For your convenience in reading: Subject lines are printed in RED and
Moderator replies when issued appear in BROWN.
Previous Issue (just one)
TD Extra News
Add this Digest to your personal
or 
For your convenience in reading: Subject lines are printed in RED and
Moderator replies when issued appear in BROWN.
Previous Issue (just one)
TD Extra News
Add this Digest to your personal
or
TELECOM Digest Wed, 25 May 2005 17:54:00 EDT Volume 24 : Issue 232
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
Take Your Phone Along (Eric Friedebach)
Psst: Traditional 911 Doesn't Always Work, Either (Jack Decker)
Vtech Caller ID Not Working (Harlan Messinger)
Qwest Ends Pursuit of MCI (Telecom dailyLead From USTA)
VOIP Provider Search (Fred Atkinson)
First Place, Web Promotion, Unsolicited Calls? (usenet@outshine.com)
Re: Packet8 DTMF Tones Sound "Clipped" (Clark W. Griswold, Jr.)
Re: Packet8 DTMF Tones Sound "Clipped" (Robert Bonomi)
Re: Packet8 DTMF Tones Sound "Clipped" (David Clayton)
Re: Very Early Modems (Scott Dorsey)
Re: Very Early Modems (Lisa Hancock)
Re: Tangled up Over DSL - Some Cell Phone Users Demand (Steven Lichter)
Re: Common Sense Moves Could Protect Privacy (founder@dinkumid.com)
Re: ACLU Pizza (founder@dinkumid.com)
Re: Foreign Exchange (FX) Lines Still in Use? (The Kaminsky Family)
Re: Virus Infection Holds Computer Files Hostage (Robert Bonomi)
Re: Last Laugh! Your House at P.O. Box 4621 (John Hines)
Re: Last Laugh! Your House at P.O. Box 4621 (Steven Lichter)
Re: Last Laugh! Your House at P.O. Box 4621 (Lisa Hancock)
Re: Last Laugh! Your House at P.O. Box 4621 (davidesan@gmail.com)
Re: Looking for a Model 15 or 19 (Lisa Hancock)
Telecom and VOIP (Voice over Internet Protocol) Digest for the
Internet. All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson and
the individual writers/correspondents. Articles may be used in other
journals or newsgroups, provided the writer's name and the Digest are
included in the fair use quote. By using -any name or email address-
included herein for -any- reason other than responding to an article
herein, you agree to pay a hundred dollars to the recipients of the
email.
===========================
Addresses herein are not to be added to any mailing list, nor to be
sold or given away without explicit written consent. Chain letters,
viruses, porn, spam, and miscellaneous junk are definitely unwelcome.
We must fight spam for the same reason we fight crime: not because we
are naive enough to believe that we will ever stamp it out, but because
we do not want the kind of world that results when no one stands
against crime. Geoffrey Welsh
===========================
See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details
and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Eric Friedebach <friedebach@yahoo.com>
Subject: Take Your Phone Along
Date: 25 May 2005 10:20:27 -0700
David M. Ewalt, 05.24.05, Forbes.com
NEW YORK - Internet telephone services have been slowly catching on as
consumers get hip to the promise of cheap phone calls and having the
same phone number anywhere you can plug in a computer.
But the services on the market from companies including phone carriers
such as Verizon Communications, cable providers such as Comcast and
Internet voice vendors such as Packet8 and Vonage aren't particularly
portable, often requiring special hardware and making it difficult to
access your phone account on a public terminal.
Most voice-over-Internet Protocol (VoIP) systems install on a home
computer and require a special modem. They can't be easily set up on
multiple machines, and you certainly wouldn't be able to access your
phone account on a public terminal.
Atlanta-based phone company i2 Telecom has changed that with the
VoiceStick, a software-based VoIP phone that is loaded on a
flash-based USB thumb drive, the same bit of hardware that's become
popular for transferring files between PCs.
http://www.forbes.com/personaltech/2005/05/24/cx_de_0524voicestick.html
Eric Friedebach
/And now it's time for: Jaromir Weather/
------------------------------
From: Jack Decker <jack-yahoogroups@withheld_on_request>
Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 13:47:48 -0400
Subject: Psst: Traditional 911 Doesn't Always Work, Either
Quick, somebody let Mike Cox (our Michigan Attorney General) know
about this, so he can threaten a real phone company with a lawsuit
instead of picking on VoIP companies ...
http://www.broadbandreports.com/shownews/63909
Psst: Traditional 911 Doesn't Always Work, Either Some think VoIP
carriers are getting a bad rap.
While the impression is there's been a rash of deaths thanks to bad
VoIP 911 connectivity, the truth is many of the "baby death" cases
(like this one http://www.broadbandreports.com/shownews/63372 ) are
more rhetoric than substance. An interesting discussion in our VoIP
forum http://www.broadbandreports.com/forum/remark,13491142 , on how
traditional 911 systems often fail (see Boston Herald
http://news.bostonherald.com/localRegional/view.bg?articleid=84679
without so much as a peep from the FCC or Congress, who've jumped all
over VoIP.
Article + reader comments at:
http://www.broadbandreports.com/shownews/63909
How to Distribute VoIP Throughout a Home:
http://michigantelephone.mi.org/distribute.html
If you live in Michigan, subscribe to the MI-Telecom group:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MI-Telecom/
------------------------------
From: Harlan Messinger <hmessinger.removethis@comcast.net>
Subject: Vtech Caller ID Not Working
Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 21:06:43 -0400
I have a Vtech 20-2481 2.4 GHz Gigaphone two-line base unit with three
handsets. Until a few days ago, I had a two-line cord (RJ-45?) running
into the base unit's Line 1 + Line 2 jack. Last year I got rid of the
phone number that had been coming in on Line 1, but Line 2 continued
to work just fine.
