Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 19:27:26 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Subject: [telecom] TELECOM Digest V22 #123 To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Reply-To: telecom@telecom-digest.org
TELECOM Digest Tue, 12 Nov 2002 19:27:00 EST Volume 22 : Issue 123
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
N11/Payphones/Wireless/PBXes/PAY-per-Call/etc (Mark J. Cuccia) Re: New 511 Transport Info Phone Number Coming Soon (Paul Coxwell) Followup on Jack Mortenson (John Higdon) Re: Last Laugh! (or Not?) Commercial Scale Space Tourism (Gail M. Hall) Re: ECLong Distance and Calling 1-800 Numbers (John R. Levine) Re: Known Origin of Predictive Dialer (CCIE 8122) Re: Known Origin of Predictive Dialer (John Higdon) Re: 000-000-0000 Caller ID (Dave Phelps) "This Call May be Monitored or Recorded." (Dave Phelps) Re: ECLong Distance and Calling 1-800 Numbers (Michael D. Sullivan) Re: Calif. Changes Cell Phone Crash Data (j) Panasonic KX-TD816 (Jeremy Marks) SS7 over E1 (Guillaume Maigre) NuPoint Voicemail Mailbox Owner Recognition (Benm) Re: Calif. Changes Cell Phone Crash Data (Clarence Dold) Opinions on ExpressPin? (OneNetNut) Unfazed by Hollywood, Small Company Offers Copy Software (Monty Solomon) Computer Break-Ins: Your Right to Know (Monty Solomon)
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. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT.
See the bottom of this issue for subscription and rchive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest.
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 21:14:51 CST From: Mark J. Cuccia <mcuccia@tulane.edu> Subject: N11/Payphones/Wireless/PBXes/PAY-per-Call/etc
Re, the 511 code for "Travel/Traffic Info", Stan Cline wrote:
> [quoted from a SF newspaper article]
>> Experts said some pay phone providers may also charge callers to dial
>> the three-digit codes, even when the automatically route calls to
>> toll-free lines.
> ... or they misroute them (for example, 211 going to payphone repair
> instead of the United Way's hotline here in Atlanta; most COCOTs have
> enough flexibility to use something else, such as a * code, for repair
> and refund calls), or they refuse to complete calls altogether. :(
I know that it is "easier" for the COCOT vendors to quote (display) a simple N11 code for payphone repair / coin-refund. It's less space, etc. on instruction cards. And it could be JUST as "easy" for them to use a (NON-standard) '#' or '*' codes for their ANSWERING SERVICE/MACHINE for "repair" or refunds... although the COCOTs' NON-standard N11s, or */# codes as well "translate" (internally in the chips) to 7/10 digit "POTS" numbers (whether local or toll), or 'free' 8yy-NXX-xxxx numbers, supposedly at NO coin charge to the calling party.
HOWEVER ... I do _NOT_ like the idea of such (NON-standard) N11 or */# "short" codes. Suppose I am trying to use the (damn) COCOT, and have lost my coins. And I am having trouble with the keypad or mouthpiece/receiveer. Remember, this COCOT is exposed to the elements, both "natural" as well as (in)human, and this is also a DAMN COCOT which is subject to its OWN quirkiness, erroneous or deliberate on the part of the COCOT vendor.
I want my refund! What good is that NON-standard N11 or */# code to me from my home or office phone!??? Or from some OTHER COCOT or telco payphone?
These COCOT vendors, IMO, should be REQUIRED to have AND post a _FREE_ 8yy-NXX-xxxx number! And one that is available nationwide. Actually, these days, 800/888/etc. numbers can easily be accessible nationwide and usually are automatically nationwide in scope.
As for the (legit/standard/ FCC/NANPA/CNAC/telco/etc-recommended) N11 codes, I wonder how many PROPERLY work from all PBX and wireless systems, not to mention independent telcos, CLECs, etc. And charging ... the FCC and state reg agencies should REQUIRE ALL to be coin-free, local message-unit free, and air/roaming free, EXCEPT possibly for 411 ... STAND-BY, why can't 411 be FREE again as well! But if 411 is still to be charged, then every other standard/recommended use should be required free and accessible from EVERY type of phone on the network wherever that code has been activated ...
