|
|
Message Digest
Volume 28 : Issue 277 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
Re: Email scams: it's different when it's personal
Re: Email scams: it's different when it's personal
Re: For Americans, Plastic Buys Less Abroad
FCC Chairman: Bandwidth Shortage Threatens Future of Cell Phones
Re: FCC Chairman: Bandwidth Shortage Threatens Future of Cell Phones
Re: FCC Chairman: Bandwidth Shortage Threatens Future of Cell Phones
NYPD knows who you've been talking to. And where you've been..
Re: NYPD knows who you've been talking to. And where you've been..
Re: NYPD knows who you've been talking to. And where you've been..
Re: NYPD knows who you've been talking to. And where you've been..
Every time I try and hate Her Kids a little less -- LNP and Ringmate
Re: Western Union's satellite loss
Re: Western Union's satellite loss
Re: Western Union's satellite loss
Re: Western Union's satellite loss
Re: Western Union's satellite loss
New email posting controls (Please read) [NFP]
====== 28 years of TELECOM Digest -- Founded August 21, 1981 ======
Telecom and VOIP (Voice over Internet Protocol) Digest for the
Internet. All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson and
the individual writers/correspondents. Articles may be used in other
journals or newsgroups, provided the writer's name and the Digest are
included in the fair use quote. By using -any name or email address-
included herein for -any- reason other than responding to an article
herein, you agree to pay a hundred dollars to the recipients of the
email.
===========================
Addresses herein are not to be added to any mailing list, nor to be
sold or given away without explicit written consent. Chain letters,
viruses, porn, spam, and miscellaneous junk are definitely unwelcome.
We must fight spam for the same reason we fight crime: not because we
are naive enough to believe that we will ever stamp it out, but because
we do not want the kind of world that results when no one stands
against crime. Geoffrey Welsh
===========================
See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details
and the name of our lawyer, and other stuff of interest.
Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2009 07:46:09 +0100
From: David Quinton <usenet_2005D_email@REMOVETHISBITbizorg.co.uk>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Email scams: it's different when it's personal
Message-ID: <dk2rc55gqdul6pin4pi4qj4rurbprc3qfe@4ax.com>
On Thu, 8 Oct 2009 01:50:52 -0400 (EDT), Telecom digest moderator
<redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu> wrote:
[snip]
> "For confirmation of the check delivery, notify the issuer with the email below:
>
> worldovationals@yahoo.com"
>
>... which, needless to say, puzzled the hell out of me.
not the frst time that address has been used:
http://www.google.co.uk/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GGLG_enGB315&q=%22++worldovationals@yahoo.com%22
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 07:53:25 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Email scams: it's different when it's personal
Message-ID: <9d990a13-7b5e-4f92-8d5b-68fbaca145ad@v2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>
On Oct 8, 1:50 am, Telecom digest moderator
<redac...@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu> wrote:
> This is scary because it could have happened to my kid, who is trying
> to find a job, and who doesn't have any experience in the world, and
> who has lived with a computer and email since he was in grade
> school. It is scary because I have to check his credit reports and
> mine, because I have to admit that our banking system is a creaking
> and decrepit horse-drawn-buggy with a lot of electronic duct-tape
> holding it together, and because that system could have run over an
> impressionable and innocent young man.
I'm not sure I'd describe today's banking systems as "horse drawn
buggy". Us old folk remember when to get money out of your bank you
had to go in person to relatively few branches during rather limited
banking hours (closed on weekends). Now we can get to our money in a
snap from anywhere from ATM's located everywhere. In the past to get
retail credit we had to fill out an application and patiently wait,
today we walk into a store and get instant credit on the spot. Our
checks clear faster. We can get account information 24/7 over the
phone.
In my opinion, the problem is opposite--the power and cheapness of
today's technology allows scams like this to take place to the extent
that they do.
> It's not an abstraction anymore. This could have happened to me and
> mine.