The other day I replaced the phone cord with a one-line cord (RJ-11?)
running into the Line 2 jack. I pushed a splitter into the wall jack
and plugged the other end of the cord into the splitter's Line 2
output. Everything is fine now *except* that the Caller ID function
has quit. The caller is no longer identified, and no record is kept
in the call history.
I switched back to the earlier configuration and the Caller ID came
back. Then I returned to the one-line cord, and Caller ID vanished
again. The same is true when I plug the cord into the Line 1 jack on
the base unit instead of the Line 2 jack.
The reason I switched to a one-line cord is that I want to use the
Line 1 input for my new VoIP connection. That doesn't have anything to
do with the problem, though, because it occurs whether or not I have
the VoIP plugged into the base unit.
Any ideas on a solution?
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Try the original (working correctly)
configuration but try disconnecting it at the wall box. You obviously
do not want to blow up the VOIP adapter box, but yet there seems to be
something about the way caller-ID gets delivered. On a one line jack,
usually the two 'middle' pins (pins 3-4 of six pins or pins 2-3 of a
four pin thing) delivers the 'first' line; the 'outer' pins (usually
pins 1 and 4 in a four pin plug or pins 2 and 5 of six pins) bring in
the 'second' line. It may well be that 'line 1' should have been the
one you kept while 'line 2' was disconnected when you took a line
out. Or if you can find a 'dummy' modular head (plastic head with pins
but no wire protruding) try sticking that dummy head in the line one
space. I know Radio Shack sells the little dummy heads, mostly they
are for guys who are building their own wiring setups, but you don't
need the wire, just the little pins to make contact in the
phone. That's jusy my 'try it next' idea. PAT]
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 12:49:17 EDT
From: Telecom dailyLead From USTA <usta@dailylead.com>
Subject: Qwest Ends Pursuit of MCI
Telecom dailyLead from USTA
May 25, 2005
http://www.dailylead.com/latestIssue.jsp?i=21869&l=2017006
TODAY'S HEADLINES
NEWS OF THE DAY
* Qwest ends pursuit of MCI
BUSINESS & INDUSTRY WATCH
* Nokia announces Wi-Fi device
* JDS-Acterna deal will boost both companies
* Adelphia to close long-distance service
* Cisco finds software flaw in IP phone
* Cable broadband hot in 2004
USTA SPOTLIGHT
* USTA Webinar Series: Marketing Strategies for ILECs Begins Thurs.,
May 26, 1:00 p.m. ET
EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES
* Nextel rolls out mobile e-mail
REGULATORY & LEGISLATIVE
* Skype repositions itself after VoIP 911 ruling
Follow the link below to read quick summaries of these stories and others.
http://www.dailylead.com/latestIssue.jsp?i=21869&l=2017006
Legal and Privacy information at
http://www.dailylead.com/about/privacy_legal.jsp
SmartBrief, Inc.
1100 H ST NW, Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20005
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 10:08:15 -0700 (PDT)
From: Fred Atkinson <fatkinson@mishmash.com>
Subject: VOIP Provider Search
Reply-To: fatkinson@mishmash.com
I am trying to find a VOIP residential provider that can give me a
local number in a little town called Cullowhee, North Carolina. It
doesn't have to be in the immediate area as long as anyone in
Cullowhee can call it without having to incur a toll charge.
I am pulling my hair out by the roots looking around for a provider.
I can't yet confirm whether Cullowhee is local to Asheville, NC or
not. A number in the Cullowhee area is (828) 227-XXXX if that helps
anyone.
Vonage has been no help. They don't cover Asheville and though they
have three other locations in the 828 area code, I can't get them to
give me enough information to determine if one of those locations is
local to Cullowhee. They denied they covered three locations and
would only give me one voicemail access number in the 828 area.
Hasn't someone set up a search site yet where you can enter an area
code and prefix to find out which companies offer local residential
VOIP numbers in that area? If so, can someone give me the URL to it?
Failing that, does anyone know an economical VOIP provider that can
help me with this?
Regards,
Fred
------------------------------
From: usenet@outshine.com
Subject: First Place, Web Promotion, Unsolicited Calls?
Date: 25 May 2005 10:54:30 -0700
Has anyone recently received an unsolicited call from someone
representing "First Place?" They apparently make a Web promotion
product. Any information at all would be helpful.
Today I received an unsolicited call from them. The agent asked if I
owned outshine.com and then told me he had a product that would help
my site to make a lot of money. He asked me to open up a Web browser.
Unfortunately, I didn't give him a chance to give me a URL.
I told him to put me on his do not call list. He REFUSED. I asked
for his name. He refused. I told him he was violating at least US
law, and he needed to respond. He simply repeated, "don't you want to
make money with your site?"
The call came in "Unknown ID" so all I have is the moment he called,
his company name, and the very curious fact that he was able to
associate my private cell phone number with my public web site (the
domain name and the number are not publicly listed together, so I
think GoDaddy or Verisign sold my private account info).
If anyone got a call from "First Place," please reply to this post or
email me. Thanks.
-Tony
------------------------------
From: Clark W. Griswold, Jr. <spamtrap100@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Packet8 DTMF Tones Sound "Clipped"
Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 18:30:06 -0600
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote:
> That would be 1/50 of a second. Maybe it was 200ms?
Ah ... See how quickly those Hayes modem setup strings fade from the
memory? :)
I found a reference that said the minimum was 40ms, but I do recall
certain switches could work with a faster timing.
------------------------------
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
Subject: Re: Packet8 DTMF Tones Sound "Clipped"
Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 05:48:43 -0000
Organization: Widgets, Inc.