211 for local community referral/support 311 non-emergency government 411 (Directory/Information, potentially charge-able) 511 travel/traffic info 611 telco repair (where traditionally used) 711 Telecom Relay for the Deaf/Speech Impaired 811 telco Business Office 911 Emergencies
And if 611 and 811 are not necessarily going to be used for the traditional "Bell System" uses in any particular community ... and likewise, if 211 or 311 or 511 haven't yet been activated for the recommended service in a community, then IMO, the code should be treated as VACANT, or at very least ONLY used by telco for "test" functions (ANAC, Ringback, Testboard, 1.004 Kc Milliwatt, reverse-battery, etc).
This "temporary" use of "unused" N11 codes for SLIME/PORN/SEX/etc. PAY-PAY-PAY-per-call (or ANY form of PAY-per-use function, even if not porn/sex-related) should be ELIMINATED wherever it has been allowed to sleaze-itself-in. If the state regulators, the FCC, and the telcos ten years ago (mostly in BellSouth territory) did what was right, they would have all stood FIRM, REFUSING to (temporarily) allow such SCUM to habitate previously unused N11 codes. Even though the Sleaze/porn entities have to agree in advance to "vacate" the N11 code if telco or government deems a more legit use for that code, you KNOW that the LAWyers for these pay-and-dial-a-porn entities are going to fight tooth-and-nail from being "evicted" from the N11 codes that (IMO) they NEVER should have been allowed in the first place! :(
mjc
From: PaulCoxwell@aol.com Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 17:25:40 EST Subject: Re: New 511 Transport Info Phone Number Coming Soon
> 211
> First launched in the Atlanta metro area in 1997. The Federal
> Communications Commission reserved the number for other social service
> hot lines in 2000. Now used in portions of 18 states. The California
> Public Utilities Commission is expected to approve an application
> process to use the number in the Golden State as early as January.
Let's not forget that this is not the first application for 211.
Some 50 years ago 211 was used in some areas for the long-distance operator.
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: 50 years ago, most all of them were used in different ways. In addition to 211 for long distance in many communities, (prior to automated dialing, manual subscribers asked the operator for 'Long Distance' to get that operator), and 411 for information, (manual subscribers asked the operator for Information or Enquiries), 611 was repair service, and during the Second World War when telephone circuits and instruments were greatly rationed, 811 was used for 'priority long distance', which meant military personnel with the authority to obtain a line at any time could call 811 and identify themselves to the operator. She in turn (if no other circuits were available as frequently was the case) was authorized under the law, to 'go in on' an existing call, announce her presence and state, 'line is needed in the war effort; I will give you ten seconds to vacate.' The parties were expected to make quick goodbyes and vacate. If they did not vacate at that time (or sooner if they cursed the operator which happened frequently) she was authorized to pull down the connection. After the war ended, 811 was given over to the Business Office in many places (mostly GTE territories) and used in many Bell System areas for specialized long distance service by hotels, universities, etc which required 'time and charges' by their switchboards so charges could be made against the responsible extension user. Depending on the size of the PBX and its volume of traffic the PBX either had direct 'tie lines' on the board to long distance (in which case LD knew who was calling because the tie line terminated on her board also according to the name of the hotel, university, etc; the PBX did not have to say 'I want to make a long distance call to xxxx'; she merely had to hold on the line until LD responded then announce, 'extension xxxx on the line', and vacate. LD took the call and details from there, and the 'time and charges' were automatically quoted back to the organization for billing purposes, usually on a teletype machine close to the PBX operator. Smaller PBXs, small motels, etc however were to dial 811 and announce her phone numer to the operator, who again, already knew the purpose of the call, and would 'quote time and charges' on the conclusion.
Then, let's see .. 3ll, 511 and 911 were used by dialing customers to reach still manual customers in 'local toll' points, at least around the Chicago area. For instance, dialing 911 from a Chicago dial phone would reach the operator in Whiting/Hammond, Indiana (local toll from Chicago). To call Western Union and place a telegraph from either dial or manual 'private' (in your home or business) phones, you dialed or asked for WABash 7111. From payphones (automated) you dialed 711 which allowed the WUTCO operator to take your message. From manual pay phones you were to ask the operator for 'Western Union'. In either case when you finished dictating your message, WUTCO would tell you 'now flash and get the operator back on the line'. The object was that BellCo coin operator had to collect the money for Western Union as their agent. WUTCO would tell the operator 'I want 75 cents for the telegram just being sent', and you would have to put the money in the phone's coin box. The business office was usually 311, sometimes 511 or manual subscribers were to ask the operator for 'Business Office'.
