From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon Aug 16 16:32:59 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p3/8.11.3) id i7GKWxa24498; Mon, 16 Aug 2004 16:32:59 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2004 16:32:59 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200408162032.i7GKWxa24498@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V23 #383 TELECOM Digest Mon, 16 Aug 2004 16:33:00 EDT Volume 23 : Issue 383 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Vonage Will Drive You Crazy - Beware Vonage (Dave Close) Re: Vonage Will Drive You Crazy - Beware Vonage (Isaiah Beard) Re: Information About Mosquitos Trojan (Jack) Re: 3L-4N Cities, Exchange Names, Lettered Dials (Neal McLain) Re: Q and Z on Dials - Standards? (Joseph) Re: Dating an Old Phone Number (Joseph) Re: Competion, New Technologies Take Sting Out (Dave Close) Re: Wardriving Guilty Plea in Lowe's Wi-Fi Case (Nick Landsberg) Re: Number Not in Use (Ned Protter) 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: dave@compata.com (Dave Close) Subject: Re: Vonage Will Drive You Crazy - Beware Vonage Date: 15 Aug 2004 18:19:16 -0700 Organization: Compata, Costa Mesa, California > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: And speaking of Vonage, I wonder if > that 'new' Motorola TA box is the source of my grief with my network > lately. I never, or rarely, had these up and downs when I had Vonage > as a port on the router instead of at the head of the line as it is > now. Although the phone seems to 'sound better' as it is now at the > head of the line, I may sacrifice that to not have so many LAN up > and downs, unless someone out there takes pity on an old man and > helps me do the tweaks as needed. PAT] I know that the Vonage instructions tell you to put the ATA between your router and the Internet. That won't work when, as in my case, DHCP is served by one of my internal machines, not by my router, since the ATA can't get an address and won't work without one. When I asked Vonage how to solve the problem, I was told to just put the ATA inside the local LAN. The alleged reason for putting it outside is to allow it to manage QOS, but tech support said that doesn't work anyway. Dave Close, Compata, Costa Mesa CA "If I seem unduly clear to you, dave@compata.com, +1 714 434 7359 you must have misunderstood dhclose@alumni.caltech.edu what I said." -- Alan Greenspan ------------------------------ From: Isaiah Beard Subject: Re: Vonage Will Drive You Crazy - Beware Vonage Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2004 22:59:01 -0400 TELECOM Digest Editor noted in response to Isaiah Beard: > And speaking of Vonage, I wonder if that 'new' Motorola TA box is > the source of my grief with my network lately. I never, or rarely, > had these up and downs when I had Vonage as a port on the router > instead of at the head of the line as it is now. Although the phone > seems to 'sound better' as it is now at the head of the line, I may > sacrifice that to not have so many LAN up and downs, unless someone > out there takes pity on an old man and helps me do the tweaks as > needed. PAT] Wish I could help, but so far this has not happened to me yet. I also have a Motorola. If it does happen, I'll see what I can find out abdout what causes it. ------------------------------ From: nuclearjack@hotmail.com (Jack) Subject: Re: Information About Mosquitos Trojan Date: 15 Aug 2004 23:50:09 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Yesterday Symbian put out a statement which contributed to the impression that malign code was inserted into 'cracked' versions of the game by members of the computer underground. However it turns out that the hidden SMS functionality, along with a message written in the best vernacular VXer speak, was put in the game from the beginning by the original games publisher Ojom. "The premium rate contracts for the phone numbers have been terminated, so although old versions of the game still send hidden SMS messages, it only costs the nominal fee of sending the message itself. Current versions of this game no longer have this hidden functionality, but 'cracked' versions of Mosquitos still float in P2P network -- and they still send these messages," it adds. http://www.f-secure.com/v-descs/mquito.shtml http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/08/11/mosquitos_malware_myth/ Monty Solomon wrote in message news:: > http://www.symbian.com/press-office/2004/pr040810.html > Information about Mosquitos Trojan > Symbian is aware that an illegally adapted or 'cracked' game called > Mosquitos is being distributed by 'warez' websites (illegal software > download sites) and on peer-to-peer (P2P) networks. This game has > been illegally adapted from the legitimate Mosquitos game developed by > Ojom. > If installed by the user, the illegal game may cause the phone to send > text messages to premium rate numbers without the user's approval or > knowledge. > Symbian offers the following summary information and advice: > http://www.symbian.com/press-office/2004/pr040810.html [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I wondered about that 'little problem', that premium charge telephone numbers, while not totally gone, are sort of odd: the premium charge to call only applies from within the same calling area. From outside the calling area, either the call will not complete at all, or it completes but at the normal toll rate. I