In article <telecom24.231.6@telecom-digest.org>, Dave Garland
<dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote:
> It was a dark and stormy night when Clark W. Griswold, Jr.
> <spamtrap100@comcast.net> wrote:
>> I seem to recall that the old Bell System spec for tone duration was
>> 20ms, or 1/5th of a second.
> That would be 1/50 of a second. Maybe it was 200ms?
Switch spec called for 35ms.
Original Hayes Smartmodems defaulted to 70ms of tone, with 70ms space
between digits.
Some C.O. equip would detect reliably on bursts as short at 25 ms.
I never ran into a switch that would accept dialing at 20ms.
------------------------------
From: David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com>
Subject: Re: Packet8 DTMF Tones Sound "Clipped"
Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 12:02:13 +1000
On Mon, 23 May 2005 17:58:50 -0600, Clark W. Griswold, Jr. wrote:
> slippymississippi@yahoo.com wrote:
>> I hooked up a line analyzer and listened to the call, and all I'm
>> hearing on my end is a "blip blip blip" as he repeatedly presses the key
>> to save the message. The DTMF tone basically sounds like it was clipped
>> at just a few milliseconds
> I seem to recall that the old Bell System spec for tone duration was 20ms,
> or 1/5th of a second. Some switches allowed you to go as fast as 10ms,
> which put the speed in speedial. :)
The biggest problem with "short" DTMF tones - along with short gaps
between tones - was determining when two identical digits were in fact
two separate ones and not a single tone burst split by some line
interruption etc.
I once worked on a voice mail system with DTMF in-band signalling to
the PBX for Message Waiting indication, and there were intermittent
complaints from some users that they had messages but were not
always notified.
After many, many months (actually a couple of years) it was finally
determined that the gap between the DTMF tones coming out of the Voice
Mail wasn't long enough for the PBX to reliably detect two identical
digits following one another.
The gap was fine for different digits, but when the combination of
Message Waiting prefix and extension number had a pair of digits
somewhere, and the PBX CPU just happened to be busy at that moment (we
thought), the Message Waiting wasn't received correctly.
So to sum up, fast DTMF can cause issues ...
Regards
David Clayton, e-mail: dcstar@XYZ.myrealbox.com
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
(Remove the "XYZ." to reply)
Knowledge is a measure of how many answers you have,
intelligence is a measure of how many questions you have.
------------------------------
From: kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey)
Subject: Re: Very Early Modems
Date: 24 May 2005 11:46:07 -0400
Organization: Former users of Netcom shell (1989-2000)
<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
> In the IBM history series by Pugh et al, they said IBM converted
> punched cards to paper tape for transmission in the 1940s. My guess
> is that that particular transmission used telegraph TTY lines (not
> voice) of either AT&T or Western Union. Recall that AT&T maintained
> telegraph long distance lines as part of carrier long distance
> circuits. Because of the low bandwidth, a telegraph channel could be
> carried on the low end of a carrier channel. Accordingly, no
> modulation was required and thus no modem needed.
> It was also said IBM limited development in this area to avoid
> annoying AT&T who was IBM's best customer.
This makes sense. The Western union systems were basically designed to
take baudot paper tape, 5 bits across, with certain headers at the
beginning and ends of messages. Messages would often be punched on
paper tape at a switching office and batched up for later transmission,
basically the first store-and-forward systems.
> However, in the 1950s, IBM developed card-to-card directly without
> paper tape and "over AT&T lines". Modems were developed to take good
> advtg of the available bandwidth (about 1200 baud). Undoubtedly the
> equipment and implementation was developed in close cooperation with
> AT&T.
This was the IBM "Card-to-card" transceiver. I don't know when they
first came out, but the Army started implementing them in a nationwide
network in September of 1956.
> I was wondering if the modems in that application were supplied by IBM
> (who appears to have developed the technology) or by AT&T. My
> understanding that AT&T's "Dataset" modem-telephones didn't come out
> until the 1960s.
> Comments by anyone familiar with pre-1960 data communications would be
> greatly appreciated.
I believe they used 4-wire leased lines, with data access arrangement
boxes provided by Ma Bell. So the signals going into the big grey box
next to the reader/punch were analogue. I don't recall what the
transmission rate was, but they sent EBCDIC directly without any
translation to a 5-channel code and no added headers.
--scott
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
------------------------------
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
Subject: Re: Very Early Modems
Date: 25 May 2005 11:01:57 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Jim Haynes wrote:
> The Bell System didn't allow any "foreign" (meaning
> customer-provided equipment) attached to the switched network. They
> vigorously defended this position until it was overturned by the
> Carterfone case.
Our school system originally used Teletypes rented from Bell with the
built in modem and dial equipment. IIRC they ran about $100 a month.
Then they bought or leased Teletypes from private vendors. The modems
were supposed to go through the Bell "DAA" box (the protection* unit)
but often that was forgotten. Although the phone system was still
mostly hard wired in those days (excepting the 4-prong home jacks), we
got around that by using a special transmitter cup that had a tiny
jack for our modem to connect into.
*Some said the "protection" was really to protect Bell System
revenues, not the network. However, see the garbage people sometimes
hook up today, despite supposedly being certified, and knowing the
shortcuts we took back then, I'm think having that protection wasn't
such a bad idea after all. Recall that Bell was responsible for
everything in those days so if an illegal attachment hurt something
Bell was still stuck to fix it. (Most illegal users knew to hide
their gear before calling Bell in.)
> And since it did not need the entire bandwidth of a voice-grade line
> IBM designed the modem with four different frequency bands so that
> up to four systems could operate simultaneously over a voice-grade
> line.
The IBM book says they used the four frequency bands to get
an effective 1200 baud rate, which seems good for the 1950s.