At the risk of offending almost every participant here, in my opinoin
the technology people themselves need to do more to prevent this sort
of thing and bear some of the blame. I realize when one is working
for someone else and the boss says "jump!" you ask "how high?" If the
boss orders you to leave out proper and appropriate system controls
that enhance accuracy and security, or refuses to assign necessary
people to review such controls, the technologist's options are
limited. But, not all bosses are dictators and not all companies are
merciless bean-counting S.O.B.'s.
The technological community has to take a greater stand and say fraud
and misuse are wrong and speak out on ways to strengthen systems to
prevent that sort of thing.
Web browsers should not be so damn automated that the mere opening of
an email triggers all sorts of havoc.
ISPs should be required to meet strict standards before originating
anything onto the Internet and those who don't (eg foreign sources)
should be so labeled and blacklisted.
The government should be more proactive in tracking down perpetrators.
Suppose your son had sent the money; that should be able to be
tracked, but apparently not.
***** Moderator's Note *****
Lisa (or is it Jeff? I'm never sure who I'm talking to with you ...)
I knew an alcohol addiction rehabilitation counselor who worked for
the U.S. Army. He was a recovering addict himself, and he had a
favorite phrase: "Don't should on yourself".
Bill Horne
Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2009 18:01:35 +1100
From: David Clayton <dcstar@NOSPAM.myrealbox.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: For Americans, Plastic Buys Less Abroad
Message-ID: <pan.2009.10.08.07.01.30.811480@NOSPAM.myrealbox.com>
On Wed, 07 Oct 2009 15:13:29 -0400, ranck wrote:
> David Clayton <dcstar@nospam.myrealbox.com> wrote:
>
>> People should also be aware that these "chip" cards also have privacy
>> (rather, lack of it) concerns for the individual card users. AFAIK they
>> can store data about transactions so when used in an off-line mode the
>> terminal can interrogate the card to determine if it should approve the
>> transaction without direct confirmation from an on-line source
>> (probably via algorithms on previous purchasing patterns, I would say -
>> at a guess).
>
> Uh, it should be much simpler than that. Really, all the card needs to
> "remember" is how much has been used as a total, it doesn't need to
> store transaction details. I'm not saying they don't store those
> details, but they really should not need to, and the merchant's machine
> has no need to be able to query previous transactions. It only needs to
> query how much "money" is available. If I were designing such a
> card/chip system and wanted to store transactions on the card itself I'd
> encrypt those so merchants could not get the info and only report back a
> maximum allowable charge amount when queried. But why store them at
> all?
>
Unfortunately the simple "Is the transaction under the limit" test doesn't
really work if the card number has also been used in a non-swipe mode,
such as an Internet purchase, where the chip does not get (immediately)
updated. Even using the card on non-chip EFTPOS terminals will not update
that info.
Stolen cards can be quickly maxed out by on-line purchases, and if you
then have a suspect card saying "Ok" to someone making a high value
off-line purchase then the card issuers don't like this sort of thing -
hence the pattern matching as an additional level of fraud protection.
>> Currently only your card issuer has the sum total of all of your
>> transactions, with individual transaction points only able to see
>> specific transactions that pass through their systems - now with this
>> data stored in a location accessible to ALL places that you use the
>> card (the actual chip on the card itself) and actually used in the
>> transaction process, who knows how much information individual
>> retailers/vendors can now collect about your card use at other places?
>
> Do you know for a fact this info is stored on the card/chip? Do you
> have a reference to an article or technical description?
>
I don't have any specifics at the moment, but I recall being told at an
industry conference a year or so ago that one of the "features" of these
chip cards was that they would hold sufficient information/ability to do
off-line approvals of transactions based on previous use patterns - all in
the name of improved security.
Currently a lot of the bank issuers' on-line systems here have monitoring
software to generate alerts if card use is atypical (one system is called
the "Falcon"), and I'm fairly sure that they can initially reject a
suspect on-line transaction by requiring the shop to then ring up for a
manual approval (at least we have those sort of codes in our list from our
EFTPOS provider - I don't spend a lot of time at the counters so I haven't
seen it happen myself).
