From: editor@telecom-digest.org (unknown)
To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: [telecom] TELECOM Digest V22 #123
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 19:27:26 -0500 (EST)


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 (jt)
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 archive 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 they 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 number 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 fool, 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 password 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 08:13:36 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> wrote in 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.usenet.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.

http://pointme.to

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 resulted 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 Free 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




--
"Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. 
It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the 
people against the dangers of good intentions.  They promise to be good 
masters, but they mean to be masters." -- Noah Webster