> The earliest modems were not really called that but were the carrier
> systems installed in telephone and telegraph company offices to
> allow multiple telegraph transmissions over a single voice-grade
> circuit.
The Bell history says that telegraph signals could be carried on the
low end of a voice grade circuit--apparently this was done even in the
1930s with simple electronics. I believe pre-WW II Bell carrier
systems were pretty limited in deployment and capacity; it wasn't
until postwar microwave and widespread coaxial cable could they get
high volume. Coax did exist before WW II, but I suspect it was quite
limited.
> Then in the early 1960s the Bell System opened things up by leasing
> modems that allowed the customer to connect business machines to the
> modem and transmit data over the switched network.
The Western Union history describes advanced switching and
communications networks for telegraph traffic, including special
networks for govt and business. It looked to be state of the art for
its day (1960s). I'm still hazy on how Western Union missed the boat
on data communication which was after all their specialty. Some say
WU had a very limited transmission network and depended on Bell for
that "final mile" although in cities WU had quite a broad network.
Or, their Telex wasn't as good as AT&T's TWX.
------------------------------
From: Steven Lichter <shlichter@diespammers.com>
Reply-To: Die@spammers.com
Organization: I Kill Spammers, Inc. (c) 2005 A Rot in Hell Co.
Subject: Re: Tangled up Over DSL - Some Cell Phone Users Demand to Stand
Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 22:53:21 GMT
Jack Decker wrote:
> http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/business/3195270
> Some Cell Phone Users Demand to Stand Alone
> By JOHN C. ROPER
> Copyright 2005 Houston Chronicle
> A growing number of U.S. consumers are cutting the cord on traditional
> home telephone service, choosing instead to exclusively use cell
> phones.
> But many of these consumers have found ditching their land-line phone
> service, and its accompanying cost, isn't possible if they want speedy
> DSL, or digital subscriber line, Internet service in their homes.
> Providers such as SBC Communications require customers to buy
> residential phone service to have access to their broadband lines, a
> tactic consumer advocacy groups say is unfair.
> Full story at:
> http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/business/3195270
> How to Distribute VoIP Throughout a Home:
> http://michigantelephone.mi.org/distribute.html
> If you live in Michigan, subscribe to the MI-Telecom group:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MI-Telecom/
> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I think I read somewhere -- maybe here
> in the Digest -- where SBC was going to bite the bullet also and
> begin offering 'naked DSL'. Fact or fiction? Personally, I would say
> that _whenever possible_ people just ditch telco and go with cable
> internet. PAT]
They have as well as Verizon, the others will follow. I believe
either the FCC or PUC here in California ordered it.
The only good spammer is a dead one!! Have you hunted one down today?
(c) 2005 I Kill Spammers, Inc. A Rot in Hell Co.
------------------------------
From: founder@dinkumid.com
Subject: Re: Common Sense Moves Could Protect Privacy
Date: 25 May 2005 02:16:15 -0700
The subject should read:
Common Sense Moves Could NOT Protect Privacy.
This latest ID Theft incident show that nothing could stop or prevent
ID Theft at this moment in time.
Even the highest level of encryption or multi-level authentication
process could not stop those ID thieves.
We read everyday about ID Thefts and the so-called security solutions
such as credit reprot monitoring, paper shredders, encryption,
biometrics etc and if you examine everyone of those so-called security
solutions -- nothing works in this instance not at ChoicePoint or Lexis
Nexis.
I think all the so-called advice and tips to secure IDs are giving a
false sense of security to the average citizen.
------------------------------
From: founder@dinkumid.com
Subject: Re: ACLU Pizza
Date: 25 May 2005 02:27:58 -0700
So what are we going to do about it? Stop eating pizza? Lobby the
politicians? Fight against big money and big corporations?
When Big Corporations want to achieve their goals they implement
technologies.
When is the collective citizen going to group together to implement
technologies to achieve their goals? Power is in the hands of those
who own the technology!
As a founder of DINKUMID we are initiating something at
http://www.dinkumid.com/ which can totall secure every citizen's ID
and give big governments and big corporations less reasons to be big
brother.
------------------------------
From: The Kaminsky Family <kaminsky@kaminsky.org>
Reply-To: kaminsky@kaminsky.org
Organization: None Whatsoever
Subject: Re: Foreign Exchange (FX) Lines Still in Use?
Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 09:39:13 GMT
Al Gillis wrote:
> Robert Bonomi <bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com> wrote in message
> news:telecom24.226.5@telecom-digest.org:
>> In article <telecom24.224.13@telecom-digest.org>, TELECOM Digest
>> Editor noted in response to Robert Bonomi:
>>> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: As Robert knows, those four additional
>>> touch tone keys were known as A,B,C, and D. I forget the exact
>>> meaning of each, but my question is, did anyone with 'regular'
>>> service but with an Autovon phone ever try pressing those keys in
>>> a regular call? I did a couple times, and the immediate result was
>>> a 'fast busy' signal; the call would not complete. PAT]
>> On the PSTN, it somewhat depended on the switch and programming.
>> 'Reorder' was the very-common switch reaction. There were a few
>> switches that completely 'ignored' those signals.
>> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: But did you ever see/hear any that
>> neither ignored nor offered re-order, but instead actually _did
>> something_ ? I never did. PAT]
> I've got a Western Electric 3666-1A key set (Autovon dial). I've
> tried pressing the A, B, C and D keys while connected to both a
> Nortel DMS-200 (CO Switch) and a Nortel Meridian-1 (PBX). In both
> cases I got reorder while listening to dial tone (that is, no call
> had been established yet) and no effect while an established call
> was in progress.