In any event any X11 number was *always* telecom-related; they were *never* used for frivilous purposes, such as sex, general questions, transit, etc. PAT]
From: John Higdon <no-spam@amadeus.kome.com> Subject: Followup on Jack Mortenson Organization: Green Hills and Cows Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 15:16:02 -0800
Taking the cue from Pat and others, I contacted SBC to report the telemarketing activities of "Jack Mortenson", whose name and phone number appeared on caller-id when I was assaulted by a mechanized home re-financing pitch.
No satisfaction at SBC, believe me. No one at SBC knew whether or not a mechanized pitch that was not introduced by a human violated any laws or tariffs. "If that is a violation, you need to take it up with the proper authorities." As to the matter of using residential service for business activities: "Well, that's a gray area. People do work at home using their residential phones. Furthermore, it might have been a business line."
When I tried to give anyone at SBC pertinent information (phone number, date, time, etc.) relating to the activity, the admonishment to contact "the proper authorities" was repeated. I was given the number of the CPUC. It became rather obvious that SBC has trained its personnel to avoid any dealings with complaints about telemarketing or any other offensive use of the telephone.
I know the local police certainly couldn't care less about the crime of telemarketing. I have already experienced their blase attitude with regard to major theft and bodily threats. I'm not going to waste my time being laughed off the phone.
As I suspected, it is a spammers' and junk callers' world out there. Call Jack (408 226-0706) and congratulate him for being in the right place at the right time. You'll probably find his line busy (as it makes money for him pitching home re-financing to the Silicon Valley), but keep trying!
John Higdon | Email Address Valid | SF: +1 415 428-COWS +1 408 264 4115 | Anytown, USA | FAX: +1 408 264 4407
From: Gail M. Hall <gmhall@apk.net> Subject: Re: Last Laugh! (or Not?) Commercial Scale Space Tourism Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 18:28:01 -0500 Reply-To: gmhall@apk.net
On Sun, 10 Nov 2002 18:23:06 -0800, in comp.dcom.telecom, you TELECOM Digest Editor wrote:
> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well readers, again I ask your advice.
> Is this last message a 'last laugh', a spam, or is it genuine? The
> idea of asking every reader to send in a dollar sort of turns me off,
> but I just don't know what to think. Remember how back in the 1950's
> Ralph Kramden (Jackie Gleason) would double up his fist and tell his
> wife Alice (Jayne Meadows) she was going to go to the moon? PAT]
Your digest software deleted some of the clues I would have used for this kind of message -- the headers.
We can tell by the tracking what the headers show whether or not the address looks fake.
Also, why are we hearing about this "opportunity" through e-mail sent to thousands of people and have not heard about this venture through normal news channels.
Personally, I put this message in the same category as the ones offering us a fortune by getting in on the "ground floor" for many "new" kinds of business. There were plenty of these schemes offering us "opportunities" to make it rich in cellular phone technology, wireless technology, the long-distance telephone business, and many more.
I've been hearing about the wonderful "new idea" of creating diamonds out of the carbon released when dead people are cremated. I wonder how carefully the "news" people researched the truth of this story. How many grieving people are going to be suckered into this scheme before it comes out that the "diamonds" they get are really fake or not the real cremains of their loved ones?
Well, I'll let someone else do the resarch on this gravity control company and Victor Rozsnyay.
One thing I can say is, he's got one good technique going. Make the amount of money he asks for small enough so that people will be less likely to report their losses. People are more likely to get steamed if they lose what they feel is a substantial amount of money. At a dollar per "ticket," it will be more like putting dollars in the "one-armed bandit" in "Lost Wages."
