TELECOM Digest Tue, 18 Oct 94
TELECOM Digest Tue, 18 Oct 94 16:31:00 CDT Volume 14 : Issue
402
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A.
Townson
Dynamic Negotiation in the Privacy Wars (Ross E. Mitchell)
Virtual Phone Numbers Are Not the Same as Real Ones (Paul
Robinson)
Will Video Dial Tone Have the Same Old Vices? (John Robert Grout)
Voice, Data, Video All at Once? (Greg Corson)
A and B Boxes (Clive D.W. Feather)
Cellular Local/Long Distance Problem (Jeff Bamford)
MCI Local Service in Chicago? (Robert A. Book)
Do I REALLY Need an EIR? (Mike Lyman)
What Does *67 Do? (Robert Patterson)
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 at no charge to qualified organizations
and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:
* telecom-request@eecs.nwu.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:
9457-D Niles Center Road
Skokie, IL USA 60076
Phone: 708-329-0571
Fax: 708-329-0572
** Article submission address only: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu **
Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using
anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email
information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to
use the information service, just ask.
**********************************************************************
*
* 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.
*
**********************************************************************
*
Additionally, 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.
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, 18 Oct 1994 00:46:06 EDT
From: Ross E Mitchell <rem@world.std.com>
Subject: Dynamic Negotiation in the Privacy Wars
The following article, which I co-authored, has just appeared in the
November/December 1994 issue of MIT's Technology Review. This article
is distributed with permission of the publisher. The entire issue is
available on the World Wid Web. The home page can be found at:
http://web.mit.edu/afs/athena/org/t/techreview/www/tr.html
If you would like to re-post this article elsewhere, please be sure to
include the Copyright notice. Also, if you discuss "dynamic
negotiation" in relation to electronic privacy issues, I would
appreciate
it if you would credit me as the source of the term/concept.
-----------------------------------
Dynamic Negotiation in the Privacy Wars
Ross E. Mitchell and Judith Wagner Decew
New telecommunications technologies are undermining our ability to
remain anonymous. The situation has inspired a sensible solution that
would make privacy self-regulating.
People want information about others but are reticent to divulge it
about themselves. Nowhere is this conflict more apparent than in the
telephone feature known as caller identification, or caller ID, which
allows those receiving calls to see the telephone number and name of
the caller before answering the phone.
Telephone companies are promoting and installing caller ID throughout
the country. Proponents of the technology argue that it provides a
valuable service to those pestered by obscene or harassing phone calls
or persistent telemarketing. But some privacy advocates vehemently
disagree, maintaining that callers should be able to choose to remain
anonymous. In a world of interlinked computer networks and massive
data banks, they say, people already give away too much personal
information without their knowledge and consent. They further worry
that the prospect of identification will deter anonymous police
tipsters and callers to hot lines for drug abusers, AIDS victims, or
runaways.
There is, however, a logical and intuitive way to implement this
technology that should satisfy both camps. This new way of thinking
about privacy regulation, which we call "dynamic negotiation,"
permits us to enjoy the benefits of new telecommunications
technologies - including, but not limited to, caller ID - without
sacrificing our right to privacy.
Most caller ID systems automatically release the caller's phone
number. To prevent this information from being divulged for a
particular call, the caller must enter a code (typically *67) before
dialing the number. In other words, callers must take an extra step to
retain the privacy that they had taken for granted. They must learn
how to block transmission of the data, and must remember to dial the
code each time. This is known as "per-call" blocking.
Some phone systems allow "per-line" blocking - the caller's number is
kept private by default and is released only when the caller enters an
"unblocking" code. But in rules scheduled to take effect next April,
the Federal Communications Commission has decided that the potential
public value of caller ID outweighs the privacy concerns of those who
want automatic blocking of numbers. The commission stated that per-
line
blocking was "unduly burdensome" and ruled that on interstate calls,
only per-call blocking is to be permitted -- preempting state
regulations
that allow per-line blocking. We propose an alternative - a system
that allows people to dynamically negotiate the degree of privacy they
wish to sacrifice or maintain.