> The Names of the additional keys are:
> FO (Flash Override) adjacent to the 3 key
> F (Flash) adjacent to the 6 key
> I (Immeadiate) adjacent to the 9 key
> P (Priority) adjacent to the # key (See note)
> Note: My 3666-1A has a key designated as "A" where the # key is placed
> on a normal dial pad. I don't know if this is standard for "Autovon"
> dials. The tone generated by this key (according to a "digit
> grabber") is that of a # key, however. Another interesting thing is
> that the Star key (left of 0) is not an asterisk but rather it's a
> real star! That is, a five pointed star, white lines on the gray
> background (or is it a grey background?) with a hollow center.
> Al
It has been at least ten years since I worked on this stuff, so if any
of it matters to you, please do not rely on my memories.
When I was working for a voice messaging vendor, we were part of an
industry initiative to develop a protocol for passing messages between
messaging systems from different vendors. The relevant specification
was for the AMIS Analog protocol (and I've forgotten what the acronym
AMIS stands for).
Basically, the protocol allowed a user of one voice messaging system
to address a message to a user of another voice messaging system (the
user interface was left unspecified -- that was a matter for the
individual vendors to handle), in such a way that the voice messaging
system could then dial the recipient system, do some handshaking, and
then deliver the message in a way that allowed the recipient system to
deliver the message to the intended voice mailbox.
The protocol relied on use of two fourth-column tones (C and D, as I
recall) to screen out nearly all accidental calls to the incoming AMIS
Analog phone number (I forget if the specification required it, but we
came up with a canned message to play if that phone number received an
incoming call that did not send the correct tone -- just to be polite).
It was quite a change from our usual workday (writing documents or
code, and testing code) when we got to test with other vendors. We
actually got to talk to engineers working for our competitors, and
send each other messages (mostly we sent protocol errors, actually, to
verify that the error handling on both sides was working properly - it
does not take very many correct messages to verify that things work
properly). I still remember one of our competitors (who really should
have known better) who had the wrong country code for the US - but
otherwise, there were not many problems getting things to work.
Security was an issue -- once the testing period was over, our
management refused to allow an incoming telephone number - so other
members of the AMIS committee could not send us AMIS Analog messages
(rather frustrating, but out of my control).
I had a four column analog phone on my desk for a few years while I
worked on this system (the fourth column, if I remember correctly, was
to the right of the normal three columns, with the rows 1-2-3-A,
4-5-6-B, 7-8-9-C, and *-0-#-D). When I was doing it often, I was able
to manually imitate a voice messaging system, computing checksums as
needed in my head (there were not very many of them, and only two were
variable, if memory serves). The protocol had to be designed to
handle some slow systems, so I could dial fairly slowly when I was
adding the checksums.
Mark
------------------------------
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
Subject: Re: Virus Infection Holds Computer Files Hostage
Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 07:04:46 -0000
Organization: Widgets, Inc.
In article <telecom24.230.2@telecom-digest.org>, Lisa Minter
<lisa_minter2001@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Web Infection Holds Computer Files Hostage
> By TED BRIDIS, AP Technology Writer 11 minutes ago
> Computer users already anxious about viruses and identity theft have
> new reason to worry: Hackers have found a way to lock up the
> electronic documents on your computer and then demand $200 over the
> Internet to get them back.
> Security researchers at San Diego-based Websense Inc. uncovered the
> unusual extortion plot when a corporate customer they would not
> identify fell victim to the infection, which encrypted files that
> included documents, photographs and spreadsheets.
> A ransom note left behind included an e-mail address, and the attacker
> using the address later demanded $200 for the digital keys to unlock
> the files.
> "This is equivalent to someone coming into your home, putting your
> valuables in a safe and not telling you the combination," said Oliver
> Friedrichs, a security manager for Symantec Corp.
> The FBI said the scheme, which appears isolated, was unlike other
> Internet extortion crimes. Leading security and antivirus firms this
> week were updating protective software for companies and consumers to
> guard against this type of attack, which experts dubbed "ransom-ware."
> "This seems fully malicious," said Joe Stewart, a researcher at
> Chicago-based Lurqh Corp. who studied the attack software. Stewart
> managed to unlock the infected computer files without paying the
> extortion, but he worries that improved versions might be more
> difficult to overcome. Internet attacks commonly become more effective
> as they evolve over time as hackers learn to avoid the mistakes of
> earlier infections.
> "You would have to pay the guy, or law enforcement would have to get
> his key to unencrypt the files," Stewart said.
> The latest danger adds to the risks facing beleaguered Internet users,
> who must increasingly deal with categories of threats that include
> spyware, viruses, worms, phishing e-mail fraud and denial of service
> attacks.
> In the recent case, computer users could be infected by viewing a
> vandalized Web site with vulnerable Internet browser software. The
> infection locked up at least 15 types of data files and left behind a
> note with instructions to send e-mail to a particular address to
> purchase unlocking keys. In an e-mail reply, the hacker demanded $200
> be wired to an Internet banking account. "I send programm to your
> email," the hacker wrote.
> There was no reply to e-mails sent to that address Monday by The
> Associated Press.
> FBI spokesman Paul Bresson said more familiar Internet extortion
> schemes involve hackers demanding tens of thousands of dollars and
> threatening to attack commercial Web sites, interfering with sales or
> stealing customer data.
> Experts said there were no widespread reports the new threat was
> spreading, and the Web site was already shut down where the infection
> originally spread. They also said the hacker's demand for payment
> might be his weakness, since bank transactions can be traced easily.
> "The problem is getting away with it - you've got to send the money
> somewhere," Stewart said. "If it involves some sort of monetary
> transaction, it's far easier to trace than an e-mail account."
> Details: http://www.websensesecuritylabs.com/alerts/alert.php?AlertID194
> Copyright 2005 The Associated Press.