I still haven't fallen for the telephone company's desire to "protect" me from telemarketers by privacy control. They sell caller ID, but don't make sure it works right. On top of that they sell the privacy protection but let people use residential phone lines for 24 x 7 calling robots and allow companies to call more phones than their equipment can handle -- so we get those "no one says anything" type calls over and over again.
BTW, if we punch that number to get the caller ID for the police (but not for us), WE pay a substantial amount for each time we use that service. Are they going to raise the price to us for 911 service, too?
Gail getting old and grumpy in Ohio USA
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: There was a time when telco actually had concern for the welfare and privacy of their subscribers. They were called 'Bell System' in those days. Now they could care less. The highest bidder gets their attention now; spammers and telemarketers run the show as John Higdon points out.
Back in 1981-85 more or less, I published many comments here in the Digest about that old foo, Judge Harold Greene, who managed to break up the Bell System. The dotty old man lost ten cents in a payphone one day, a payphone booth that looked and smelled like a urinal or filthy toilet in Washington, DC, and he would not be content until he got his friends in the Justice Department to bust up the telephone company. In those days I would bash Judge Greene regularly here, and these same guys on the Arpanet mailing list would always shush me up, and tell me to quit bashing the judge, a good, kindly, wise fellow who knew what was best for the whole USA and the rest of the world as well. Well, it has taken me almost twenty years to prove my point, that Judge Greene, in his dottieness, was making a mess of the phone company. To the credit of the old Bell System, it held together pretty well for many years after divestiture. I hope the Judge Greene lovers on this mailing list are finally happy. The Bell System (which some of them called the 'Hell System') finally got wrecked. PAT]
Date: 11 Nov 2002 22:14:52 -0500 From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) Subject: Re: ECLong Distance and Calling 1-800 Numbers Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA
> This seems to read that ECG will charge me for any and all calls I
> make to any 1-800 number? Can this be true and why do they charge?
You have it backwards. If you have an 800* number on your ECG account, ECG will charge you whenever anyone calls your 800 number. That's how toll-free numbers work. If you don't have a toll free number, you can ignore their 800 rates.
In ECG's case, the rate for incoming 800 calls is the same as the rate for a corresponding dial-one call, 4.9 cpm interstate, varying amounts in-state. They also charge 49 cents per month for each 800 number on your account, and a surcharge of about 30 cents for each call to an 800 number from a payphone. These rates are in the low range of what carriers charge for 800 service that terminates on a POTS line and has a low monthly minimum.
If you call an 800 number, it's automatically routed to and charged to the 800 number's owner, and nothing shows up on your bill. Your dial-1 carrier has no idea what 800 numbers you call, since they don't handle those calls.
Regards,
John Levine, johnl@iecc.com Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies" Information Superhighwayman wanna-be http://iecc.com/johnl Sewer Commissioner "More Wiener schnitzel, please", said Tom, revealingly.
* - or 888, 877, or 866, of course.
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Gee whiz, I can remember when 800 calls were handled like other calls via Separations and Settlements, an archaic back office function at AT&T. Judge Greene didn't like that process either; better just to make subscribers ante-up a few cents extra for each of their calls, and force COCOT users to put money in the coin box for the supposedly free (to them) call. PAT]
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 20:41:29 -0700 From: CCIE 8122 <none@none.com> Subject: Re: Known Origin of Predictive Dialer
MJ
631/673 is an extension out of Huntington, NY. The CLLI code for the serving CO is HNSTNYHUDS0. The telco is listed as New York Tel Co., a subsidiary of NYNEX, which was acquired by Bell Atlantic, which merged with GTE to become Verizon. So unless Verizon has sold the Huntington CO, they are the carrier. If not, give them the NPA/NXX, and they can tell you to whom they sold the CO.
HTH
kr
From: John Higdon <no-spam@amadeus.kome.com> Subject: Re: Known Origin of Predictive Dialer Organization: Green Hills and Cows Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 19:46:48 -0800
In article <telecom22.122.2@telecom-digest.org>, TELECOM Digest Editor's Note:
> John, you seem damned and detirmined
> that nothing can be done about those vermin, so let's just throw up
> our hands and consider it a 'non-issue' and give up on it and move
> along to something else.
Maybe I'm looking at it a bit like chess, and in playing it several moves ahead I see that checkmate is inevitable.