Here's how such a system would work with caller ID. Initially, all
phone subscribers' lines would, by default, block the release of the
caller's number. Subscribers could choose to release their number on
a per-call basis by dialing an unblocking code (other than *67). So
far, this is just per-line blocking. But in the system we suggest,
phones with caller ID displays can also be set up to automatically
refuse calls when the number has not been provided by the caller.
When an anonymous call is attempted, the phone doesn't ring. The
thwarted caller hears a short recorded message that to complete the
call, the originating phone number must be furnished. This message
then instructs the caller what code to dial to give out the number.
Otherwise, the call is incomplete and the caller is not charged. Thus,
a caller has the chance to decide whether a call is important enough
that it is worth surrendering anonymity.
This solution preserves choice and ensures privacy. Callers can
control, through a dynamic and interactive process, when to give out
their numbers; recipients can refuse anonymous calls.
Most callers, of course, will want to release their number when
calling friends and associates. And if such calls dominate their use
of the phone, they might choose to change the default on their line so
that it automatically releases their number unless they dial in a
blocking code. Thus, a dynamic negotiation system may well lead many
people to change from per-line to per-call blocking - precisely what
the phone companies and the FCC favor. But when these customers change
their default setting, they will know what they are choosing and why;
they will be actively consenting to give out their numbers as a matter
of course.
Most businesses will want to take all calls, whether numbers are
provided or not. But certain establishments might want to reject
anonymous calls - for example, pizzerias that want incoming numbers
for verification to avoid bogus orders. Most callers will happily
unblock their numbers when such a business asks them to.
Some display units that can be purchased for use with caller ID are
already able to reject anonymous calls, but they are a far cry from
the dynamic negotiation system that we propose. With these caller ID
units, every call, whether accepted or not, is considered to have been
answered - and charged to the caller. But a call that is rejected
because of its anonymity should entail no charge. This requires that
the call be intercepted by the phone company's central office
switchboard before it reaches the recipient's line.
Although inspired by the debate over caller ID, the concept of dynamic
negotiation of privacy can apply to other telecommunications
technologies. One likely candidate is electronic mail. With
traditional paper mail, people have always had the right - and the
ability - to send anonymous correspondence. Delivery of the envelope
requires neither that a letter is signed nor that a return address is
provided. On the receiving end, people have the right to discard
anonymous mail unopened.
Applying the principles of dynamic negotiation, senders of electronic
mail would have the option to identify or not identify themselves.
Recipients could reject as undeliverable any e-mail with an
unidentified sender. The sender would then have the option to
retransmit the message - this time with a return address. As with
caller ID, the users negotiate among themselves. The system itself
remains privacy neutral.
Several criteria guide such an approach: the need to protect
individual privacy for all parties to a communication, the importance
of letting new technologies flourish, and the need for national
guidelines to provide consistency in system use and privacy
protection. Since technological innovation proceeds rapidly, we must
continually examine how best to make possible new features while
preserving or enhancing our existing level of privacy. The technology
for implementing dynamic negotiation is already available. All that is
needed is for the FCC to amend its recent ruling. If the FCC refuses,
the House Telecommunications Subcommittee should propose legislation
to require dynamic negotiation. With this system as the national norm,
privacy concerns would become self-regulating.
-----------------------------------
ROSS E. MITCHELL, based in Newton, Mass., is a designer of
telecommunications software. JUDITH WAGNER DeCEW is a professor of
philosophy at Clark University in Worcester, Mass.; she is working on
a
book on legal and ethical disputes over privacy protection, to be
published by Princeton University Press.
------------------------------------
TECHNOLOGY REVIEW ON-LINE COPYRIGHT NOTICE
Technology Review (ISSN 0040-1692) , Reg. U.S. Patent Office
Copyright 1994, Technology Review, all rights reserved.