> NOTE: For more telecom/internet/networking/computer news from the
> daily media, check out our feature 'Telecom Digest Extra' each day at
> http://telecom-digest.org/td-extra/more-news.html . Hundreds of new
> articles daily.
> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: But, as some of our Bright young
> readers would explain, "on internet there is no consensus on what
> is, and is not malicious."
Oh my, I see I've been "promoted" to a "bright young reader", by the
esteemed moderator. I'm not exactly young, but he gets credit for
getting things 50% right. <grin>
I will point out, yet again, that that remark was in regards to a
proposal for a law that banned quote malicious activity unquote on the
Internet. The point being was that that term is too broad and too
vague to be _legally_ _enforceable_. To get a law that would pass
judicial review, one would have to specify the _particular_kinds_ of
acts that are to be proscribed.
Note: *all* computer viruses, 'zombie' infectors, etc. most 'spyware',
and virtually all the 'browser hijacker' type stuff are
*ALREADY*ILLEGAL* in the United States, under 18 USC 1030.
Available on-line at: http:/www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1030.html
*But* the enforcement of that law is lax-to-nonexistent.
A "new law" won't do diddly-squat about the problem without active
enforcement.
And, if you _have_ active enforcement, you _don't_need_ any new laws.
Recommended reading: The FTC's "Report to Congress" on the
practicality (or lack thereof) of a national "Do Not E-mail" registry,
similar to the Do Not Call registry. Available on-line at:
<http://www.ftc.gov/reports/dneregistry/report.pdf>
While I disagree with a number of their conclusions regarding the
viability of a Do Not Email registry -- there _are_ ways to do it that
address the drawbacks they identify -- the really _interesting_ meat
in the report has to do with the difficulty of prosecution of
violators of existing law. See "C. Obstacles to Enforcement" starting
on Page 23 of the report.
In 2003, Earthlink got over 45 million pieces of spam to the 'honeypot'
addresses they run. They were able to link about 5% of those messages
to an identifiable source. Barely 1/3 of the identifications were good
enough that they could send a cease-and-desist warning letter.
That is what *over* _twelve_thousand_ man-hours of effort 'bought'.
Call it half-a-million dollars worth of effort.
Another ISP reports over ONE THOUSAND man-hours expended in _preparing_
a lawsuit against *one* spammer.
Government prosecutions from the States of WA, and VA show similarly high
costs:
"A prosecutor in Washington State spent four months and
sent out 14 pre-suit civil investigative demands (CIDs)
just to identify the spammer in one lawsuit. Likewise,
in another case, it took the Virginia Attorney General,
over the course of four months, multiple subpoenas to
domain registrars, credit card companies, and Internet
providers, and the execution of a search warrant, before
having enough information to file a case against a
spammer."
> Or as another reader would explain, "there
> is no such thing as an internet; just a collection of sites, and
> we cannot tell another site how to operate."
What they do on _their_ own private property *IS* their prerogative.
Their 'right' to do so does not extend to coming onto _my_ private
property to do it.
> And the Bright young
> reader concurs, "nor does anyone on the net want things any
> different". PAT]
Show the 'bright young reader' that people are demanding that
restrictions be put on _their_own_ activities -- as distinct from
demands that limits be imposed on the actions of 'other people' -- and
he will willingly change that to 'practically anyone'.
The situation is exactly like that with various kinds of 'morals' laws
-- try to find _anyone_ who supports an anti-prostitution statute on
the basis that "it will discourage _me_ from hiring prostitutes".
In many areas of the country, "pan-handling", and/or other forms of
"spare change?" solicitation, on the streets is disallowed by law.
Should equivalent pleas be allowed on the Internet, or not?
------------------------------
From: John Hines <jbhines@newsguy.com>
Subject: Re: Last Laugh! Your House at P.O. Box 4621
Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 18:44:24 -0500
Organization: www.jhines.org
Reply-To: john@jhines.org
Customer Service <customerservice@mortgagequotenetwork.net> wrote:
> I hope that at least occassionally, some of these spammers who
> sincerely bought their lists, etc thinking there was money to be made
> on the internet grow discouraged, and give up their efforts voluntarily
> and find other uses for their computers. Or is that too much to ask?
I still get snail mail advertisements, addressed to the previous
owners, even though I've lived here for 10 years.
Advertisers don't clean their mailing lists even when they have to
_pay_ real money (printing and postage) for the privilege.
------------------------------
From: Steven Lichter <shlichter@diespammers.com>
Reply-To: Die@spammers.com
Organization: I Kill Spammers, Inc. (c) 2005 A Rot in Hell Co.
Subject: Re: Last Laugh! Your House at P.O. Box 4621
Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 23:01:44 GMT
Customer Service wrote:
> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Fished (or do you say 'phished') out of
> my ever-full, always overflowing spam bucket this morning, on my way
> to put out this issue of the Digest. As we can see by a cursory glance
> through the binary code below, it is a spam-thingy. PAT]
> MThlIE1vcnRnYWelIFF1b3RlIE5ldHdvcmsNCkEgUGVyc29uYWwgQXBwcm9hY2ggdG8gT25saW
> 5l
> IEJvcnJvd2luZw0KDQpHZXQgYSBGcmVlIE1vcnRnYWdlIFF1b3RlIQ0KaHR0cDovL3d3dy5tb3
> J0 (and several _hundred_ more lines like the above).
> I bashed the rest of it, and altered the above just enough to cause it
> to lose its punch so none of _you_ would possibly 'inherit' it in your
> travels around the net today. That's how I say 'Thank you for visiting
> our web site today'; I spam you and perchance hand you a virus 'souvenier'
> to take home and show or give to your friends. Of course many netters
> would contend it is impossible to define 'offensive' or 'malicious'
> and still others would contend the 'internet does not exist; it is
> only a collection of sites, etc'.