Take a look at the fax situation. There is a Federal law that prohibits junk faxing. But it does us no good in California because in its infinite wisdom, the California legislature passed its own very stupid junk fax bill that trumps the Federal law ... and gives a gigantic loophole to the junk faxers. As a result, those of us in California still have a printer full of crap when we come into the office every morning.
> I, Mr. Crispin and many other readers here
> are equally damned and detirmined to do what little we can to continue
> mitigating the effects of the vermin. You seem to take the posture
> that unless the entire thing, like spam, can be cured in one swoop,
> therefore we should write off any efforts to do anything.
No, it is more a matter of diminishing returns. In another post, I outlined the response I got from SBC with regard to my "Jack Mortenson" incident. What I didn't mention was the sales pitch I got from one of the SBC people to whom I spoke. She was pushing "call block". That's right: her suggestion was to block "Jack's" number! I pointed out how futile that was, and then realized that just about any effort that I, one person, might bring to bear was, indeed, futile.
> So John, some of us will continue doing battle with the imbeciles and
> other rodents the best we can, although I admit it is an uphill fight
> and things are looking pretty grim. Maybe with a little luck, Dubya
> will torment and bully Mr. Insane to the point Mr. Insane will gas us
> all some night soon, and we can all become mutant telemarketers in
> order to survive. PAT]
I hate to think that such is the endpoint in the war with marketing slime, but in my current state of mind, I'm inclined to agree with you.
John Higdon | Email Address Valid | SF: +1 415 428-COWS +1 408 264 4115 | Anytown, USA | FAX: +1 408 264 4407
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: If Dubya goes through with his threat on the radio today, that only the USA is allowed to have weapons of mass destruction and everyone else (mainly Mr. Sodomy Insane) has to give his up (we don't, because we are good and pure, Christian, and as we sing, 'For Our Cause, it is Just' [fourth stanza, Star Spangled Banner]) this may well be quite a moot point in the next few days. PAT]
From: Dave Phelps <tippenring@deadspam.com> Subject: Re: 000-000-0000 Caller ID Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 22:44:59 -0600
> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: But if you do decide to test it
> without having SBC on the line listening, etc, then *the very instant
> you hear it start to play out any messages* terminate the call
> immediatly. Otherwise, the true owners of the voicemail boxes do have
> a legitimate beef with you. After all, *they* did not authorize you to
> do security testing for them on their boxes. Nor, were you at that
> instant, employed by SWBT as a consultant. Take care. PAT]
I agree. I don't intend to listen to any messages. When you initially log into a mailbox, it tells you how many messages you have. If I hear that rather than a passwod prompt, then the test is successful (or fails, depending on POV). Of course, it may not work. If the authentication is based on ANI rather than CLID, then it won't work. I would hope that by now (four years after John Higdon's battle with Pac Bell), that the news has propogated enough to fix this. I'll let everyone know when I get a chance to try it.
Dave Phelps Phone Masters Ltd. deadspam=tippenring
From: Dave Phelps <tippenring@deadspam.com> Subject: "This Call May be Monitored or Recorded." Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 23:01:29 -0600
I think that gives me permission to record a call, doesn't it? If I intend to record a call, and I hear that message, does that mean that they have agreed to have me record the conversation, and I don't explicitly have to ask the person when they answer? That's how I take it.
Dave Phelps Phone Masters Ltd. deadspam=tippenring
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I think you misunderstood their use of the word 'may'. Its not 'may' (as in 'you have our permission to do this') but 'may' (as in 'this is something we might decide to do'). However you may wish to interpret the 'may', please be sure to include that opening statement in the audio taping at the beginning of the tape in case there later is any question about whether or not permission was granted to do the taping. PAT]
From: Michael D. Sullivan <zyxNOSPAM@camsul.com> Subject: Re: ECLong Distance and Calling 1-800 Numbers Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 08:3:36 GMT
On 11 Nov 2002 11:34:18 -0800, Ian posted the following to comp.dcom.telecom:
> This is from their Frequently Asked Questions:
> Quote
> # Is there any additional charge for an 800 or toll-free number?
> No. 800 numbers will be billed at the same rates as your outgoing
> calls.