got to thinking about that alleged scam several years ago where some fool was sending out text messages on pagers telling the owner to return a phone call to 212-540-xxxx. Remember that one? And *supposedly* business people from everywhere (California, Illinois, wherever) were calling into that number innocently, hearing an obscene rejoinder, and getting clipped on their phone bill (actually their company was paying the phone bill) for some obscene amount of money. Telecom managers everywhere were up in arms, sending out messages telling their people to *not* return those phone calls. Remember all that? The only telecom managers who had any real worries were those in the New York City exchange. Everyone outside that exchange only got a toll charge if anything. I must have gotten a couple dozen such 'warning' messages to be placed in the Digest from well-meaning telecom managers in those days. I wonder if Monty Solomon's 'hacked Mosquito game warning message' will get that much notoriety? I dunno how the Europeans handle premium charge calls from cell phones or if indeed, text messages sent out have any sort of semblance to USA text messages sent/recieved. I don't mean to sound crass or casual about what *could* be a problem for some phone users, however. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2004 21:46:56 -0500 From: Neal McLain Subject: RE: 3L-4N Cities, Exchange Names, Lettered Dials Anthony Bellanga wrote: > While I don't think any other parts of the world ever had > any 3L-4N numbering (or at least 3-letter Exchange Names), in > Denmark (at least in Kobenhaven), the dial had 3-letters for > most of the digits on the dial, just like in the US, Canada, > UK (at least the "director" areas) and France (at least Paris). > The lettering was slightly different than the North American > and even UK/France dial: > 1 = 'C' (for "Central" ??) > 2 = A B D > 3 = E F G > 4 = H I K > 5 = L M N > 6 = O P R (individual letters, not an abbreviation for Operator) > 7 = S T U > 8 = W X Y > 9 = AE, (shashed-O) > 0 = 'HJAELP' ("help", for Police, Fire, Ambulance, etc) A photo of the Danish dial is posted at: . Note that the "1" position is labeled "Central," as Bellanga surmised. The two characters in the "9" position are the 27th and 28th letters of the 29-letter Danish alphabet. . The embossed image in the center of the dial is the "The Danish National Coat of Arms." . Neal McLain ------------------------------ From: Joseph Subject: Re: Q and Z on Dials - Standards? Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2004 20:24:53 -0700 Reply-To: JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com On 14 Aug 2004 19:28:34 -0700, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com (Lisa Hancock) wrote: > I just curious, with the demise of the Bell System, if there was any > organization that sets standards for phones, esp new models, and > decided that indeed Q and Z would go over 7 and 9. The present standard 2 ABC, 3 DEF, 4 GHI, 5 JKL, 6 MNO, 7 PQRS, 8 TUV, 9 WXYZ was agreed upon by the ITU. > In a separate post, someone discussed London dials. What do > modern dials look like today in the rest of the world. Do they > even have letters? If so, are they over the same digits as us? Sometimes it matters where the phones are from, but generally the ITU standard makes it so that all dials can have letters with the numbers. Generally if you'll see that phones have the letters as above but generally will not have anything on the 0 key even though in the US and in Canada the 0 position by itself used to have the word Operator or abbreviated Oper. in the zero spot. Northern Electric/Northern Telecom/Nortel has not had operator on any of their sets even the 2500 sets for many many years. I think their 500 sets had the word diagonally Operator but I think that was the end of it for Northern Electric/Northern Telecom/Nortel. ------------------------------ From: Joseph Subject: Re: Dating an Old Phone Number Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2004 20:30:31 -0700 Reply-To: JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 14:31:29 -0700, wrote: > I am hoping you can help ... I have an old picture that has a "antique" > phone number. I am trying to date the picture. Below is the phone > number located in Brooklyn New York: > TRiangle 5-7871 > Can you date this phone number? I have searched the internet with no = > luck. Unless you have access to a history of when central office exchanges were put into service it's unlikely that you'll find this information. When I was in high school in 1970 I got hold of a publication from New England Telephone (hand typed!) that gave a history in the state of when the many and various COs were installed with magneto, common battery and dial offices. The book gave the dates when the various towns' service changed from one thing to another. Unless you can get hold of that information from someone who has connections to Verizon/Bell Atlantic/New York Telephone you may not be able to get the information. It's sad but the present "owners" of plant don't appear to be very concerned about their past and not a lot of effort has been put into documenting that past. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2004 18:19:59 -0700 From: Dave Close Subject: Re: Competition, New Technologies Take Sting Out of Long-Distance Organization: Compata, Costa Mesa, California Jack Decker quotes Christopher Stern of The Washington Post: > For millions of people, it no longer makes a difference if they call > across the country or across the street. And yet I haven't noticed any apologies from those who still insist on toll-alert dialing. Isn't it time to abolish that useless annoyance? Dave Close, Compata, Costa Mesa CA "If I seem unduly clear to you, dave@compata.com, +1 714 434 7359 you must have misunderstood dhclose@alumni.caltech.edu what I said." -- Alan Greenspan ------------------------------ From: Nick Landsberg Reply-To: SPAMhukolautTRAP@SPAMattTRAP.net Subject: Re: Wardriving Guilty Plea in Lowe's Wi-Fi Case Organization: AT&T Worldnet Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2004 01:13:39 GMT Wesrock@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated Fri, 13 Aug 2004 23:31:42 GMT, Nick Landsberg > writes: >> On a similar note and to use an analogy. >> If one were to (intentionally or unintentionally) leave their front >> door unlocked and got burglarized, would that absolve the burglars of >> guilt? The burglar probably could not be charged with "breaking and >> entering" but he sure as hell could be charged with "criminal >> trespass" and theft. (And probably "spitting on the sidewalk" just in >> case the cops wanted to have a longer list of charges.) > It is my recollection that any use of force to enter a place > fulfills the requirements to make it a burglary -- turning a knob, > pushing the door open, or any other such action. > Wes Leatherock > wesrock@aol.com > wleathus@yahoo.com > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I suppose then even without a door to > be broken down to enter, turning on a computer or tuning in a WiFi > card could consist of using force? PAT] Given Wes' note above, it would seem so. I am not a lawyer and have never been on either side of a burglary (thank God!), but what I initially posted was what I thought might be. Thus, to pursue the analogy to telecom. "Home Depot" (or some other store) installs a wireless network for their own convenience (serving the bar-code readers, the cash registers and whatnot, and letting them put cash-registers out in front of the "seasonal" department in the springtime when all those homeowners are buying the flats of flowers to plant. Note that these same cash-registers are transmitting the customers' credit card numbers to the MasterCard and Visa sites for validation.) Whoever installed their WiFi network was, to overstate the case, "clueless" with regards to security. In the specific case in point, I don't think it was actually "wardriving" (or whatever the term is). Given the circumstances as I have seen them described in this forum, several individuals "set up shop" in the parking lot of this store. (Correct me if I'm wrong on the details please.) One individual with a laptop computer was actively engaged in "finding a way in" to this store's wireless network. They found it (because the store was negligent in securing their network). I find it exceedingly hard to disbelieve that the other occupants of the car did not know the prupose for which they had "set up shop" in the parking lot of this particular store. Someone is guilty of the electronic equivalent of "breaking and entering," "burglary," "identity theft" (if they actually got credit-card info), etc. The others in the car are what I presume the lawyers would call "accessories to the fact." Now, this isn't a legalese newsgroup, so I'm probably off-base on some of my points, but I again fall back on the analogy to an unlocked house. Just because the front door is unlocked, does that make you any less guilty? If you're the driver in the car waiting by the curb, does the fact that the house was unlocked make you any less guilty? Danny Burstein wrote: > In Nick Landsberg > writes: >> On a similar note and to use an analogy. >> If one were to (intentionally or unintentionally) leave their front >> door unlocked and got burglarized, would that absolve the burglars of >> guilt? The burglar probably could not be charged with "breaking and >> entering" but he sure as hell could be charged with "criminal >> trespass" and theft. > I'll take your analogy and raise you one better: > You own a drive-in movie theater with two acres of land. You've got a > waist high chain link marking your property. > The screen is visible for hundreds of feet around. And the radio signal > you're using for the audio is similarly detectable. > People park outside your fence and watch and listen to the movie. > What's the crime? > (Note that I'm most specifically NOT excusing the credit card theft, > etc. Which, I guess to follow the analogy, would be the folk outsde the > fence coming in and stealing your hotdogs ...) I think the point is in the stealing of the hot dogs. :) In your extension of the analogy, the "crime" is benign in that it does not deprive anyone else of anything. (With the exception of the admission charge not paid to the proprietor.) But then, see Pat's comment below about the speakers being on a wire in the drive-in movies I was used to in my youth. Drive-in's are a thing of the past, as far as I can tell. The movie theaters nowadays gouge you not so much on the price of admission as on the price of hot dogs and popcorn. :) > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: If you were using the old-style > audio, where you pulled up in car next to a little loud speaker > which you had to open your window slightly and clip the speaker on > your window, I suppose you could deprive the outside audience of > *hearing* the movie at least with no little speaker box to clip > onto the car window. But try this one on for size: > We all know there are certain types of radio transmissions we are not > supposed to 'tune in' period, such as cell phone conversations. Yet > those transmissions, like all radio waves, permeate my property > continually; all sorts of radio waves are coming through this room in > my house all the time. Do I have the 'right' to examine anything > passing through my property, regardless of the intentions of the > owners of the property. Suppose someone built a house or owned > property right next door to Lowes as an example. Are they required to > ignore those WiFi signals which are on their property and not examine > them? Or could I rightfully demand that Lowes not 'come onto my > property' with their radio signals? PAT] "It is impossible to make anything foolproof because fools are so ingenious" - A. Bloch ------------------------------ From: Ned Protter Subject: Re: Number Not in Use Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2004 15:28:57 -0400 In article , Ned Protter wrote: > Today my answering machine received a telemarketing message telling me > to press 1 if I was interested. > I was interested. I got the number from Call Return. I wrote it down > and reread it when they announced it the second time. > I dialed it. After two rings I got three shrill tones and an > announcement that the number was not in service. I dialed again with > the same result. > How could I receive a call from an out-of-service number? > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You got that recording because the > company which called you diddled with their caller ID to keep you from > finding out what number they were really at. Its a very common technique > telemarketers use. I do not know if your comment 'I was interested' > was because you really were interested or if it was tongue in cheek > and you actually more interested in making trouble for the telemarketer, > but in any event they assumed you would not be interested and took > measures to assure you would not get back to them. PAT] Do they diddle with their caller ID because it's illegal for them to block it? Is it illegal to fake their caller ID? Could the phone company trace them anyway? Can they fake the area code and exchange as well as the OCN? The message intrigued me for two reasons. First, all I got was the last few seconds. She said it was a medical and dental discount plan for $129 a month. My machine's announcement is only four seconds, so it seems as if their message must have started before my machine answered. Second, the going rate for discount plans seems to be $129 per year, not per month. A couple of weeks ago, my machine recorded a message saying I'd won a trip. There was a thirteen-second delay before it started, and it was very distorted. It had come from a cell phone, as if somebody had dialed me and held the cell phone over an answering machine that played back a telemarketing message. I wonder if the discount-plan message was also a prank. In the exchange area I got from Call Return is a household where the father and son are IT professionals who love games. The message may have been designed to raise eyebrows if it had not started prematurely. If their computer was set to tell callers the number was out of service, Caller ID would give them a list of people who had been intrigued enough to call back. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Its not illegal for them to block their number; that is what *67 is used for. But many recipients of telephone calls choose not to answer calls with blocked ID; in fact telco also sells a 'blocking blocked ID' service just to accomodate those folks. But if a person subscribes to 'blocking blocked ID service'it will *not* work if the caller puts any sort of squibble at all in your caller ID device. In other words, if they give their name as "NOTCHUR BIZ" and their 'phone number' as 000-000-0000 some of the telcos will insist (SBC is notorious in this way) that a 'valid number and valid ID has been presented' therefore block-blocking does not apply. SBC says "we did our part of the deal, now you do your part and pay your damn phone bill". I've had calls from Notchur at his office and gotten similar very insolent and arrogant comments from the flunkies at SBC who respond in the name of their chairman. The only thing no one is able to lie about is the pairs used for the connection, but telcos won't give that information out. I'd much rather see something like "Chicago-Kedzie, cable 2933, pair 2711" on my caller ID instead of some of the Bologna that shows up now, but telcos won't do that. Maybe it has something to do with 'terrorism' which is everyone's favorite red herring these days. 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) 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. 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 ! ************************ --------------------------------------------------------------- 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. If you donate at least fifty dollars per year we will send you our two-CD set of the entire Telecom Archives; this is every word published in this Digest since our beginning in 1981. 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 V23 #383 ******************************