> But my observation is this: Note the original subject line, 'Your
> House at P.O. Box 4621'. I would like you to know (a) 'Box 4621' in
> Skokie, Illinois is a very old snail- mail address I used when I lived
> in Skokie (metro Chicago area) about _ten years ago_; that is the age
> and quality of the mailing lists these spammers often times use. I'll
> bet whoever he bought the mailing list from told him 'a new, fresh
> list with x-gazillion email names and addresses' on it. From what I
> can gather, its another of those 'you have qualified to receive a
> mortgage loan' things. My second observation, (b) is the guy does not
> seem to be very bright. He could not or did not even think it through
> and use an _actual house address_ (such as 'Your House on Niles Center
> Road') or something similar to at least try to make it a message worth
> reading.
> I hope that at least occassionally, some of these spammers who
> sincerely bought their lists, etc thinking there was money to be made
> on the internet grow discouraged, and give up their efforts voluntarily
> and find other uses for their computers. Or is that too much to ask?
> PAT
Some of those offers clearly came from people who don't have any
education at all; spelling of simple words are wrong, and some are not
competent at English speaking as the sentences make very little sense.
I filled out a few of the applications with bogus info and gave phone
numbers of the FBI and Attorney General fraud numbers, if they are
called, it should make and interesting conversation as they hangup
when they hear who they reached.
The only good spammer is a dead one!! Have you hunted one down today?
(c) 2005 I Kill Spammers, Inc. A Rot in Hell Co.
------------------------------
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
Subject: Re: Last Laugh! Your House at P.O. Box 4621
Date: 25 May 2005 07:31:04 -0700
> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Lisa, I am wondering if City of Phila
> Parking Authority are as full of snot as the people who run the
> various 'Authorities' (we used to call them 'Atocities' in Chicago...
Yes, the Parking Authority is very tough and arrogant.
But there are two sides to the story.
Before the Parking Authority got reorganized into becoming a tough
agency, parking was a big problem in the city. Phila has narrow
streets and illegally parked cars badly foul up downtown traffic.
People who paid $$$ to park legally in lots resented motorists who
parked illegally and got away with it. Phila is on the border with NJ
and NJ motorists got away with parking violations since they didn't
follow up out of state.
First, they gave the PA computers to check for scofflaws. If someone
had a long list of unpaid violations, their car was 'booted' and they
had to pay up. They also agressively began towing illegally parked
cars that blocked traffic and collecting fines from ticketed cars.
People were brought in who owed thousands of dollars of unpaid fines.
All these efforts improved traffic flow and citizen morale.
This recent problem has them going too far. I have no problem
aggressively collecting fines -- if it's done so promptly after the
ticket is issued and regular notices are ignored. But to try to make
up for 15 years of neglect using very fuzzy data base matches is
wrong.
More importantly, this use of database matching to search out people
or flag people is frightening. Is it fair for a completely innocent
person to be denied credit, housing, or a job because some SECRET
computer says he might be a deadbeat?
I still wonder if anyone can defend this sort of thing. I'm glad ABC
News did an expose of the business, but I think that fell on deaf
ears.
> i.e. the Chicago Transit Atrocity, the Chicago Housing Atrocity,
> etc.)?
The quality of other govt Authorities varies by unit and also over
time. We had one agency, the Delaware River Port Authority, that was
well run. They built an excellent rapid transit line,
PATCO-Lindenwold. That was the first automated trainsit line (before
BART) and was well designed and very reliable. The designers knew
automation wasn't perfect and put it full manual backup capability* as
well as a strong organization and operation. Unfortunately, in recent
years some local politicians got involved and turned the DRPA into a
patronage machine.
*FWIW, PATCO was not high-tech or cutting edge. The designers just
used proven off-the-shelf designs and put them all together. To save
money, some components were actually second-hand. For instance, their
internal telephone system was a used SxS. Every station had a
Call-For-Aid telephone at the fare gates. If a passenger's ticket was
short, the passenger would put coins directly into the phone -- they
used 2nd hand pay phones as part of their network. Very cheap but
workable solution still in use today. The train signal system used an
old railroad 100Hz (that's one-hundred not one-thousand) code, not
some fancy thing that other systems took years to debug. Pat, you may
remember the auto faregates the Illinois Central commuter railroad
used; PATCO copied those.
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Yes, I do remember the Illinois Central
fare gates; one hassle (nothing major) was that the doors coming in
to them from the tracks outside were used in common by passengers from
the Illinois Central trains and the Chicago, South Shore and South
Bend Railroad (hereinafter, the "South Shore" trains.) South Shore
trains were also electrified, and run east across northern Indiana
through Hammond/Gary on the southern shore of Lake Michigan over to
South Bend, Indiana, splitting off from the Illinois Central 'mainline'
tracks at 115th Street, onto their own tracks. North of that point,
going into downtown Chicago, South Shore was a tenant, renting right
of way on the Illinois Central tracks and at 'stations in common'
which are/were Van Buren Street, Roosevelt Road, 57th Street, 63rd
Street. Once they reached 115th Street they are on their own as their
track cuts off and runs eastward. South Shore does not, or did not,
use the automated fare collection system. You pay for your little stub
ticket from an agent, board the train, and hand over your little stub
when the conductor comes through the car.