I am basically going on a mix of the little titbits of info on these cards
from my side of the industry and my (well earned) distrust of the sort of
organisations that would love to get this sort of usage info if it became
technically possible...... ;-)
I once made a submission to a government report (about 20 years ago, IIRC)
here on PCS systems that cellphone use could be a potential privacy threat
because of the ability to track someone's locations via the base station
registration info. I recall at the time the general consensus was that it
either couldn't or wouldn't be a problem (for so many reasons) and it
wasn't worth more than a few lines in the final report.... but some of us
never grow out of this sort of paranoia.....
--
Regards, David.
David Clayton
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Knowledge is a measure of how many answers you have, intelligence is a
measure of how many questions you have.
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 12:41:36 -0500
From: John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: FCC Chairman: Bandwidth Shortage Threatens Future of Cell Phones
Message-ID: <6645152a0910081041i158230d1j82dc26aaadd45849@mail.gmail.com>
SAN DIEGO - The chairman of the Federal Communications Commission
warned Wednesday of "a looming spectrum crisis" if the government
fails to find ways to come up with more bandwidth for mobile devices.
Julius Genachowski said the government is tripling the amount of
spectrum available for commercial uses. The problem is that many
industry experts predict wireless traffic will increase 30 times
because of online video and other bandwidth-heavy applications.
More at... http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,562420,00.html
--
John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
Austin, Texas, USA
Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2009 18:48:34 -0700
From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: FCC Chairman: Bandwidth Shortage Threatens Future of Cell Phones
Message-ID: <KDwzm.8$cL1.7@newsfe20.iad>
John Mayson wrote:
> SAN DIEGO - The chairman of the Federal Communications Commission
> warned Wednesday of "a looming spectrum crisis" if the government
> fails to find ways to come up with more bandwidth for mobile devices.
>
> Julius Genachowski said the government is tripling the amount of
> spectrum available for commercial uses. The problem is that many
> industry experts predict wireless traffic will increase 30 times
> because of online video and other bandwidth-heavy applications.
>
> More at... http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,562420,00.html
Maybe it will all die a natural death, then folks can rediscover
wireline service.
***** Moderator's Note *****
There will be a couple of generations before cellular users get tired
of their electronic leash: as I've been saying for a long time, the
only thing money can really buy is the right to be left alone.
I don't know if the backlash will start because of the cellular
generation getting older and wiser, or because some efficiency expert
will prove how much being constantly turned on impairs real
productivity - but it will happen.
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2009 20:28:34 -0700
From: Steven <diespammers@killspammers.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: FCC Chairman: Bandwidth Shortage Threatens Future of Cell Phones
Message-ID: <hamal5$f4j$1@news.eternal-september.org>
Sam Spade wrote:
> John Mayson wrote:
>> SAN DIEGO - The chairman of the Federal Communications Commission
>> warned Wednesday of "a looming spectrum crisis" if the government
>> fails to find ways to come up with more bandwidth for mobile devices.
>>
>> Julius Genachowski said the government is tripling the amount of
>> spectrum available for commercial uses. The problem is that many
>> industry experts predict wireless traffic will increase 30 times
>> because of online video and other bandwidth-heavy applications.
>>
>> More at... http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,562420,00.html
>
> Maybe it will all die a natural death, then folks can rediscover
> wireline service.
>
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> There will be a couple of generations before cellular users get tired
> of their electronic leash: as I've been saying for a long time, the
> only thing money can really buy is the right to be left alone.
>
> I don't know if the backlash will start because of the cellular
> generation getting older and wiser, or because some efficiency expert
> will prove how much being constantly turned on impairs real
> productivity - but it will happen.
>
> Bill Horne
> Moderator
>
And we will be going back to SXS, regulation and The Bell System.
--
The only good spammer is a dead one!! Have you hunted one down today?
(c) 2009 I Kill Spammers, inc, A Rot in Hell. Co.
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 15:22:01 -0400
From: danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: NYPD knows who you've been talking to. And where you've been..
Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.4.64.0910081518260.18920@panix5.panix.com>
and where you've been going. And what you've been wearing...
[NY Daily News]
The NYPD is amassing a database of cell phone users, instructing cops
to log serial numbers from suspects' phones in hopes of connecting
them to past or future crimes.
In the era of disposable, anonymous cell phones, the file could be a
treasure-trove for detectives investigating drug rings and other
criminal enterprises, police sources say.
Read more:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2009/10/08/2009-10-08_number_please_nypd_tracking_cell_phone_owners_but_foes_arent_sure_practice_is_le.html#ixzz0TLtdodRt
----------
Question to our knowledgable folk here: is enough of the phone's ID
transmitted in the clear when it does the periodic "here I am" ping
that people could track it? (Aside from the cellco, of course).
In other words, could the NYPD, now that it's got this database, use
its own receivers to keep maps of everyone's travel?
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dannyb@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 19:47:13 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: NYPD knows who you've been talking to. And where you've been..
Message-ID: <6510daff-2212-4697-9304-faab0d2dd42e@g1g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>
On Oct 8, 3:48 pm, danny burstein <dan...@panix.com> wrote:
> Question to our knowledgable folk here: is enough of the phone's ID
> transmitted in the clear when it does the periodic "here I am" ping
> that people could track it? (Aside from the cellco, of course).
>
> In other words, could the NYPD, now that it's got this database, use
> its own receivers to keep maps of everyone's travel?
An enormous number of people in NYC are on their cell phones at any
given moment. Even with today's technology I suspect the volume of
calls and callers would be too high to be tracked.
On TV cops routinely get landline and cellphone detailed call records.
Do they do that in real life? Are local landline calls, especially
from unlimited lines, tracked by the phoneco in such detail for a long
period of time? I would think that data would be too large to
economically be stored and not necessary for billing purposes? In the
old days they weren't stored, rather, a counter associated with each
phone line would click off usage and that would be billed as message
units.
***** Moderator's Note *****
Tracking calls from cell phones is easy: tracking the phones turns out
to be much harder. Finding someone who's called 911 is relatively
easy: after all, they are seeking help. Locating a person who
doesn't want to be tracked is a much harder proposition, and legally
much more thorny. After all, not even GPS can prove if a particular
phone was inside a bank that was robbed, or being held on the public
sidewalk five feet away.
Tracking data is only useful when combined with other information, and
criminals are already smart enough to use throw-away cell phones for
anything really nasty, so it's very easy to muddy the statistical
pool. Any "tracking" system that can be undermined by a sheet of
aluminum foil wrapped around a cell phone is doomed to fail.
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2009 16:36:39 +1100
From: David Clayton <dcstar@NOSPAM.myrealbox.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: NYPD knows who you've been talking to. And where you've been..
Message-ID: <pan.2009.10.09.05.36.36.159967@NOSPAM.myrealbox.com>
On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 23:48:35 -0400, hancock4 wrote:
> On Oct 8, 3:48 pm, danny burstein <dan...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>> Question to our knowledgable folk here: is enough of the phone's ID
>> transmitted in the clear when it does the periodic "here I am" ping
>> that people could track it? (Aside from the cellco, of course).
>>
>> In other words, could the NYPD, now that it's got this database, use
>> its own receivers to keep maps of everyone's travel?
>
> An enormous number of people in NYC are on their cell phones at any
> given moment. Even with today's technology I suspect the volume of
> calls and callers would be too high to be tracked.
>
> On TV cops routinely get landline and cellphone detailed call records.
> Do they do that in real life? Are local landline calls, especially from
> unlimited lines, tracked by the phoneco in such detail for a long period
> of time? I would think that data would be too large to economically be
> stored and not necessary for billing purposes? In the old days they
> weren't stored, rather, a counter associated with each phone line would
> click off usage and that would be billed as message units.
>
These days the cost of storing data is trivial compared to even just a few
years ago. In theory location registration data & call record data could
be stored indefinitely - either on-line or in archives (somewhere).