Published eight times each year by the Association of Alumni and
Alumnae of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The editors seek
diverse views, and authors' opinions do not represent the official
policies of their institutions or those of MIT.
Articles may not under any circumstances be resold or redistributed
for compensation of any kind without prior written permission from
Technology Review.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 1994 11:51:03 EST
Organization: Tansin A. Darcos & Company, Silver Spring, MD USA
From: Paul Robinson <PAUL@tdr.com>
Subject: Virtual Phone Numbers are Not the Same as Real Ones
Due to new hardware and software, Bell Atlantic offers several new
features for telephones including a "virtual telephone number"
feature, which is marketed under the service mark "Identa-Ring".
A virtual telephone number causes the ring cadence to change when that
number is dialed in place of the "real" number, "real" being the one
generated for ANI or Caller-Id when the line with a virtual number
places a call. A real number will ring with "RING! (5 second pause)
RING!", repeated until answered. A virtual phone number generates a
ring similar to the one used in Great Britain, which consists of
"RING-RING! (5 second pause) RING-RING!", repeated until answered.
One day I was out of change at a pay phone and didn't want to try to
find my credit cards which were back in my bag, so I decided to call
my number collect. I dialed 0+301+ the virtual, Identa-Ring number
and when the automated attendant asked me to dial my credit card or 11
for collect, I dialed 11 and got a recording saying the number did not
accept collect calls.
That's funny; I've never asked Bell Atlantic to refuse collect calls.
I tried MCI's 1-800-COLLECT. It also told me that my number refuses
collect calls as does AT&T's 1-800-32-10ATT. I walked back, got my
credit card and placed the call.
Once I got hone I tried some tests. I have three phone lines in my
house. I used the restricted one to call the other line collect and
it accepted it; the other way was refused. So I called repair service
and explained the problem, giving them the main number all three lines
are billed under (the one that a collect call works to).
I had the repair service woman call me back so I could demonstrate the
problem from my third line. I demonstrated that if I called my number
collect it refuses it. If I call the number she had called me on, the
call goes through for collect and is stopped because it is busy.
So she suggested that maybe it has something to do with the
identa-ring number. I had to go and find an old bill with the number
on it; I don't even use the main number of that line (the only person
who calls that number is my sister and the occasional telemarketer.)
I tried calling that number collect and the system attempted to do so;
I sheepishly admitted that this is the problem, e.g. that an
identa-ring number can't be called collect.
So this capability works either as a problem or as a feature; if you
only give out a virtual telephone number, people can't call you
collect on it, but neither can you. But you still have the main
number if you can remember it.
------------------------------
From: jg2560@cesn7.cen.uiuc.edu (John Robert Grout)
Subject: Will Video Dial Tone Have the Same Old Vices?
Date: 18 Oct 1994 20:08:19 GMT
Organization: U of I College of Engineering Workstations
Reply-To: j-grout@uiuc.edu
Two incidents (one in the late 1980's near where I used to live in NJ,
and one here in Illinois in 1994) have made me wonder about the role
of the US Federal government in guaranteeing competition in the new,
supposed Golden Age to come of "video dial tone" (telecom-carried
television programming).
In the late 1980's, a condo complex in Mahwah, NJ wanted to set up
their own program delivery system which would act like a cable
operator ... it would combine community antenna service and
redistribution of cable networks fed to them through their own large
satellite dish. When the complex tried to get zoning approval for the
satellite dish, the township government fought them. During the
ensuing legal proceedings, it was revealed that the township
government was acting mostly to protect the exclusive cable franchise
they had signed with the local cable operator ... and (if I remember
correctly) they won.
Earlier this year, the cities of Champaign and Urbana in Illinois
signed a new, fifteen-year exclusive cable franchise with the local
cable operator (Time-Warner of Champaign-Urbana), who promised a new
system (the "Gateway System") to provide many channels at low cost ...
but the catch involved did not become public knowledge until six weeks
ago.
To avoid stringing fiber-optic cable to households (which, admittedly,
is expensive), Time-Warner will only string fiber-optic cable to whole
neighborhoods and convert them all, en masse, to the "Gateway System".
However, when a neighborhood is converted, the conventional cable into
their homes will have only TWELVE unscrambled, uncompressed channels.
Receiving any of the others must be done with a converter box which
serves as a TV tuner for every TV, every VCR on which one wants to
pick up a separate channel, and every "picture-in-picture" feature;
and each one must have a separate box. Because the boxes are
brand-new, the FCC is allowing Time-Warner of C-U to charge $4 a month
for them ... and, because they are descramblers (not just
decompressors),
they can't be purchased.
To make things even worse, the initial software release for the stupid
boxes wouldn't even change the channel at a preset time to allow
recording of multiple programs on different channels ... but, in
recent
weeks, Time-Warner announced that a new version of the software will
allow such things.
Since a clear majority of Time-Warner's customers in Champaign-Urbana
have expanded basic service (about 35 channels) without any premium
channels which require a descrambler (e.g., HBO, Cinemax), this
franchise agreement has become a political hot potato (e.g., a local
attorney running for State Assembly is a law partner in the firm which
represented Time-Warner during the franchise negotiations). In
the discussion which has followed the announcement of the "converter
box" requirement for the "Gateway System", people here are beginning
to question the advisability of allowing municipalities to sign any
such exclusive franchise agreement for television programming.
Picture the following scenario ...
It's October 2004... Ameritech (our local telephone company) now
provides "video dial tone" throughout Champaign and Urbana, and
several different program providers (ITT/Cablevision, IBM and SunSoft,
among others) offer their wares through Ameritech. Even though
Federal law doesn't require a program provider whose programs are
distributed through a common carrier to obtain a franchise agreement
with a municipality [the result of a recent real-life court decision],
program providers and municipalities are still allowed to negotiate
such agreements voluntarily [are they? will they be?].
Since many residents have complained about the high cost of
programming delivered through Ameritech, IBM offers the cities of
Champaign and Urbana a wonderful deal ... they'll provide programs at
a lower cost for everyone ... but there's a catch: Champaign and
Urbana
must sign a franchise agreement which will require Ameritech to unplug
all rival program providers from its network in Champaign-Urbana.
Back to the present ...
I would like to see Federal laws enacted which will prevent consumers
from being tied by their municipalities into the kind of provider-
friendly
practices we have endured here in Champaign-Urbana ... such as the
Gateway System's converter box, Time-Warner of C-U's refusals (before
the Gateway System) to carry Showtime (because their parent company
owns rivals HBO and Cinemax), and the hypothetical right of program
providers to voluntarily franchise themselves through municipalities.
úÿ
(continued next message)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 10-18-94 Msg # 587634
From: TELECOM Digest (Patrick Conf: (700) email
To: ELIOT GELWAN Stat: Private
Subj: TELECOM Digest V14 #402 Read: Yes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To borrow a slogan from the candidate running against the attorney
mentioned above ... once common carriers provide "video dial tone" to
an area, I believe that local municipalities should be "unplugged"
from any power to make exclusive agreements with program providers.
John R. Grout Center for Supercomputing R & D j-grout@uiuc.edu
Coordinated Science Laboratory University of Illinois at Urbana-
Champaign
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Why John, that would take all the fun
out of local politics. Imagine the Chicago City Council for example,
with one less source of bribe money. Nah, your idea will never work.
PAT]
------------------------------
From: milo@mcs.com (Greg Corson)
Subject: Voice, Data, Video All at Once?
Date: 17 Oct 1994 23:36:36 CDT
Organization: MCSNet Subscriber Account Chicagos First Public-Access
Internet!
Ok ...this is probably a question that's been done to death ... but
here goes anyway.
I'm trying to figure out how to setup a private "internet" between a
number of locations scattered across the US. There is a fair amount
of data, fax, telephone and videophone calling between these locations
and we want to get it all onto a private network where we can
consolidate all the data and have better control. Right now each site
uses a combination of dedicated ISDN and analog lines/modems.
What I'm looking for is some sort of "all in one" setup that works as
a phone switch for analog, ISDN, PBX-style phones and can accept sync,
async or ethernet as data inputs. On the phone company side would be
something like PRImary rate ISDN, a frame relay cloud or something
similar.
Most of the suppliers I've talked to have offered only very expensive
solutions that involve stringing together a lot of boxes from
different companies. I'm thinking there must be a better, more
integrated solution by now.
Whatever the network is that connects all the sites together, within
the site we need 10 voice phones, FAX, at least one routed ethernet
and in some cases a switched async connection with another site
running around 128kbps. An automated operator feature is also required
to answer incomming calls and play messages about store hours and
such. Any site must be able to contact any other site through the
private network using voice, FAX, videophone, ethernet or by the async
line. The sites must also be able to make and receive normal
local/long distance telephone calls.
If anyone knows of some kind of box that knows how to integrate all
these functions, please contact me. As I've said, all the
non-integrated systems I've looked at come out too expensive because
of all the hardware needed to interface one communications "world"
with another.
Greg Corson Virtual World Entertainment Inc.
(312) 243-6515 milo@mcs.com
------------------------------
Subject: A and B Boxes
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 1994 14:04:06 GMT
From: Clive D.W. Feather <clive@sco.COM>
Pat:
The following just appeared on uk.telecom. I'm sure your readers would
be interested.
From: flavell@v2.ph.gla.ac.uk (Alan J. Flavell)
Subject: Re: Badly designed payphone
Date: Sun, 16 Oct 1994 12:55:36 GMT
I thought I would have a go at writing up the rudiments of the old
button A/B boxes. I'm sure there are plenty of people on uk.telecom
who can correct or expand any points.
Are you sitting comfortably...?
Remember that we are back in the days when only local calls could be
dialled, all trunk calls had to be made through the operator. (Hmmm,
well, that was the theory, eh Robin?). All coins referred to below
are
what we would now call "old" or "pre-decimal" coinage. And AFAICR
local calls were always untimed.
It its "normal state" the button A/B box had its handset active but
the dial was inoperative, apart from digits 0 (for operator), 9 (for
emergency) (and, I think, later on, 1 for transition to operator=100).
The coin box accepted three different coins: the penny (1d), the
sixpence
(tanner) 6d, and the shilling (bob, 1/- , which was 12d for those who
might not know that).
When preparing for dialling a local call, one had to insert the
correct
fee, which at the time I remember was four pennies. Inserting the
first coin had the effect of thrusting a bar aside, which disabled
the handset microphone. The pennies collected in an internal bucket
which acted as a kind of weighing machine - when four had been put in,
the bucket dropped and enabled the dial to work.
You then dialled the call and waited for the called party to answer,
whereupon you would press button A. This deposited the contents of
the internal bucket into the cash box, re-enabled the handset
microphone, and brought the bar back across the coin slots and
put the dial out of action again.
As was remarked in an earlier posting, you could hear enough to
recognise who had answered, and if you were not satisfied you could
take the same action as you would if you got busy tone or no-one
answered, namely to press button B. This caused the line to be
disconnected and the contents of the internal bucket to be dropped
into the coin-return chute, A noisy clockwork timer was then
heard which kept the line disconnected for some tens of seconds,
presumably to make utterly sure that the call had been disconnected
before letting you try again.
Just to remark that if you didn't have four pennies, you could not
make a local call. No chance of inserting a sixpence or a shilling,
and forgo the change, as they could not weigh down the bucket.
In such a situation you might persuade the operator to do it for
you.
