blocks west on Irving and it reverted to Illinois Bell again. It seems to me also that Centel was the last part of the old area 312 to be dialable from anywhere else in the area. They had dial phones also, it is just that they were not connected with Bell for dialing purposes. We could dial everywhere in Chicago as of 1951 and the final manual office cutover, but for a few years after that even though Centel customers could dial each other we were advised that 'to reach a number in Des Plaines/Park Ridge dial the operator and ask for (whatever it was).' PAT] ------------------------------ From: bbscorner@juno.com (Diamond Dave) Subject: Re: Ameritech Buys Sprint Local Company in Chicago Date: Fri, 18 Apr 1997 19:17:56 GMT Organization: Diamond Mine TELECOM Digest Editor wrote: > Illinois Bell would have purchased Central Telephone years ago > had it not been for the court order going back many years which > prohibited AT&T from aquiring any more operating companies except > under extraordinary circumtances. Centel/Sprint customers will > begin getting billed by Ameritech starting in July and they will > begin getting Ameritech service as such later this year. Sprint > wanted out; I think they are not all that happy in the local service > business. Sprint has local service in many areas -- previously known as United Telephone, Centel, and even Carolina Telephone and Telegraph. If Sprint is selling its local services to the baby Bell in Chicago, do you think these other areas where they provide local service is very far behind? ... and I thought that these LD companies were chomping at the bit to get in on LOCAL service. :) Dave Perrussel [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I think they are still interested in providing local service; it is just that the teeny-tiny little chunk of Chicago along with the attached suburbs of Park Ridge/Des Plaines were not what they had in mind. They want to provide local service throughout the entire metro area via competition, not local service in a 'protected' (by historic telco definition) service territory which was completely surrounded by Ameritech. In that particular case, Sprint was not a 'long distance carrier getting in on local service'; they were a local telco (by traditional definition) feeling a pinch as Ameritech marched around on all sides of them. Sprint had the 'right' to continue providing service in that area and in theory at least make Ameritech keep out. I do not know what Sprint has in mind in other areas where they are the local telco. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Apr 1997 20:19:25 -0400 From: Michael N. Marcus Reply-To: michael@ablecomm.com Organization: Able Communications, Inc. Subject: Re: Internal Termination, Specialized Cable Runs? bagdon@rust.net (Steve Bagdon) wrote: > I've requested termination inside the basement for my new phone line, > for fear that someone will walk up to the back of my house and slap a > phone ot the termination box (to the RJ-11 jack!), and make calls on > my line. Is this founded? If someone does this, am I responsible for > the charges? Logic would say if the termination is inside the house > they would have to B&E to get to the phone (and I have a police report > to back up my no-pay claims) or else cut the phone line (which is on > the phone companies side of the point of termination). Any thoughts, > anyone? Some thoughts: (a) The general trend is to put "demarks" on the exterior of homes where they are more convenient for telco technicians, rather than inside the house where they are more convenient for homeowners. Some telcos have an official policy of outside only. However ... the installer who comes to your house has a lot of discretion, and will often put the demark where the customer wants. On a cold, wet day, the installer would probably be glad to put it inside. On a hot dry day, a cold lemonade or beer might provide sufficient motivation. (b) Theft of dialtone from outdoor demarks (or patio jacks) is verrrry uncommon; but in general, customers are not liable for fraudulent calls from their numbers, unless they make it unusually easy for the fraud to occur. If you are the victim of trespass, or burglary, don't worry about the phone bill. If the telco insists on an outdoor demark, and you mention your concern about fraud in writing, and then there is a fraudulent call to Pluto, you should have little reason to worry. > Also, I'm trying to run a massive cable run form my basement to my > attic (home-run of video, data and voice to every room in the house), > and have only about a 3/8" hole to work with. As I have two floors of > studs to go through, I figure this might be the *one* thing that I > would actually pay someone else to do (expand the holes all the way > up, and thread through some string). Is there a 'standard' place to > look in the yellow pages, or do I have to rely on word-of-mouth to > find a *good* company to do this work? 3/8" is not nearly enough. I'd recommend 2". If you can't do this yourself, you can probably find an electrical contractor, alarm installer, or phone installer to do it. Two alternatives: (a) there is often space around the plumbing "waste stack" from basement to attic, where you can run wire; (b) You may have "stacked closets" on the two floors you have to pass thru, so you could go basement-closet-closet- attic, without tortuous drillling and snaking. The wires in the closet can be hidden in hollow molding, if you want to make it pretty. Michael N. Marcus Able Communications, Scarsdale NY www.ablecomm.com michael@ablecomm.com ------------------------------ From: es008d@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Ernst Smith) Subject: Some General Questions For Readers Organization: University of Rochester Computing Center Date: Sun, 20 Apr 1997 17:32:23 GMT I've gone through some of the past Digests but I still have a few questions: Is the number displayed on Caller ID extracted from the ANI or does a seperate number travel through the telephone network along with the privacy information? When recieving calls orginating from inside PBXes sometimes Caller ID will display the DID number or a main switchboard number and sometimes it will display the number of the outgoing line. How does the PBX operator "replace" the Caller ID number of their outgoing line? (This is related to the question above). Are the (blue coinless) Charge-A-Call public telephones different from POTS residential phones in terms of wiring or signalling? Who manufact- ures them? Is there any technical reason why the Charge-A-Call phones cannot not accept incoming calls? Most hotels have room phones with a message waiting light connected to their PBX. With the advent of VoiceMail from the telcos, is there an official standard for a Message Waiting Indicator on POTS phones? Why don't payphone operators use distinctive ringing to distinguish between voice calls to a payphone and modem calls to update the phone's firmware? (Cost of two numbers v. Frequency of incoming calls. Ok, I think I answered this one.) - E. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 20 Apr 1997 18:53:39 -0700 From: Dana Paxson Reply-To: dwpaxson@servtech.com Organization: Dana Paxson Studio Subject: Re: Are We to Believe This? Pat, I'm inclined to agree with you about insiders on this one. As a firm believer in cause-and-effect, I wonder whether all the goings-on are connected, or whether some are just family 'amplifications' caused by the very real stress inflicted on them by the very real major problems. Turning lights on and off would depend on some electronic lamp control, for example; that kind of control is easily tested and replaced. Turning the power on and off is a different matter; does the power company control the power feeds remotely, or are they only interrupible manually? Then again, the story reports that Sommy 'claimed responsibility' for power outages. That's easy to do, if the power fails -- just another psych-out against the terrified family. He may have no ability to do this at all; he can just wait until it happens, and overhear about it on the phone, and then claim to have caused it. Just ask any police department how many peole claim responsibility for a bomb. If this nutcase is a phone hacker, s/he can only control what is accessible through the phone, or through phone access to other services under remote control. Making anything else happen is unlikely at best. But if s/he is a phone hacker who works for the power company, or who can hack the power company ... Your anecdote was fascinating, and sad. The unfortunate truth is that some people in positions of public trust seem more willing than ever to betray that trust for their own profit or for just plain kicks. It seems to me that we should be trying to make our owners of data and access to that data much more accountable with regard to the traitors they allow to play with it. Doesn't this suggest a reason why cryptographic key-escrow schemes are a bad idea? Quis custodiet ipses custodes? Dana Paxson ------------------------------ From: Tom.Horsley@worldnet.att.net (Thomas A. Horsley) Subject: Re: Florida PSC to Revisit 904 Split Date: Sun, 20 Apr 1997 18:41:28 -0400 Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services > The main reason is that there are 250,000,000 (give or take) Americans > out there that flat-out refuse to dial 10 digits to call their > neighbors , their kids' schools, their grocery stores, _the other line > in their house_, etc. But these same Americans are just tickled pink to have to call everyone who might have their old number and give them the new area code every three years when area codes split one more time? And they have oodles of fun re-programming their speed dialers when their friend's wind up in a new area code too I'll bet. And when the area code regions become about the size of a postage stamp and practically everyone they know is in a different area code anyway? I just don't buy it. I think one flake somewhere created a urban legend that "everyone" prefers splits to overlays, and the PSC has just been buying into the myth without question. Either that, or terrible news coverage of the issues, with reporters implying that everyone would have to start dialing 10 digits for every number they ever call. It's really very simple: With an overlay, *no* number you currently dial will change in the slightest. With a split, odds are good (and they get better with every split) that some of the numbers you call will have to change and you will have to dial 10 instead of 7 digits. So explain again why the PSC thinks a split is more "convenient"? ------------------------------ From: Richard Eller Subject: NPA/NXX V&H Coordinate Data Question Date: Sun, 20 Apr 1997 22:49:58 GMT Organization: ICT Information Services I'm attempting to create an algorithm to extract all NPA/NXX's for a given range (+/- x miles) based on a starting NPA/NXX. The V&H Coordinate data I have received from Bellcore contains a Major Vertical Coordinate and Major Horizontal Coordinate value that is described as "a means to identify a specific geographical point. Derived from longitude and latitude." This is the extent of the description. I'm looking for a little more information. It is unclear how these values are derived or how to use them in a calculation. Any assistance or direction would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance, Richard Eller Pragmatyxs, Inc Seattle, WA reller@accessone.com ------------------------------ From: hal9001@panix.com (Robert A. Rosenberg) Subject: Re: Can Blocked Numbers be Displayed on Caller-ID? Date: Mon, 21 Apr 1997 01:03:27 -0400 Organization: RAR Programming Systems Ltd. In article , Jeffrey Rhodes wrote: >> I've searched everywhere I can think of and can't find any info on >> whether or not there exist caller-id units, or PC software that will >> display caller-id numbers even if they've been blocked with >> something like *67. Does anyone know where I can get this kind of >> hardware or software? It may be worth noting that the central >> office sends the word 'private' to a POTS Caller ID display only >> when the number has been delivered to that central office. I think >> it is the *57 code that will cause a printout of the last calling >> number at the central office and a court order is needed to get this >> printout. This is the Malicious Call Trace feature. Lynne Gregg >> tells me you can get a court order and haul somebody into court but >> you still won't be able to get the number! > On ISDN lines, a single bit in the Called Party Number information > element of a SETUP message identifies the call as 'private'. IS-54 > and IS-136 are similar to ISDN for cellular/PCS phones and sends a > single bit to mark the call 'private' and another bit is used to > mark the call 'out-of-area'. > If one reads the IS-54 spec (I'm pretty sure IS-136 now describes > this only as reserved for future only) there is a combination of > these two bits that means "OK to display the private number to a > specially equipped cellular phone" such as a policeman or FBI > agent. This 'override' may make some believe the number is > somewhere in the airwaves, but I assure you this is not the case. This basically says that a Caller*ID Display Service that I'd like the Telco to offer IS feasible. I'd like to be able to override and display Private/Blocked Numbers so long as they are on a list that I supply to the Telco (like I can supply Speed Calling Numbers). IOW, if I enter an Unlisted (or Listed but Blocked) Number into my "Override" list it would cause the CO to ignore the Do-Not-Display/Private Flags and display the number. There is no privacy violation issue since their only way of entering the number is from the phone's keypad and the Use-Last-Number capability used by Call*Trace and Call*Return would not be supported. Note that this just gives me the ability to see calls from people whose number I already know. That way the other party does not need to remember to *82 to allow display. ------------------------------ From: jra@scfn.thpl.lib.fl.us (Jay R. Ashworth) Subject: Re: Can Blocked Numbers be Displayed on Caller-ID? Date: Sun, 20 Apr 1997 17:38:12 GMT Organization: University of South Florida Jeffrey Rhodes (jrhodes@eng.claircom.com) wrote: > printout. This is the Malicious Call Trace feature. Lynne Gregg > tells me you can get a court order and haul somebody into court but > you still won't be able to get the number! She's correct. The switch logs it on paper, and they'll only release it to a law enforcement agency. > On ISDN lines, a single bit in the Called Party Number information > element of a SETUP message identifies the call as 'private'. IS-54 > and IS-136 are similar to ISDN for cellular/PCS phones and sends a > single bit to mark the call 'private' and another bit is used to > mark the call 'out-of-area'. This much is true. > If one reads the IS-54 spec (I'm pretty sure IS-136 now describes > this only as reserved for future only) there is a combination of > these two bits that means "OK to display the private number to a > specially equipped cellular phone" such as a policeman or FBI > agent. This 'override' may make some believe the number is > somewhere in the airwaves, but I assure you this is not the case. This I don't know about, but the theory is that if the "private" bit is sent in the ISDN class mark, the terminating switch should not hand the calling party number to the subscriber. Note that this should be true even if the connection to the subscriber is a trunk connection -- ie. they have an ISDN capable PBX. Cheers, Jay R. Ashworth jra@scfn.thpl.lib.fl.us Member of the Technical Staff Unsolicited Commercial Emailers Sued The Suncoast Freenet "To really blow up an investment house requires Tampa Bay, Florida a human being." - Mark Stalzer +1 813 790 7592 ------------------------------ From: dcstar@acslink.aone.net.au (David Clayton) Subject: Re: How to Interconnect Two Phone Lines? Date: Sun, 20 Apr 1997 10:54:53 GMT Organization: Customer of Access One Pty Ltd, Melbourne, Australia Reply-To: dcstar@@acslink.aone.net.au mlbruss@ucdavis.edu (Michael Bruss) contributed the following: (stuff cut about companies being taken to the cleaners by phone hacking) > Let someone else have the risk; they are trained to watch for it. > Two other companies which found this out the hard way were Montgomery > Ward Catalog and the Chicago & Northwestern Railroad. The C&N RR got > hit for a bundle via the remote access port on their Dimension PBX, > and Wards got theirs from WATS extender abuse. In both cases, ooh- > la-la! Security guys from Illinois Bell were in their glory, chasing > all over the USA from one phreak to the next, getting nowhere. Better > to keep your dialtone to yourself these days. PAT] I know of a major company in Sydney, Australia that had a new indial range which overlapped with their Meridian 1 Route Access Codes. The Australian hackers eventually found out about it, (the numbers got posted on the FIDO BBS which is available on USENET), and their were over 50,000 calls made before it got shut down. I don't think that they lost too much, (by analysing the CDR), as it seemed that a lot of calls were just out of curiosity to see if they could actually get dial tone when these numbers were called, (then again, they would look very silly admitting big losses, or any loss at all). Last I heard the carrier which supplied the indial range was pointing the finger at the PBX supplier and vice versa over responsibility. I actually would blame the company for having an under resourced voice comms department at the time. Regards, David **Remove the second "@" from the 'Reply To' (spam reducer!)** David Clayton, e-mail: dcstar@acslink.aone.net.au Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 20 Apr 1997 06:53:37 -0600 From: Joey Lindstrom Reply-To: numanoid@netway.ab.ca Organization: Telekon Enterprises Subject: UK Freefone Stuff Just caught your post in the TELECOM Digest regarding the chaotic nature of area codes in the UK. Spent a month there myself last year and left shaking my head. But I just finished a bunch of research this very evening, and I've got some good news for you. Things will be RATIONALIZED over the next 3-5 years, as follows: 01 - for geographic numbers (ie: the way things are now) 02 - for geographic numbers (020 for London, 029 for Cardiff, others to be assigned) 03 - future geographic assignments 04 - free 05 - large commercial users (over 100 lines) 06 - free 07 - personal numbers, pagers, cellphones 08 - freephone, national rate, local rate calling 09 - premium rate services This means that the 0500 Mercury freephone service will move to a new code beginning with 08. This means that oddballs like 0645 will also move to 08, likely beginning with 084. Etc. In most instances, the six-digit phone numbers will be "portable" when they move to the new larger (shorter) code areas, with two additional digits added to the front. New code assignments in all of the above code "areas" will be 8-digit numbers. For example, when London moves from 0171 and 0181 into 020, they'll go as follows: Old number: 0171 234-5678 New number: 020 7234-5678 Old number: 0181 876-5432 New number: 020 8876-5432 Similar things will happen in Cardiff, Southampton, Portsmouth, and Northern Ireland in, roughly, the year 2000. I don't have phase-in information for the other new "supercodes" though. Just thought you'd like to know. Joey Lindstrom numanoid@netway.ab.ca ------------------------------ From: stevenl@pe.net (Steven Lichter) Subject: Cyberpromo's Upstream Provider Date: Sun, 20 Apr 1997 11:00:09 -0700 Organization: PE.net - Internet access from the Press-Enterprise Company Below is an article that I picked up with an 800 number for Cyberpromo's upstream supplier. Maybe as he says you should complain to them. If enough use the 800 number naybe they will do something. > Complain to Agis (was Re: More Cyberpromo GarNo responses > drp@reed.eng.sun.com Darrell Parham at Sun > I would recommend complaining to agis (cyberpromo's upstream provider) > at their 800 number: 800-380-AGIS > Let them know that keeping cyberpromo around will be more trouble > than its worth to them >> I go along with doing anything necessary to stop these idiots and urge >> everyone else to do the same. How many junk emails are sent from their >> systems every day? Collectively, we can mail hundreds of times that >> amount of garbage back to them in a few hours. You could do yourself a >> favor and send a few 10MB garbage files to root@cyberpromo.com with a >> little header asking them if they want to buy your garbage files, sample >> enclosed. I think those who originate the messages need the same >> opportunity to buy a file like that. > Marty >-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====----------------------- > http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet ----------------- SysOp Apple Elite II and OggNet Hub (909)359-5338 2400/14.4 24 hours, Home of GBBS/LLUCE Support for the Apple II and Macintosh computers. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: If you are asking me to publicize the number 800-380-AGIS so that readers with a bad taste in their mouth regarding Cyberpromo can act out their agressions, well I don't know if I should or not. If I did publish 800-380-AGIS in the Digest I would have to remind everyone that the law clearly does not allow harassment, hacking, phreaking or other misuse of phone numbers. I mean, if you have something to say to the subscriber at that phone number, by all means call and say it, and if you have to call several times, by all means do so. Remember the clown who started this little game -- Jeff Slaton -- and how his own phone bill skyrocketed to six digits a couple months in a row as a result of 'pledges' made to his 800 number by interested, helpful readers. Just remember these important items: it is better to not provide ANI if you can help it; or what you provide should be as worthless as possible. Pay phones are best used for this reason, or perhaps calls from behind a PBX/Centrex where the ANI given out is no good. Also I repeat -- no hacking and no phreaking allowed. Just call and say whatever you think the company should know regards Spamford and his organization. Do not harrass them, but be firm in making sure they understand your position in the matter of spam on the net. If you missed the number before, don't worry, I'll give it again: The Agis people can be reached at 800-380-AGIS. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #98 *****************************