From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Feb 19 01:16:18 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p2/8.11.3) id i1J6GHI08119; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 01:16:18 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2004 01:16:18 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200402190616.i1J6GHI08119@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 #80 TELECOM Digest Thu, 19 Feb 2004 01:16:00 EST Volume 23 : Issue 80 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Long Distance Wrong Numbers From Everywhere (Nick Landsberg) Re: Long Distance Wrong Numbers From Everywhere (Paul Lee) Re: Long Distance Wrong Numbers From Everywhere (McWebber) Re: Cable Modem Hackers Conquer the Co-ax (none@none.com) The Very, Very Personal Is the Political (Monty Solomon) Re: The Five Sisters (Gene S. Berkowitz) Distractions While Driving -- and Not Just Cell Phones (Carl Moore) Re: Cell Phone Numbering Arrangments (Joseph) Blogs (Web Logs): What am I Not Getting? (jmayson@nyx.net) 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 is 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: Nick Landsberg Subject: Re: Long Distance Wrong Numbers From Everywhere Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 20:22:32 GMT Organization: AT&T Worldnet Patrick basically got it right, but, for those who may not now how 800 service works: There is conceptually "no such thing" as an 800 number (or 888, 877, 866). Switches are programmed to make a "dip" into a network database when they see these prefixes. In the network database is a "routing table" which matches on dialed number, originating NPA-NXX, and time of day, among other things, to look up the actual "POTS" line to which to route the call. No part of the POTS number need match any digits of the 800 number. Thus, dialing 866-222-3333 from 973 may get you Joe's Pizza in Madison NJ while dialing the same number from 937 (Southern Ohio) may get you Horst's Hofbrau Haus in Cincinatti. Since David did get the calls from all over the country, this is not the case and it is probably a "global" routing, meaning route to the same number whatever the originating NPA. The other variation is time of day, which can be programmed in 15 minutes intervals. For example, between 8 AM and 11 AM Eastern Time, route all calls to a call center in the eastern time zone. 11 AM to 1 PM, route them 50% each to numbers in the eastern and central time-zones, etc., etc. Large companies with multiple "call-centers" use this feature. If these calls are happening at a particular time of day, then only a portion of the routing table is messed up. Nick L. David Kirkpatrick wrote: > Dear Patrick, > For about three weeks now we've been receiving (wrong number) long > distance calls from Florida, New York, Vermont, California, Ohio and > Massachusetts. When questioned, the few callers that remained on the > line reported they received a message either on their voice mail or on > their answering machine asking them to phone: 1-866-829-8229. This is > apparently one of A T & T's numbers in the states, and it's rerouting > to our Vancouver number. > Have you and/or your staff heard of anything like this > before? Our local provider is sorting this out; have been on the case > for 4-5 days now, but the A T & T number info we've only had for about > 18 hours now. > With appreciation, > David Kirkpatrick > davidcan@axion.net > 604-913-2000 > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I tried 866-829-8229 myself just now > and got (what I assume) was your answering machine. What I think has > happened is that the place in charge of assigning and routing toll > free 800 numbers -- they are referred to in the telecom business as > 'RespOrgs' (or the Responsible Organizations) has somehow incorrectly > assigned your number as the recipient of these calls you are getting. > Your local service provider can do nothing for you except possibly > act in your behalf in locating the resporg and asking them to stop > the mis-routing. If that toll-free number is what I think it is, it > should be ringing to the collection department at AT&T; they want to > get the caller to pay their AT&T phone bills. My clue here is the > caller who leaves the message for the recipient does not discuss the > nature of the call or the reason for it. Laws here in the USA (Fair > Debt Collection Practices Act) forbid the 'publication' or discussion > of an alleged debt with any third party. They cannot tell 'just > anyone' who answers -- or an answering machine -- what the company > wants them to do, namely pay their bills. > Rather than get into a discussion of all that, which will only confuse > the issue, just ask your local telco (or preferably, an 800 toll-free > specialist) to find out who is the resporg on that number 866-829-8229 > and route it someplace other than your number. I'll bet anything that > there is one digit off (probably in the area code) which a data entry > operator mistakenly entered. > Aternate solution #1: Want a toll free (and literally *free* for you) > number from the USA to ring at your premises for your convenience. > Start giving out that number to your freinds, family, etc. Try to > ignore the hardships of the wrong number callers looking for AT&T. > Alternate guerilla solution #2: When you are there to receive the > calls, tell the caller that 'AT&T has decided to forgive them of their > indebtedness entirely provided they sign up with some other carrier > in the future. (?)