This means that if you get a toll-free number from ECLongDistance, your incoming calls on the toll-free number will be at the same per- minute rates as your outgoing long-distance calls.
> # Does it cost me to call an 800 number?
> Yes, the cost is 49 cents per month per toll free number.
> This seems to read that ECG will charge me for any and all calls I
> make to any 1-800 number? Can this be true and why do they charge?
This is badly worded. I would guess that what the company is trying to convey is that if you have them assign you a toll-free number that terminates on your phone, they will charge you 49 cents per month. Unfortunately, they stated this in response to the wrong question. No, they should not be charging you per-call, per-minute, or per-month for calling an 800 or other toll-free number. In fact, assuming they are a long-distance carrier, they don't even get involved when you call a toll-free number. When you do, your LEC looks up the appropriate carrier to hand the call off to in a database and connects you via that carrier. This is true whether your primary interexchange carrier is AT&T, MCI, Capsule, ECG, or None of the Above. You get billed $0.00 by the local exchange carrier and the toll-free number owner gets billed for the call by the interexchange carrier from whom it subscribed to the toll-free incoming service.
Michael D. Sullivan Bethesda, MD, USA (delete NOSPAM from address to mail me)
From: jt <jtaylor@spamkiller.hfx.andara.com> Subject: Re: Calif. Changes Cell Phone Crash Data Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 08:35:11 -0500 Organization: WorldCom Canada Ltd. News Reader Service
John Higdon <no-spam@amadeus.kome.com> wrotein message news:telecom22.122.3@telecom-digest.org...
> .... I was appalled at the swerving
> and other manifestations of really bad driving I was committing by just
> trying to open the bag and get the peanuts into my mouth. When I
> answered a call on my cellphone, it was not nearly so bad and did not
> affect my driving nearly so much as eating those peanuts.
In the UK recently (well, two or three years ago) there was a woman prosecuted for careless-driving/failure-to-pay-attention/whatever. The UK equivalent is because she was eating a chocolate bar. Much hullabaloo in the press but as I recall the judge said the police constable had it right as she was not driving very well.
Whch brings up the point that there are more than likely laws on the books already, sufficient to control bad driving due to cell-phone use (or peanut eating, etcetera) without banning it specifically. If we could only control the law-makers as well.
From: jmarks@futurenet-consulting.com (Jeremy Marks) Subject: Panasonic KX-TD816 Organization: Futurenet Reply-To: jmarks@futurenet-consulting.com Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 14:25:34 GMT
I have installed my first Panasonic kx-td816 phone system for my in-laws and all is working perfectly ... except they added a fax machine into the fold last night.
Their system is configured with two telephone lines going into the system. Line #2 is their fax line, but should be in the system so they can make outgoing calls on it if line#1 is busy. All calls to line #2 should go directly to the fax machine.
Here are my questions: Do I plug the fax machine into the back of their display phone to get dial-tone? What programming areas and changes do I need to address to route the calls on line #2 directly to the fax? Are there any other items that need to be changed?
Thanks for your help.
Jeremy
From: guillaume.maigre@transatel.com (Guillaume Maigre) Subject: SS7 Over E1 Date: 12 Nov 2002 07:28:28 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com/
I'm looking for information about E1 and SS7 configuration and in particulary I would like to know:
The number of SS7 channel supported on one E1 (up to 32???)
How many USSD messages one SS7 channel can carrier per second, per hour?
If an SS7 channel is bidirectionnal?
Thanks for your help.
From: ben77m2000@yahoo.com (Benm) Subject: NuPoint Voicemail Mailbox Owner Recognition Date: 12 Nov 2002 08:24:02 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com/
I have a NuPoint Messenger Model 70 integrated with a Mitel SX2000. I am trying to get the NuPoint Messenger to automatically recognize the owner of a mailbox when he dials in to retrieve his messages. Currently a mailbox owner has to identify his mailbox number and this creates unnecessary keystrokes.
If the NuPoint Messenger can identify which mailbox to leave a message in when an extension is forwarded to it, why doesn't it know which extension is dialing in to retrieve messages?