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> Tracking calls from cell phones is easy: tracking the phones turns out
> to be much harder. Finding someone who's called 911 is relatively easy:
> after all, they are seeking help. Locating a person who doesn't want
> to be tracked is a much harder proposition, and legally much more
> thorny. After all, not even GPS can prove if a particular phone was
> inside a bank that was robbed, or being held on the public sidewalk five
> feet away.
>
> Tracking data is only useful when combined with other information, and
> criminals are already smart enough to use throw-away cell phones for
> anything really nasty, so it's very easy to muddy the statistical pool.
> Any "tracking" system that can be undermined by a sheet of aluminum foil
> wrapped around a cell phone is doomed to fail.
There is an infamous murder case in Australia where one vital piece of
evidence was the (apparent) identification of the convicted person by
having his cell phone register on a particular antenna covering an
area at an exact time that discredited his alibi that he was on the
other side of town and placed him possibly within the vicinity of the
crime.
It has since emerged that the base station antenna pattern of the GSM
tower used in the court evidence could well have registered his phone
at the location he said he was in - because of the characteristics of
the radiation pattern that still has some functionality in the
opposite direction that the main gain area is - but the court just got
a simplistic technical explanation of how these things work.
I believe that the appeal process is still going.
--
Regards, David.
David Clayton
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Knowledge is a measure of how many answers you have, intelligence is a
measure of how many questions you have.
***** Moderator's Note *****
As I said, tracking data is only useful when combined with other
information, but even then it poses problems: the cell phone may be
at a particular place at a particular time, and a prosecutor may be
able to prove that, but proving that a particular individual was at
the place, at that time, requires corroboration via other data.
Paradoxically, it may become a valid defense for an accused person to
state under oath that (s)he switched his/her phone with someone else
because (s)he don't like the government being able to track his/her
movements.
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2009 05:52:21 GMT
From: "Tony Toews \[MVP\]" <ttoews@telusplanet.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: NYPD knows who you've been talking to. And where you've been..
Message-ID: <1ojtc5lveosr7lvvf0kuov5hrssvavua5d@4ax.com>
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>> Question to our knowledgable folk here: is enough of the phone's ID
>> transmitted in the clear when it does the periodic "here I am" ping
>> that people could track it? (Aside from the cellco, of course).
>>
>> In other words, could the NYPD, now that it's got this database, use
>> its own receivers to keep maps of everyone's travel?
>
>An enormous number of people in NYC are on their cell phones at any
>given moment. Even with today's technology I suspect the volume of
>calls and callers would be too high to be tracked.
If the cell phone system can track the mere existence of a cell phone
and it's nearest tower and if the software exists in the cell command
and control ssytem then I see no reason why the "volume of calls and
callers would be too high to be tracked." Just throw some more
hardware at the problem.
Tony
--
Tony Toews, Microsoft Access MVP
Tony's Main MS Access pages - http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm
Tony's Microsoft Access Blog - http://msmvps.com/blogs/access/
Granite Fleet Manager http://www.granitefleet.com/
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 19:30:38 +0000 (UTC)
From: David Lesher <wb8foz@panix.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Every time I try and hate Her Kids a little less -- LNP and Ringmate
Message-ID: <halekt$3fi$1@reader1.panix.com>
So I'm coordinating a move for a DC organization. One issue was would
Verizontal let them keep the same DN's; even though they are moving across
CO boundaries.
In my experience, the first answer is "no" so you mention "OK, I'll LNP
the customer to a CLEC" and suddenly "Oh yes, it IS possible..." After
all, DC is all one rate center.
This time, I checked months ahead, and was told there was no problem.
So I go to place the move order, and oops, there IS a problem. One of
the published [as in letterhead, business cards, etc] numbers is a
"Ringmate" [line], a.k.a. a "distinctive ring" [service]. That's the
[organization's] published fax number; the fax machine detects the
ring pattern and grabs the call.