The hassle with that was Randolph Street where the automatic gates are
located. The gates work both ways, to come out of the train area and
to go into the train area. Illinois Central passengers use their
little ticket slipped into the card reader on the gates. When a South
Shore train pulled in, the clerks at the station level would see the
mob of passengers coming; one of them would say 'on the gate' and by
clicking on a wall switch, all the little turnstyles would go unlocked
and stay unlocked for the three or five minutes required for the
passengers to all be disengorged. Then to show that hands can be
quicker than the eye, when the last passenger got through the gates,
the clerk would hit the switch and cause the gates to go back in
service again.
Where they had problems however was when two trains -- one a South
Shore, the other an Illinois Central -- both pulled in at _exactly_
the same minute and the disembarking passengers from both trains were
pushing and shoving each other as they marched toward the gates. When
that happened, as it usually did at least once per day in the morning
rush hour, the clerk had to simply open the gates and wound up writing
off the uncollected mag stripe card deductions the railroad was due on
the Illinois Central passengers. But as long as there was at least 45
seconds or a minute between incoming trains from one railroad or the
other, as there usually was, those clerks at the gates were pretty
fast and effecient at opening the gates only as needed for the minute
or so required to let the South Shore people get through.
At the 'stations in common' the agents sold tickets for both
railroads. There was a period of 2-3 days when the clerks union for
Illinois Central went on strike for some reason, and they all walked
off the job, all that is, except for the clerks on duty at the
stations in common who were told by the union to stay on duty only
to handle South Shore duties. Every other station was devoid of any
workers those days. PAT]
------------------------------
From: davidesan@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Last Laugh! Your House at P.O. Box 4621
Date: 25 May 2005 07:35:50 -0700
I have often filled out forms with a throwaway email address (something
that I delete the entire mailbox once a month) and give a street
address of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Washington, DC. Imagine my amusement
when I started getting emails at the thowaway address telling of the
great rates I could get on the mortgage at my home at 1600 PA Ave.
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: That's really ignorant, isn't it? PAT]
------------------------------
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
Subject: Re: Looking for a Model 15 or 19
Date: 25 May 2005 08:15:37 -0700
Reggie wrote:
> Yes, the old black boxes. Had some years ago. Donated them to a
> museum. Wished I had one for display and operation with a HAL 6000
> interface.
One of the telephone collector groups, TCI or ATCA, might help you.
There's a big outfit in Wisconsin (I wish I could remember the name --
I think it's "Ron's phones") that has a big inventory of old stuff.
(Maybe someone else could post the correct name?)
I don't know what a HAL 6000 interface is. But keep in mind the older
machines use Baudot which is not only a different code, but requires
an extra control character to shift between letters and numbers.
Being mechanical and complex, the machines will need servicing. If
they hadn't been used for a while, they made new repair/adjustment to
work again. (We had some fans stored in the garage for a number of
years. When we tried them, they were just dead. Trying to twirl the
blade didn't help.) Also, old machines had shellac or fabric
insulation on wires which can rot out.
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Maybe my brain has shellac or fabric
insulation. Lord knows it has been rotted out now for a few years,
ever since the hospital got done with me. PAT]
------------------------------
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
networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, Yahoo Groups, and
other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the
moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational
service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents
of the Digest are compilation-copyrighted. You may reprint articles in
some other media on an occasional basis, but please attribute my work
and that of the original author.
Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest
Post Office Box 50
Independence, KS 67301
Phone: 620-402-0134
Fax 1: 775-255-9970
Fax 2: 530-309-7234
Fax 3: 208-692-5145
Email: editor@telecom-digest.org
Subscribe: telecom-subscribe@telecom-digest.org
Unsubscribe:telecom-unsubscribe@telecom-digest.org
This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal about telecomm-
unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and
published continuously since then. Our archives are available for
your review/research. We believe we are the oldest e-zine/mailing list
on the internet in any category!
URL information: http://telecom-digest.org
Anonymous FTP: mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives/
(or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives)
RSS Syndication of TELECOM Digest: http://telecom-digest.org/rss.html
For syndication examples see http://www.feedroll.com/syndicate.php?id=308
and also http://feeds.feedburner.com/telecom
*************************************************************************
* TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from *
* Judith Oppenheimer, President of ICB Inc. and purveyor of accurate *
* 800 & Dot Com News, Intelligence, Analysis, and Consulting. *
* http://ICBTollFree.com, http://1800TheExpert.com *
* Views expressed herein should not be construed as representing *
* views of Judith Oppenheimer or ICB Inc. *
*************************************************************************
ICB Toll Free News. Contact information is not sold, rented or leased.
One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com
Copyright 2004 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved.
Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA.
************************
DIRECTORY ASSISTANCE JUST 65 CENTS ONE OR TWO INQUIRIES CHARGED TO
YOUR CREDIT CARD! REAL TIME, UP TO DATE! SPONSORED BY TELECOM DIGEST
AND EASY411.COM SIGN UP AT http://www.easy411.com/telecomdigest !
************************
Visit http://www.mstm.okstate.edu and take the next step in your
career with a Master of Science in Telecommunications Management
(MSTM) degree from Oklahoma State University (OSU). This 35
credit-hour interdisciplinary program is designed to give you the
skills necessary to manage telecommunications networks, including
data, video, and voice networks.
The MSTM degree draws on the expertise of the OSU's College
of Business Administration; the College of Arts and Sciences; and the
College of Engineering, Architecture and Technology. The program has
state-of-the-art lab facilities on the Stillwater and Tulsa campus
offering hands-on learning to enhance the program curriculum. Classes
are available in Stillwater, Tulsa, or through distance learning.
Please contact Jay Boyington for additional information at
405-744-9000, mstm-osu@okstate.edu, or visit the MSTM web site at
http://www.mstm.okstate.edu
************************
---------------------------------------------------------------
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 fifty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.
Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing
your name to the mailing list.
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.
End of TELECOM Digest V24 #232
******************************
| |