(!). I think if the master solution does not work > rather quickly (and it is the most honorable) then alternates 1 or 2 > should work rather soon. PAT] "It is impossible to make anything foolproof because fools are so ingenious" - A. Bloch ------------------------------ Date: 18 Feb 2004 21:13:47 -0000 From: palee@riteaid.com Subject: Re: Long Distance Wrong Numbers From Everywhere In TELECOM Digest V23 #78, David Kirkpatrick wrote (in part): > For about three weeks now we've been receiving (wrong number) > long distance calls from Florida, New York, Vermont, California, > Ohio and Massachusetts. When questioned, the few callers that > remained on the line reported they received a message either on > their voice mail or on their answering machine asking them to > phone: 1-866-829-8229. This is apparently one of A T & T's > numbers in the states, and it's rerouting to our Vancouver number. According to SBC's RespOrg identification service, the RespOrg for 866-829-8229 is "SPSC1" with a trouble reporting number of 800-600-1186. That appears to be Call-Net / Sprint Canada. I suggest you call the trouble reporting number and let them know that at least some calls to 866-829-8229 are being misrouted to your number. They should be able to take care of it within 15 to 30 minutes at most. Paul A Lee Voice: +1 717 730-8355 Sr Telecom Engineer [Voice & Transmission] Fax: +1 717 975-3789 Rite Aid Corporation, Telecomm, 30 Hunter Lane, Camp Hill, PA 17011-2410 ------------------------------ From: McWebber Subject: Re: Long Distance Wrong Numbers From Everywhere Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 19:59:46 -0500 David Kirkpatrick wrote in message news:telecom23.78.1@telecom-digest.org: > For about three weeks now we've been receiving (wrong number) long > distance calls from Florida, New York, Vermont, California, Ohio and > Massachusetts. When questioned, the few callers that remained on the > line reported they received a message either on their voice mail or on > their answering machine asking them to phone: 1-866-829-8229. This is > apparently one of A T & T's numbers in the states, and it's rerouting > to our Vancouver number. TELECOM Digest Editor gave smart-mouth solution to problem: > Alternate guerilla solution #2: When you are there to receive the > calls, tell the caller that 'AT&T has decided to forgive them of their > indebtedness entirely provided they sign up with some other carrier > in the future. (?)(!). I think if the master solution does not work > rather quickly (and it is the most honorable) then alternates 1 or 2 > should work rather soon. PAT] #3: When the caller ID shows some US number you don't recognize answer the phone, "White House, George Bush speaking." McWebber "Richter points to the lack of legal action against his company as proof that he's operating appropriately." Information Week, November 10, 2003 ------------------------------ From: none@none.com Subject: Re: Cable Modem Hackers Conquer the Co-ax Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 19:56:01 -0800 Organization: - On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 20:21:07 -0500, Monty Solomon wrote: > By Kevin Poulsen, SecurityFocus > A small and diverse band of hobbyists steeped in the obscure languages > of embedded systems has released its own custom firmware for a popular > brand of cable modem, along with a technique for loading it -- a > development that's already made life easier for uncappers and service > squatters, and threatens to topple long-held assumptions about the > privacy of cable modem communications. > The program, called Sigma, was released in its final version last > month, and has reportedly been downloaded 350 to 400 times a day ever > since. It's designed to be flashed into the non-volatile memory of > certain models of Motorola's Surfboard line, where it runs in parallel > with the device's normal functionality. It gives users almost complete > control of their cable modem -- a privilege previously reserved for > the service provider. > The project is the work of a gang of coders called TCNiSO. With about > ten active members worldwide, the group is supported by contributions > from the uncapping community -- speed-hungry Internet users who rely > on TCNiSO's research and free hackware to surmount the bandwidth caps > imposed by service providers, usually in violation of their service > agreement, if not the law. To them, Sigma is a delight, because it > makes it simple to change the modem's configuration file -- the key to > uncapping, and, on some systems, to getting free anonymous service > using "unregistered" modems. "I've known TCNiSO for two years now and > I've done a lot of things with their techniques," wrote a Canadian > uncapper in an e-mail interview. "Sigma is the greatest one I've > seen." > http://www.securityfocus.com/news/7977 One of the things that has me concerned and hope others is what was listed in the article. That cable modem traffic is pinged or actually "Routed" off other cable modems, so that traffic can be handled more effectively as a huge LAN My questions is: 1) Where is the security for traffic on this network? 2) Why has the cable modem services industry not taken a lead to encrypt or block access of traffic not deemed for a particular router off-limits, so that it can be shared with another user??? Jeremy supercommodore@maildotcom [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Although I do not know the particulars of this, I do know that Mr. Mike Flood, the general manager of Cable One, here in Independence told me 'that was all taken care of recently' when I asked him 'what prevents everyone on the cable from showing up in my Network Neighborhood, and the other way around.' I am sorry to say I did not understand his sort of technical explanation. Maybe some of you could explain it to me in simple words. Its not a problem with DSL, since everyone goes to the central office on their own pair. But with a cable strung around, what *does* prevent us from being each other's Neighbor for spy purposes, etc. Anyone? PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 23:35:49 