Ms. Zontal NOW tells me that while they'll gladly terminate the primary
numbers at the new place; they won't do so with it. Grrr.
Any suggestions?
--
A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433
***** Moderator's Note *****
CLEC's can place UNE orders for Ringmate in New England, so I'll
assume it's the same in The District of Columbia. You could, in the
extreme case, convert the Ringmate number to POTS, port it to a CLEC,
and then have them convert it back to Ringmate.
OTOH, if it was me, I'd screan loudly and long to every newspaper,
radio talk show, and TV reporter who would listen while I was
preparing a formal complaint for the FCC. Don't forget to send a
"Deliver to Recipient Only" snail mail to Ivan.
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 12:58:55 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Western Union's satellite loss
Message-ID: <85519232-21b0-47fa-a8b0-d7d60a4069b4@m20g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>
On Oct 6, 1:52 am, Bill Horne <b...@horneQRM.net> wrote:
> Not only the stock exchange: the commercial paper industry, the credit
> reporting industry, and the Federal Reserve System were all made
> necessary and possible by the telegraph. By allowing orders and credit
> to flow faster than the old paper-based financial instruments, the
> telegraph caused a revolution in the industrial way of life: many of the
> "recent" inventions we now take for granted, such as "instant" hotel
> reservations, easy access to credit from any point on the globe, and
> just-in-time inventory, were impossible before the telegraph and became
> common very quickly after it was introduced.
WU was heavilly involved in private wire networks that interconnected
banks, stock exchanges, and brokerage houses. It was WU that
transmitted the stock ticker quotes from NY (and other exchanges) to
the rest of the country. In brokers' offices, the ticker was printed
on transparent tape which was then projected onto a screen for clients
to observe. I don't think brokers' today have rooms for clients to do
that.
I wonder when the various financial organizations discontinued using
WU facilities and went to other means. Wiki suggests 1970 but I think
it lasted somewhat later than that. In 1960 WU recognized that the
classic public message telegram was obsolete and sought to greatly
expand its private wire networks as the mainstay of its business.
In reading old WU employee newsletters I get the sense WU had more and
earlier job opportuntiies for women than the Bell System did. For
instance, WU had women in crafts jobs and local office managers long
before Bell did. I get the impression that many women in the Bell
System worked only a few years until they had a family and then left,
while WU seemed to a much higher number of older women, many working
for WU for decades despite being married. A late 1960s article
described a new mother who chose to continue to stay on at work, which
was a new idea at the time. On the other hand, I'm not sure what WU
was able to pay its operating employees; the company was never wealthy
in the post war era and had its share of labor difficulties.
As mentioned, WU had a huge branch office network throughout the
nation, even small suburban towns had a WU branch office. WU
modernized their appearance and equipment in the 1950s, though in the
1980s most were closed and replaced by independent agents and the
equipment written off as obsolete. I wonder what the atmosphere was
like working in a small town branch office where the whole workforce
was together in a single storefront. Were duties shared or strictly
delineated? Was the work atmosphere informal or highly structured?
I interviewed a retired telephone operator. When she worked in a tiny
town's manual switchboard the atmosphere was rather informal (what we
call today "custom calling" services were routinely provided by the
town operator). But when the town went dial she was transferred to a
nearby city where the atmosphere was highly structured and regimented.
I wonder if the same applied to WU in its various locations--a large
office in a city being structured while a small town office being more
informal.
Since a big part of their job was handling money (payment for
telegrams and wire transfers) and "mission critical" message
transmittal, I assume WU did have a fair amount of structure and
controls even in small branches. Accounting offices are usually
somewhat stiff and formal with tightly defined routines. One
newsletter article describes a fraud attempt against the company,
foiled by the operator sticking to procedure. (So we had "email
fraud" 50 years ago).
In 1978 I knew a WU operator who took requests over the phone and
keyed them into a computer in a large data center. She described the
office as extremely structured. The computer tracked every keystroke
and tallied edit errors as part of productivity totals. Restroom
breaks were tracked by the computer. However, WU paid very well for
kind of work at that time. The job was union.
Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2009 15:39:28 -0500
From: Jim Haynes <jhaynes@cavern.uark.edu>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Western Union's satellite loss
Message-ID: <slrnhcsjfs.81m.jhaynes@localhost.localdomain>
On 2009-10-08, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
> In reading old WU employee newsletters I get the sense WU had more and
> earlier job opportuntiies for women than the Bell System did.
Women were sought by W.U. as operators from very early on. See "The
American Telegrapher: a social history 1860-1900" by Edwin Gabler. Of
course women got paid less than men, and after some initial skepticism
proved able to do a man's job as an operator. Western Union and the
Cooper Union Institute in 1869 jointly started a free telegraphy
course for women. It lasted through the early 1890s, turning out
about 80 graduates a year. The school was much despised by men
because it contributed to a chronic oversupply of telegraph operators,
helping to hold wages down. The course took 8 months to complete. I
imagine it took that long because many of the students came from
blue-collar families and were raised in the slums; so they had to be
taught social graces to deal politely with the public in addition to
telegraphy.
It's interesting that one of the early telegraph unions demanded equal
pay for equal work, male and female. I wonder whether the male
operators supported that demand because it was the right thing to do;
or if they supported it because they knew if the companies had to pay
men and women the same they would hire only men.
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 19:40:58 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Western Union's satellite loss
Message-ID: <965befa0-efc4-4515-b20e-1111430a7c47@e34g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>
On Oct 8, 5:07 pm, Jim Haynes <jhay...@cavern.uark.edu> wrote:
> . . . [telegraph school] The course took 8 months to complete. I
> imagine it took that long because many of the students came from
> blue-collar families and were raised in the slums; so they had to be
> taught social graces to deal politely with the public in addition to
> telegraphy.
In manual days the Bell System was strict about its operators. In
very small towns they had a contract operator who operated the
switchboard out of her living room, with her kids helping out. They
lived in a furnished house rented to them by Bell. Bell had
inspectors who would check everything, including the contents of
bureau drawers per regulations. (Per "From Muttering Machines to
Laser Beams")
In large cities, where Bell employed young women often away from home
and in the big city for the first time, Bell also had 'matrons' as
supervisors/ counselors for the young women. In the literature they
say the matrons helped girls who were homesick and lonely and provided
other motherly services. I strongly suspect they also kept a sharp
eye on the girls to ensure proper decorum (wholesomeness) off the
job. (Many large companies back then expected such decorum off the
job and inspected their people in their homes.)
Central offices contained considerable space for break rooms and
cafeterias for employees. One motivation to convert to dial was that
that space could be utilized for other purposes.
But one motivation to maintain manual switching was the very high
capital cost of switchgear; and enough had to be on hand to service
the peak hour even if the gear was idle much of the time.
Switchboards were compartively cheap and they simply had fewer
operators during off peak times.
(This was the same bane of commuter railroads--the capital investment
of trains and stations had to be big enough to handle the rush hours,
but most of the time the investment was idle.)
***** Moderator's Note *****
I doubt it was that simple: operators may not have been needed in
off-peak hours, but they still had to earn enough to make a living,
and telco managers knew that. Automated switch gear, although
initially expensive, also meant the operating companies could avoid
training costs, wages, and retirement benefits for operators.
The bane of commuter railroads wasn't the cost of equipment or
stations, nor even of the right-of-way and track, which is (by far)
the most expensive plant a railroad owns. The bane of commuter rail is
the oil industry, which sabotages public mass transit at every turn
(pun intended).
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 21:06:22 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Western Union's satellite loss
Message-ID: <7cbbf0f7-02f7-48dc-ab47-16a3c9015ce6@m11g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> I doubt it was that simple: operators may not have been needed in
> off-peak hours, but they still had to earn enough to make a living,
> and telco managers knew that. Automated switch gear, although
> initially expensive, also meant the operating companies could avoid
> training costs, wages, and retirement benefits for operators.