Now we come to operator connected calls. What I have not yet
mentioned is that inside the coin box, the pennies passed a chime
and the other coins passed a bell (single bong for sixpence, two
bongs for a shilling), with a microphone inside the coin box to
pick up the sounds. To make an operator call, you did NOT insert
any money (otherwise the operator would not have been able to hear
you), just dialled 0 and (after a sometimes considerable wait) got
asked for the desired number. The operator would then tell
you how much money to insert, and would count the jangles and bongs
to see you had done it right. In the event of a disagreement you
could not argue (your mike was dead after inserting the first coin,
as I said) but had to press button B and start the whole thing again.
The operator would then attempt to connect you and in the event of
success would say the immortal words "Please press button A, caller"
after which you had 3 minutes. You would then be offered the
opportunity to insert a further 3 minutes worth or be disconnected.
And so on.
There were umpteen ways circulating amongst us schoolboys for getting
local calls free. (Getting operator calls free was a matter of being
able to make convincing jangles and dongs, I guess). This posting
should
not be read as a confession that I ever did any of these things ;-)
The slotted pennies trick enabled pennies to be inserted without
thrusting the bar aside and disabling the microphone. Five slotted
pennies would be needed to get the right weight for the bucket to fall
and enable the dial.
After finishing the call, one pressed button B and recovered the
slotted
pennies. However, if discovered, there could be a prosecution for
defacing coins of the realm, so it was better to use penny-sized
disks,
then the charge would only be misuse of the Postmaster General's
electricity.
(Is it really true that someone got off an earlier charge of "stealing
the Postmaster General's electricity" on the grounds that it couldn't
be theft because he hadn't actually taken any of it away with him?).
Later models of box were designed to prevent the slotted pennies
trick.
Back-dialling was a reputed method of winding the dial up to the
"free"
positions 0 or 9 but only releasing it far enough to dial the desired
number of pulses. One school friend claimed to have mastered the
trick,
but never successfully demonstrated it to me. There were several
quite
different designs of dial mechanism (as we assiduously read up in
Atkinson
in the local reference library) and this probably depended on getting
a
dial of a vulnerable type. I've forgotten the details.
Briskly rattling the rest was another way to create dial pulses
without
needing a working dial. This was said to produce a characteristic
irregular noise at the exchange, alerting the engineer and perhaps
resulting in a call trace. As I said, 0 and 9 could be dialled
freely, so a number such as 20109 would be a doddle.
It's all a long while ago now... you can imagine the nostalgia seeing
that Papa Stour box on the tv news.
[Papa Stour 224 was apparently the last A&B box, and has just been
replaced.
Most went during the 1970s. Papa Stour 224 is +44 595 73 224.]
Clive D.W. Feather Santa Cruz Operation
clive@sco.com Croxley Centre
Phone: +44 1923 813541 Hatters Lane, Watford
Fax: +44 1923 813811 WD1 8YN, United Kingdom
------------------------------
From: jeffb@audiolab.uwaterloo.ca (Jeff Bamford)
Subject: Cellular Local/Long Distance Problem
Organization: Audio Research Group, University of Waterloo
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 1994 10:24:42 -0400
Okay, here is the background: A couple weeks ago I went to
Toronto, Ontario with a friend and brought along my Cell Phone. Since
it was the weekend my air time was free, so I thought I'd use it.
From Toronto I dialed back to Hamilton (a long distance call
from a regular phone) calling my home phone number, I dialed as
905-570-xxxx. I got the message that "Long Distance Call, Dial 1 blah
blah blah". I then tried calling the number to retrieve messages from
the Telco's voice mail service, this number was 905-312-xxxx. This
call went through as if it were a local call, i.e. there was no
message to indicate that it was long distance.
On the bill I was charged for the call to voice mail service.
Cantel (Cellco) indicated that it would be Bell Canada's (Telco) that
let it go through. They said they just put the call into Bell's
network and whatever happens to it after that would be Bell's doing,
i.e. In their mind, I dialed a number and it was long distance and
since Bell accepted it I was dinged for the long distance charge. The
Bell woman that I talked to was hopeless, she really didn't understand
why it went through but wasn't willing to give me someone else to talk
to about the problem.
In this case I knew that Toronto-Hamilton was long distance
but there could obviously be a time when I don't know that something
is long distance. I had thought that maybe the 905-312 exchange was
in a community between Toronto and Hamilton for billing purposed and
hence local on a cell phone. This is the only time that this has ever
happened. Any other time I call a long distance number the call does
not go through unless I dial the 1 first. I always dial calls as 10
digits because outside of my home area code local calls don't go
without the local area code, so that is not the problem. Anyone have
ideas on this one?
Jeff Bamford jsbamford@uwaterloo.ca -- NeXT Mail welcome
Office/Lab: +1 519 885 1211 x3814 Fax: +1 519 746 8115
------------------------------
From: rbook@Tezcat.Com (Robert A. Book)
Subject: MCI Local Service in Chicago?
Date: 18 Oct 1994 11:25:39 -0500
Organization: Tezcat.COM, Chicago
I recently heard a news report on the radio that MCI will begin
offering local telephone service in the Chicago area. As a Chicago
resident intensly frustrated with the local provider (Ameritech), I
want to be first in line for this. I called MCI and they said that
they had planned to go on-line with this by the end of this year, but
FCC regulatory problems were slowing things down, and they were hoping
for the first half of next year.
Does anyone know anything more about this? How will it work? In
particular, (how) will MCI be able to provide the dialtone and local
service on already existing wires?
Robert Book rbook@tezcat.com (312) 465-8757
------------------------------
From: Michael_Lyman@sat.mot.com (Mike Lyman)
Subject: Do I REALLY Need an EIR?
Reply-To: Michael_Lyman@sat.mot.com
Organization: Motorola Satellite Communications
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 1994 22:04:14 GMT
Regarding the use of Equipment Identity checking in GSM or DCS1800
systems, I trust that those systems currently deployed are not using
this mechanism ( since it's probably not available ? ). Has anyone
working in any functioning GSM-type system really missed having an
EIR?
In general, I question the real usefullness or practicality of an EIR
to prevent fraud. I'm wondering if the cost of purchase and
maintaining this piece of equipment justifies it's existance?
As a side issue, is the prevalence of fraud in GSM networks of the
same magnitude as in traditional analog cellular networks (and can
they be defeated by IMEI checking)?
Michael Lyman Motorola S.E.D. ( Iridium )
Chandler, Az. lyman@sat.mot.com
------------------------------
From: rpatt@netcom.com (Robert Patterson)
Subject: What Does *67 do?
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700
guest)
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 1994 16:01:55 GMT
I live in the San Francisco Bay Area under the auspices of PacBell.
They do not offer CallerID. When I dial *67 (apparently the CallerID
on/off signal) I get a couple of clicks and a dial tone. The
switching department at PacBell vehemently claims that nothing is
happening. Anyone with an idea?
Bob Patterson (rpatt@netcom.com)
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: What's happening is that the local
switch is accepting your command to 'do not pass calling number ID
to call recipient' just as it is supposed to do. And then, it proceeds
not to give out that information ... which it wouldn't do anyway
under the present circumstances there, but that is beside the point.
They are using a version of software which allows for *67 and it
is probably easier for them to leave it as is rather than disable
the use of that command (which does nothing anyway). For instance,
in some exchanges in Chicago which were not Caller-ID equipped,
meaning
calls from phones in that area showed up as 'out of area' on caller
identification boxes elsewhere, *67 still worked as you describe. I
guess they figured soon enough it would have a purpose, so they just
left it alone. I imagine PacBell feels the same way. Why bother to
change/eliminate it everywhere then possibly have to go and put it
back in at a future time. PAT]
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V14 #402
****************************
Comments
Post a Comment