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: The Very, Very Personal Is the Political By JON GERTNER Suppose, for the sake of argument, that you are called into the boss's office and asked to help sell the citizens of the United States on one of two presidential candidates in the 2004 campaign. Hard work, but what makes it especially tough is that you've been directed to try something experimental, something that's never been done before in a national election. Instead of creating a traditional political narrative for your candidate -- one that highlights charisma or character, for instance, or one that hews to a message on taxes or Social Security -- you've been told to focus on nothing but the people who might be persuaded to vote. In other words, forget about your candidate's nuanced ideas for space exploration or ending the conflict in Iraq. Forget about TV commercials, forget about radio, forget about debates, forget about the ups and downs of the news cycle. Think voters -- just voters. And don't think only in terms of big demographic groups like senior citizens, middle-class white men or young single women; don't think about them only in terms of geographical areas like districts or precincts or even neighborhoods. Think about what they like, what they do, what they consume. Think about them one by one. Name by name, address by address, phone by phone. These are the customers you have to get to buy your Brand A over Brand B. So who are they? Where are they? Are they rich, with three kids and a jumbo mortgage? Do they own fly rods and drive minivans? Do they go to church or temple? And maybe most important, who among them has never voted, or rarely voted, or voted in ways that may deserve the special status of swing voter? To do the job right, of course, to really win this thing, you've got to find them, woo them and get them to the polls. Where to start? These days, the first stop is a comprehensive database of U.S. voters. There are fewer than half a dozen of them. One, named Voter Vault, belongs to the Republican National Committee; another, named Datamart, belongs to the Democratic National Committee. Over the past few years, thanks to technological advances and an escalating arms race between the parties, Republicans and Democrats have gone to great lengths to make campaigning more like commercial marketing. Moreover, both parties have begun to sort through their troves of information in order to identify and then court individual voters. Variations on the new political sharpshooting have been tested successfully by the Republican and Democratic Parties in several recent statewide elections. And over the next few months, a handful of pollsters, tacticians and statisticians on each side, almost certainly fewer than two dozen political pros in all, will be scrutinizing socioeconomic data in Washington and Virginia as a part of their targeting work -- sometimes they also call it microtargeting -- in the coming general election. This is a complicated business. Each party's databank has the name of every one of the 168 million or so registered voters in the country, cross-indexed with phone numbers, addresses, voting history, income range and so on -- up to as many as several hundred points of data on each voter. The information has been acquired from state voter-registration rolls, census reports, consumer data-mining companies and direct marketing vendors. The parties have also amassed detailed information about the political and social beliefs that you might have shared with canvassers who have phoned or knocked on the door over the past few years. While specifics vary, a typical voter profile like my own, for instance, would show my age, address, phone numbers; which elections I've voted in over the past 10 or 15 years and whether I've ever voted on an absentee ballot; and my e-mail address. It would include my New Jersey party registration (Democrat), whether I've ever made a political donation (none that I recall), my approximate income, my ethnicity, my marital status and the number of children living in my house. Thanks to the ready availability of subscriber lists, mortgage data and product warranty information, the parties might use records of the newspapers I read (this one), the computer I work on (a Macintosh), the men's-wear catalogs I receive (Brooks Brothers, Land's End) and the loan-to-value ratio of my home. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/15/magazine/15VOTERS.html *** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. This Internet discussion group is making it available without profit to group members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of literary, educational, political, and economic issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. I believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml ------------------------------ From: Gene S. Berkowitz Subject: Re: The Five Sisters Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 23:55:26 -0500 In article , monty@roscom.com says: > By WILLIAM SAFIRE > WASHINGTON - If one huge corporation controlled both the production > and the dissemination of most of our news and entertainment, couldn't > it rule the world? > Can't happen here, you say; America is the land of competition that > generates new technology to ensure a diversity of voices. But > consider how a supine Congress and a feckless majority of the Federal > Communications Commission have been failing to protect our access to > a variety of news, views and entertainment. > The media giant known as Viacom-CBS-MTV just showed us how it > controls both content and communication of the sexiest Super Bowl. > The five other big sisters that now bestride the world are (1) > Murdoch-FoxTV-HarperCollins-WeeklyStandard-NewYorkPost- > LondonTimes-DirecTV; > (2) G.E.-NBC-Universal-Vivendi; (3) Time-Warner-CNN-AOL; (4) > Disney-ABC-ESPN; and (5) the biggest cable company, Comcast. > http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/16/opinion/16SAFI.html But let's not forget the Gray Lady herself (a Step Sister, perhaps?): New York Times Group Holdings: (Newspapers) The New York Times, The Boston Globe, Houma Courier, Thibodaux Daily Comet, Palatka Daily News, Opelousas Daily World, Lexington Dispatch, The Gadsden Times, The Gainesville Sun, International Herald Tribune, Lake City Reporter, Lakeland Ledger, Marco Island Eagle, Fernandina Beach News-Leader, Sebring News-Sun, Santa Rosa Press Democrat, Sarasota Herald-Tribune, Spartanburg Herald-Journal, Ocala Star-Banner, Florence Times-Daily, Hendersonville Times-News, The Tuscaloosa News, Wilmington Morning Star, The Worcester Telegram & Gazette (Television Stations) KFOR Oklahoma City KFSM Fort Smith WHNT Huntsville WHO Des Moines WNEP Scranton/Wilkes-Barre WQAD Moline WREG Memphis WTKR Norfolk ... plus two FM radio stations, part of the Ovation Cable Network, various electronic information services, and THREE GOLF MAGAZINES! --Gene ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 17:48:23 EST From: Carl Moore Subject: Distractions While Driving -- And Not Just Cell Phones I take it a suggested common denominator in police reports about traffic accidents would be to note any driver distraction which had a part in the accident. I was in a minor accident myself last month when, on a 2-lane road, an oncoming driver (who later admitted to reaching down for his gloves) drifted into my lane and hit the left side of a rented car I was driving. We did get an officer to the scene and he got the story about the gloves and the drifting into my lane, and that other driver was cited. Some time ago, I noted a news story from Pennsylvania about the governor of that state asking police to note on their reports (using "remarks" if no special cell-phone category was available) any cell-phone use which contributed to an accident. By the way, the accident I was in was in New York state, the same state where I had rented that car. It was posted in the car-rental office (and seen by me on a sign as I drove into NY state a year earlier on Interstate 81) that it is illegal in NY state to use a handheld phone while driving (I don't have it in front of me what emergency exception might exist). But I occasionally saw drivers using handheld phones anyway in NY state. ------------------------------ From: Joseph Subject: Re: Cell Phone Numbering Arrangments Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 14:55:45 -0800 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Reply-To: JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.NONOcom On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 03:30:56 GMT, Michael D. Sullivan wrote: > Before the FCC banned technology-specific overlay area codes, it > authorized New York to use a new overlay code (718?) for cell phones, > faxes, and internal telco lines for several years. That code has > since become a normal overlay code, with wireline phones in it as well > as the others. Actually it was area code 917 and for a few years it was a technology specific area code for use in all five boroughs for cell phones and pagers. And yes now all classes of service can be assigned in area code 917. > Given the introduction of full number portability between wireline and > wireless phones (with some exceptions, probably temporary), the genie > is out of the bottle; it won't be possible to have an area code that > is wireless-only or wireline-only. It's not necessarily that. It has just been decided that the NANP will have area code specific mobile service. Even in plans for the expansion of the NANP there's no mention of having mobile only "area codes" which would mean the possibility of caller pays mobile service as is the case in Europe and Asia. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - remove NONO from .NONOcom to reply ------------------------------ From: jmayson@nyx.net Subject: Blogs (web logs): What am I Not Getting? Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2004 02:32:12 GMT Organization: Road Runner High Speed Online http://www.rr.com Pat posted his blog URL the other day: http://patricktownson-live.us.tf. Whenever I see a blog, I ask one question. Why? I will admit it can be fun to read other people's blogs, but most are mind-numbing garbage (not yours, of course, Pat ;-) And in all honesty I don't want people to know what I'm thinking. If I shared what was running through my mind, I'd probably have a nice, well-padded room on the top floor of the Austin State Hospital. I'm just curious why people blog. Are there any, for the lack of a better term, practical blogs out there? I'm not criticizing blogging, I'm just trying to understand it better. John Mayson Austin, Texas, USA [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Anything you don't want people to know about, you do not put on a computer. And, let's be real frank here. All of us -- everyone of us -- has secrets which would shame the devil if they were known. None of us are exceptions to that. Those of us who 'blog' generally do it to share our ideas and wisdom with the readers of same. I started my blog for just that reason: a way to interact with others outside the confines of the TELECOM Digest as desired. To share with them and learn from them and hopefully teach a few of them. I do not know about other's intentions. 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: 620-330-6774 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 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. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Copyright 2003 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 #80 *****************************