Back in the peak days of manual service--the 1910s when telephone
usage was high but virtually all manual--compensation was very low.
The young women could only afford to live in rooming houses or doubled
up. There were virtually no benefits, nor any payroll taxes in those
days. Most were doing the job only until they found a husband which
was the norm in those days. The job of a basic A or B operator was
very simple and required little training, supervision was intensive.
Even back then the boards had automatic ringing. The more experienced
operators would handle long distance or supervision.
WW I drove up wages and increased traffic which changed the wage/
capital balance and motivated Bell to develop panel for big cities and
use step for community dial offices too small to justify paying an
operator 24/7. But intermediate offices remain manual for many years.
The cost of converting to dial was substantial. New dial sets had to
be installed at every subscriber, a big labor cost. Subscribers had
to be educated on how to use dial; they even sent out people door to
door to do so plus extensive publicity campaigns. Engineers had to
study the geography and commerce of the area to plan for future growth
and capacity requirements. The switch had to be custom designed for
that location, then built, then installed. Men had to be trained to
maintain the switch which was much more complex than a switchboard.
Arrangements for dial connections to/from nearby offices had to be
arranged, including trunking. Cutover required busying out
interoffice trunks, holding most calls, providing for emergency calls,
making the cut, checking it, and resuming service. If an emergency
call came in the cutover had to wait. (Ref: Cinn Bell writeup on
cutover). The Bell System cared about its operators and made
arrangements long in advance to mimize layoffs. Offices planned for
dial would freeze hiring, and temps used if needed.
Cutover to dial still required many operators for DA, assistance, and
long distance. (In 1970, Bell pay phones at a resort hotel were
_manual_, answered by a toll operator on the presumption that any
guest using a phone would be calling long distance and needed the toll
operator anyway.)
Date: 9 Oct 2009 04:16:45 -0000
From: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Western Union's satellite loss
Message-ID: <20091009041645.16867.qmail@simone.iecc.com>
[ probably not for posting ]
>The bane of commuter railroads wasn't the cost of equipment or
>stations, nor even of the right-of-way and track, which is (by far)
>the most expensive plant a railroad owns. The bane of commuter rail is
>the oil industry, which sabotages public mass transit at every turn
>(pun intended).
For commuter railroads, the biggest problem was competition from
highways that were publicly funded and paid no taxes. I agree
that streetcards were killed by the well known NCL conspiracy
between GM and oil companies.
R's,
John
Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2009 02:16:05 -0400
From: Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: New email posting controls (Please read) [NFP]
Message-ID: <h76dnSNZTqe5SFPXnZ2dnUVZ_g6dnZ2d@speakeasy.net>
John Levine wrote:
> [ probably not for posting ]
Sorry, I didn't see this remark. However, I'd have published John's
post anyway, after checking with him: he made a good point.
The problem is that I didn't see it, so I've enabled some special tags
for future use: I welcome discussion off-list as to the most effective
mnemonics for these functions.
Emails which are not intended for publication: include [NFP] in the
subject line. (This email has it already, so that replies won't go to
the moderation queue).
Posts sent from an email address that you want me to _obfuscate_,
i.e., that you want to appear in human-readable, but not
spam-robot-readable, format (e.g. bill@horneQRM.net): include
[Obfuscate] in the subject line.
Posts which you do not want attributed to you: include [Anonymous] in
the subject line.
With the help of Procmail, I'll be able to avoid similar near-misses
in the future.
Bill
--
Bill Horne
Moderator
(Remove QRM for direct replies)
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly to telecom-
munications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in
addition 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 Bill Horne. 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.
The Telecom Digest is moderated by Bill Horne.
Contact information: Bill Horne
Telecom Digest
43 Deerfield Road
Sharon MA 02067-2301
781-784-7287
bill at horne dot net
Subscribe: telecom-request@telecom-digest.org?body=subscribe telecom
Unsubscribe: telecom-request@telecom-digest.org?body=unsubscribe telecom
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
Copyright (C) 2009 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.
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 The Telecom digest (17 messages)
|
or 