From: dold@77.usnet.us.com Subject: Re: Calif. Changes Cell Phone Crash Data Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 17:12:53 UTC Organization: a2i network
Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com> wrote:
> LOS ANGELES (AP) _ Release has been delayed of a report that blames
> cell phone use in 913 highway accidents in 2001. Officials believe
> the figure should be about seven times higher.
It occurs to me that drivers that crash while talking on cell phones are likely the same ones who crash while not on cell phones. There should be a separate count of those who crash with cell phones that have also crashed without.
As John points out, there are other reasons for poor driving. It's just that cell phones, now that they are in the hands of every teenager at the malls, are a distraction that can't be overcome by those who shouldn't be driving anyway.
The attention to cell phones seems very similar to any other prejudicially obvious difference. The ethnic slurs are being replaced by "Volvo", "SUV", and "cell phone".
From: OneNetNut <onenetnut@nospam.hotmail.com> Subject: Opinions on ExpressPin? Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 00:08:40 -0600
Any opinions on ExpressPin? Spotted their web site tonight while I was doing a search. Looks like they are a broker/agent. Liked the rates on the conference calling services.
Thanks, not sure how long they have been around.
Cheers!
Reply-To: monty solomon <monty@roscom.com> From: monty solomon <monty@roscom.com> Subject: Unfazed by Hollywood, Small Company Offers Copying Software Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 16:26:55 -0500
By Jim Suhr, The Associated Press Nov 10 2002 10:15AM
That put Moore _ an ex-Marine and college dropout _ on the front lines of one of the digital age's most volatile legal battles: the dispute between consumer rights and copyright protection.
Moore's adversary: Hollywood, which apparently believes products such as 321's flout a 1998 federal law that the movie industry contends bars the picking of electronic locks on copyright works.
Since mid-2001, the company has sold more than 100,000 copies of DVD Copy Plus, which allows people to copy DVD movies onto CDs. It includes code that cracks the copy-protection scheme used for most commercial DVD movies.
New software released over the weekend by 321 Studios, called DVD X Copy, also unlocks the so-called Content Scramble System.
The company says the $100 product, which requires a DVD burner, will make perfect DVD copies in 60 to 90 minutes _ a far cry from the hours that DVD Copy Plus, which burns movies onto CDs, requires.
http://online.securityfocus.com/news/1608
Reply-To: monty solomon <monty@roscom.com> From: monty solomon <monty@roscom.com> Subject: Computer Break-Ins: Your Right to Know Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 16:29:21 -0500
California law now demands that the public be informed when government or corporate databases are breached. It's about time.
By Alex Salkever, Business Week Nov 11 2002 10:03AM
In April, 2002, hackers broke into the payroll database for the state of California. For more than a month, cybercriminals rooted around in the personal information of 265,000 Golden State employees, ranging from Governor Gray Davis to maintenance workers and clerks.
Worse, the California Controller's Office, which ran the database, failed to notify state employees for more than two weeks after the breach was discovered. Although officials with the Controller's office insisted the break-in probably hadn't resulte in any significant harm, the incident enraged Golden State pols and employees, whose Social Security numbers, bank account information, and home addresses were fair game for the hackers.
This lapse sparked what may mark a dramatic shift in legal policy toward cybersecurity. Over strenuous objections from the business lobby, on Sept. 26 California enacted a sweeping measure that mandates public disclosure of computer-security breaches in which confidential information may have been compromised. The law covers not just state agencies but private enterprises doing business in California. Come July 1, 2003, those who fail to disclose that a breach has occurred could be liable for civil damages or face class actions.
http://online.securityfocus.com/news/1618
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, 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: 620-870-9697 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 775-306-8390 Fax 3: 775-642-0603 Fax 4: 530-309-7234 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 second 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)
Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org
Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email.
* 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. Access to Premium (P) links requires upgrade to a paid subscription.
One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com
Only subscribers or registered users of ICB Toll Fee News web site will be able to access all or some of the full text of URLs provided.
LEGAL STUFF: TELECOM Digest (sm) is owned by Patrick Townson. Copyright 2000 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA.
In addition, gifts from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert have enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com
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. 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 V22 #123
Would you now like to... t - Type out (Re-read) this message r - Reply to this message d - Delete this message u - Undelete this message n - Read the next unread message RETURN - Go back to the list of headersEnter Command: