Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id VAA25466; Thu, 25 Sep 1997 21:44:33 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 21:44:33 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199709260144.VAA25466@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #261 TELECOM Digest Thu, 25 Sep 97 21:44:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 261 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Security Alarm Problem due to Area Code Change (Bradley Ward Allen) Re: Security Alarm Problem due to Area Code Change (Roger Fajman) Re: AGIS Pulls Plug on Cyberpromo Due to Ping Attack (Louis Raphael) Re: AGIS Pulls Plug on Cyberpromo Due to Ping Attack (Bruce Pennypacker) Re: AGIS Pulls Plug on Cyberpromo Due to Ping Attack (Kevin R. Ray) Re: AGIS Pulls Plug on Cyberpromo Due to Ping Attack (Tom Betz) Re: MedicAlert and 209 Split (Laura Twombly) Re: Hooking Up Two Computers to a Cable Modem? (Shankar Unni) Re: Hooking Up Two Computers to a Cable Modem? (John McGing) Re: 800/888 Problem; Suggestions Welcome (Mark Brukhartz) Its Time to Make a Change (Judith Oppenheimer) 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 public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * telecom-request@telecom-digest.org * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 847-727-5427 Fax: 773-539-4630 ** Article submission address: editor@telecom-digest.org ** Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is: http://telecom-digest.org They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to archives@telecom-digest.org to receive a help file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom Archives. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bradley Ward Allen Subject: Re: Security Alarm Problem due to Area Code Change Date: 25 Sep 1997 19:44:00 -0400 Organization: Q My opinions should be obvious, but I think they bear repeating: 1. When I was kid, we were given six months to change. I didn't think it was enough then, for those people that call only once every one or two years, but for just about every other purpose, including printing stationary, changing signs, printing phone books, notifying all your correspondents and relationships, and updating all your equipment, I always regarded six months as magically "just (barely) enough", and therefore acceptable. 2. Therefore, when I read that three months was all that will be given, then I automatically agree with the side that says to raise it to six months. What I do not understand, however, is the alarm company's problem with the three months: since they are large and organized, they can make arrangements with the phone company to convert the customers in the order of which numbers get switched first; with area code splits, often the phone company is able to incrementally effect more and more numbers, allowing certain numbers to go through via the old area code for longer than other numbers. This of course does need coordination between both companies, and is a cost that should be paid by local "RBOC's" that are not organized enough to get their new area codes in time to have a six month permissive period. 3. I point out that overlays would fix this situation, as long as seven digit within-area-code dialing is still permitted, at least as a long grace period (such as one or two years). 4. Finally, I have a question. With full number portability, will area code splits ever be necessary again? I mean, all the "2002, we will need a split in XYZ area code" charts that Bellcore puts out will be of a smaller "doomsday" importance, in that they will only be a chart of places that will have new area codes, but no splits? What I'm saying, is after the numbers in an area code are exhausted (which will not happen for a long time since portability will allow many current companies to use numbers for a long time), a new area code could be overlayed at any time, and suddenly new numbers for all phone companies would come out of the new area code, and it would not matter what area a particular line is in; the portability would decouple the locality concept of phone numbers; anyplace that requires the "older" area codes can be put on a waiting list for new "old" numbers, and then portability those numbers over to the requestors. 5. Because of #3 and #4, I protest the FCC requirement for 10 digit dialing, specifically that it should *never* require ten digit dialing, and only that 1+ dialing always work without being put into long distance companies for the suggestion, and furthermore that within-area-code seven digit dialing should be permitted since there will still be applications where that is useful. 6. I repeat what I already posted earlier, that I finally understand overlays to be anticompetitive, and it took me some time to realize this. Number portability will also fix this. 7. As an aside, in order to keep my home phone number during a short move in NYC, I had to put an order into Bell Atlantic's Business division to change my residential account to a business account for the affected line ($82.05) and subscribe to Business "Remote Call Forwarding" ($19.88/month + business rate usage for the forwarded calls, in this case all local, but long distance I think also would work); because the number I need to keep is the same number used as the accounting structure's "main" number (and line) for my account (and what starts out my account number), and I'm keeping other lines, those other lines need to be seperated in a Residential order before the number can be turned into a business account; because one of the lines that needs to be turned into the new "main line" must be an ISDN line (as there are no other non-ISDN lines), this order needs to be referred to the ISDN department; therefore, to obtain an entirely simple software-controllable in-switch change, it takes at least four to six departments, perhaps a set of twenty competent paper-pushers at Bell Atlantic working quite responsively (in my experience -- not only did they call me back from many different departments and leave lucent messages almost twice a day concerning necessary steps and my able to return those calls and leave messages in response, except for once (oops, where's that #? I think I already did ...)) and I just checked the status and they are doing quite well, and the original order was only placed earlier this week!), and what they predict will be about two weeks! Will this, too, change, with number portability (i.e., I move to Queens/Brooklyn/Bronx, and I can keep my 212# as a side-effect of number portability)? ------------------------------ From: Roger Fajman Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 20:19:46 EDT Subject: Re: Security Alarm Problem due to Area Code Change > Bell Atlantic is also appealing to the DPU to forgo a system that > would require callers to dial 10 numbers (the area code and number) > when calling people who are in the local calling area but in a > different area code. Bell Atlantic says the system is confusing > to customers. That's a rather odd position for Bell Atlantic to take, since we've had 10 digit dialing for local calls for some time now in the Washington, DC area, which is Bell Atlantic territory. Until recently, 10 (or 11) digits were mandatory for local calls to a different area code and optional within the same area code. Now, in Maryland, 10 (or 11) digits are required for all local calls, in preparation for the new area codes to be overlayed on 301 and 410. I believe that in DC itself and in Virginia, 10 (or 11) digits are still required only when a local call is to a different area code. ------------------------------ From: raphael@willy.cs.mcgill.ca (Louis Raphael) Subject: Re: AGIS Pulls Plug on Cyberpromo Due to Ping Attack Date: 25 Sep 1997 02:47:48 GMT Organization: McGill University Computing Centre Judging by my IN.spam box, I'd say that the latest plug-pulling dealt with about 1/2 of the spammers (by volume) out there. There aren't that many spammers -- it's just that they are harmful out of proportion to their numbers. My IN.spam box receives about 2-3/day, compared to about 5-10 before 'Promo went down. Louis ------------------------------ From: Bruce Pennypacker Subject: Re: AGIS Pulls Plug on Cyberpromo Due to Ping Attack Date: 25 Sep 1997 12:40:05 GMT Organization: Applied Language Technologies FYI, the following article was just posted on news.admin.net-abuse.email: Ok - now this will likely be preliminary only. (Nothing big will necessarily happen - dates will be set, etc.) However, from a well written article at: http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,14429,00.html?dtn.head Wallace, AGIS to face judge By Janet Kornblum, Stephanie Miles, and Jeff Pelline September 24, 1997, 5:25 p.m. PT update A federal court judge is set to hear a request tomorrow by Cyber Promotions president Sanford Wallace to make backbone provider AGIS reconnect the mass emailer. The hearing in front of U.S. District Judge Anita Brody comes after Wallace sued AGIS for breach of contract. AGIS disconnected Cyber Promotions, as well as Integrated Media Promotions and New Hampshire-based Quantum Communications sometime last week, according to AGIS spokesman Jason Delker. But Delker declined to detail when or why the spammers were kicked off. "We're going to attempt to get a temporary res- training order to get a connection," he said [Wallace] So there will be argument as well to attempt to get a TSO! ------------------------------ From: Kevin R. Ray Subject: Re: AGIS Pulls Plug on Cyberpromo Due to Ping Attack Date: 25 Sep 1997 13:54:16 GMT Organization: The Windy City TELECOM Digest Editor noted in response to Patrick Tufts : > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Has anyone attempted to contact him > at his office (or home or wherever) and get the details on these > latest allegations; i.e. money owed to Compuserve and his plans > for the future? Is there any activity at his office at all such > as phones being answered, a customer service rep on duty, etc, or > is his office abandoned? Does anyone have his {current} home number? I just tried their "offices" and all the extensions -- got voice mail on all of them. His technical updates did ask that his customers fax him a statement how much money they are losing, etc, etc, etc. Why don't we all drop a dime and fax him at 1-215-628-9762 or 1-215-628-2523 stating how much money we are SAVING with our systems being idle, users not calling our tech departments, wasting time hitting "d", etc, etc, etc. And if we did fax him with this is it not true that it is not solicitation (ie: illegal) and not harassment if we *ALL* do just one ... not to mention his poor fax machines would die a horrible death and his customers would be able to get through to him. :) > The other day I was helping someone who has a problem with rodent > infestation in their basement. I put out lots of 'nice, tasty food' > the little guys would be sure to like -- heh! heh! -- and already > today the results were obvious. Several bloated and quite dead > little carcasses near the food dish I had prepared. This leads me > to my final question for this issue: how severe is this rodent > infestation on the net? Obviously Spamford was one of their leaders, > but how many of the vermin still remain to be exterminated? Any > guesstimates? PAT] My guess would be around 1,000. There's still a TON of their bulk emailing software in the hands of unknowing people just WAITING to use it -- and to have their personal ISP accounts pulled. My filters have gone from nuking about 100 messages a day (to me personally) to about one every TWO days. I don't miss Spammy ... ------------------------------ From: tbetz@panix.com (Tom Betz) Subject: Re: AGIS Pulls Plug on Cyberpromo Due to Ping Attack Date: 25 Sep 1997 23:58:41 GMT Organization: Society for the Elimination of Junk Unsolicited Bulk Email Reply-To: tbetz@pobox.com Quoth trey@zipcon.net (Trey Valenta) in : > In nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle) > writes: >> I suggest simply redirecting any spam you get from anybody, >> especially if it has any forged address information, or any hint of a >> false health claim or other scam, to the new Federal Trade Commmission >> spam reporting point, "uce@ftc.gov". > I suggest you DON'T do this. I can't find the article now, but the FTC > recently put out a statement that the large numbers of people who were > doing this is putting severe strain on the systems. Seems many have set > their procmail scripts to do forwarding on any suspected UCE/spam. > According to the FTC, they don't want to see the messages unless it's > definately fraud related and overall abuse will result in them pulling > the plug on the address or tracking the person down who is flooding > their systms. That was the IRS, not the FTC. The IRS has an address for tax fraud schemes, Ponzi scammers who mention "Tax-free" income, and the like. They complained about being on autoresponders, and want only tax-related spam. The FTC hasn't complained, yet. Last I heard, the FTC was welcoming all UCE to that address. We have tried ignorance | Tom Betz, Generalist for a very long time, and | Want to send me email? First, read this page: it's time we tried education. | | I mock up my reactive mind twice daily. ------------------------------ From: Laura Twombly Subject: Re: MedicAlert and 209 Split Date: 24 Sep 1997 21:15:30 GMT Organization: ESAC jf@oxy.edu wrote in article ... > Why can't MedicAlert just purchase remote-call forwarding or > foreign-exchange lines or work out something with the phone company? > What am I missing here? I'd like to take a crack at this. The first issue is whether or not something could be done so that MedicAlert could keep their 209 number even if Turlock was changed to the new NPA. While this is not technically impossible, it is 1) an administrative nightmare in that this exception would have to be maintained indefinitely and the whole world would have to be notified, and understand, this exception, plus 2) it would be enormously unfair to the rest of the customers in that prefix who would also be forced to stay in the 209 area, even though their city was in the new NPA. The second issue is whether this state of affairs was brought about because of MedicAlert in the first place. My understanding of the NPA split process (which I admit is imperfect), is that there is an attempt made to leave the old NPA with the area that is growing faster, and give the new NPA to the area that is growing slower. The reasoning is that if another NPA split is needed, it should be imposed on the folks that haven't just had one, rather than the folks that just went through an NPA split. I also understand that Turlock, and its surrounding area, appear to be the most rapidly growing part of the 209 area. Which means that Fresno would have gotten the new NPA and Turlock would have been left in the old NPA whether or not MedicAlert existed. Theoretically. Laura T. ------------------------------ From: Shankar Unni Subject: Re: Hooking Up Two Computers to a Cable Modem? Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 10:53:30 -0700 Organization: None John R. Levine wrote: > The slightly longer answer is that there are systems that let your > entire network hide behind a single IP address, doing translation on > the fly. (The three-letter acronym is NAT.) Dedicated NAT boxes tend > to be expensive but you might be able to find freeware for Linux. The Linux term for this is IP Masquerading. It's not 100% transparent, but most network clients work fine with it. You designate one Linux box as a firewall with IP Masquerading, to talk to the outside network on one IP address. Hopefully your cable modem is one that is usable by a Linux box (some cable modems come with required host software that is only available for Windows). The Linux box must have another ethernet card to talk to the local network, and you can put all your other hosts on that network, with some private IP address like 10.* or 172.16.*. The Linux box will act like a router, translating the private address to the public IP address in a way that allows the reply packets to be translated back to the original private IP address. This also means that incoming connections cannot be made to the private network, an added level of security. It takes a little skill and savvy to set this up, but the upside is the cost (free beyond the hardware cost of the PC itself, and even if you have to buy a separate box, you can equip a decent 486 PC these days for under $500, especially if you get it used and upgrade any components yourself; and a 486 w/ 8 or 16MB is all you really need to run a dedicated Linux firewall.) Shankar Unni shankar@webnexus.com Powertel Global, Inc. (408) 378-9745 ------------------------------ From: jmcging@dm.net (John McGing) Subject: Re: Hooking Up Two Computers to a Cable Modem? Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 02:16:02 GMT Organization: @Home Networks On 23 Sep 1997 05:53:53 -0000, johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) wrote: >> If possible, I would appreciate some detailed direction on what to get >> and how to setup for a second computer on a single cable modem. > The short answer is "you can't". The cable modem is a modem that > plugs into a single PC and gives you a single IP address. > The slightly longer answer is that there are systems that let your > entire network hide behind a single IP address, doing translation on > the fly. (The three-letter acronym is NAT.) Dedicated NAT boxes tend > to be expensive but you might be able to find freeware for Linux. > If you can get NAT set up, you'd plug the cable modem into the box > running NAT, then connect all the other computers to that one using a > regular Ethernet separate from the cable modem. If this sounds like > it's more trouble than it's worth, you're probably right. Check out the FireSock software from the makers of Trumpet Winsock. I saw it at TUCOWS, and it looks just like what you are looking for and isn't very expensive. ------------------------------ From: mark_brukhartz@il.us.swissbank.com (Mark Brukhartz) Subject: Re: 800/888 Problem; Suggestions Welcome Organization: Swiss Bank Corporation Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 00:19:39 GMT It would be more elegant to reserve a set of ten area codes for toll-free numbers, such as 880 through 889. That would permit eight-letter words to be used as telephone numbers. ``Call 1-88-BUY-STUFF. Operators are standing by.'' Since 880 (and 881) end with letterless numbers, they would be ideal for pager, personal toll-free and other non-branded telephone numbers. The existing 800 (and 888) numbers would be preserved forever. Everyone would win. Callers to branded numbers would need to remember only the word. Seven letter words would be in area code 800. Eight letter words would be in ``area code'' 88. There'd be about nine times as many branded numbers from which to choose (800 and 882 through 889). Other users would benefit from the large block of non-branded numbers for pager, mobile and personal toll-free use (880 and 881). Mark ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 18:56:54 -0400 From: Judith Oppenheimer Reply-To: joppenheimer@icbtollfree.com Organization: ICB TOLL FREE - 800/888 news... commentary... consulting... Subject: Its Time to Make a Change New York 09/25/97 (ICB TOLL FREE NEWS) Recent industry reports to the FCC indicate that 888 numbers may run out before 877 is scheduled for release in April 98. Indeed, the industry is quietly seeking ways to speed up the introduction of 877. Minutes from a February 97 SNAC (SMS/800 Number Administration Committee) meeting, note that based on the average usage during the prior three months of November, December and January, 888 exhaust would occur sometime in July, 1998. Given the 30-year run of 800, even that 3-year 888 shelf-life is absurd, further strengthening arguments for toll-free SAC partitioning as necessary for resource management, as well as marketplace application, survival. What is accelerating the depletion even beyond industry expectations? Didn't the FCC's April Report and Order set in place mechanisms that were supposed to stem this tide? Wasn't that, after all, its sole purpose? Marketshare Versus Depletion by RespOrg RespOrg Share of Working 800 Numbers as of October 1, 1996 MCI 26.06% AT&T 22.34% WILTEL/LDDS WORLDCOM 13.53% SPRINT 7.97% FRONTIER/ALLNET/RCI 6.07% STENTOR 2.51% LCI 2.25% NYNEX/BELL ATLANTIC 2.05% PAC BELL/SW BELL 1.45% CABLE & WIRELESS 1.20% ALL OTHERS 14.57% INDUSTRY 100.00% In October, 1996, the two largest RespOrgs, AT&T and MCI, had 1.6 and 1.9 million toll-free numbers, respectively. That's combined 800 and 888, business and residential service. Today, AT&T insiders report a slight decrease in toll-free revenue, combined with a growth in toll-free minutes, and a nmarketshare increase who's growth is fairly consistent with the industry as a whole. Bringing their total toll-free number base, as of September 1, 1997, to 2,112,312 -- an increase of a half-a-million toll-free numbers, encompassing both 800 and 888, over the course of past the year. Some other carriers as well, have actually maintained or lowered their share of numbers in recent weeks, whether by attrition or otherwise, but certainly not lining their coffers at this critical time. Those carriers include Allnet, Stentor, Cable & Wireless, and US West. But what of the rest? MCI, according to industry insiders, lost marketshare in minutes, yet increased its toll-free number base during the past year by 1.6 million, to 3,521,538 -- nearly doubling its entire pool. Indeed, during the week of August 23 to September 1 alone, MCI increased its holdings by 25,000 numbers. During that same week, AT&T acquired 10,500, Sprint 22,980, and Wiltel 24,000 toll free numbers. In total, there are now only 2.6 million toll-free numbers left to last through April 98, with 115,000 pulled out in the last week alone. Clearly there are some RespOrgs performing reasonably responsibly, such as Cable & Wireless, and others mentioned above. Similarly, with its huge customer base overall, we do not begrudge AT&T a half-a-million- number increase over a 12 month period. Indeed, AT&T recently told ICB that it intends to shift its focus away from marketshare, to profitability, caring less how many numbers it has in its vast stable, than how much revenue each account is driving. A reasonable business proposition, to be sure, and one that coincidentally does not conflict with resource management as a whole. Additionally, AT&T has publicly supported user-rights measures that would further alleviate depletion and promote a stable number resource foundation -- a stand-up move in a cut-throat business that is forthright, bold, and forward-thinking. Given snowballing depletion, vast statistical discrepancies in a very competitive marketplace, and AT&T's leadership support of some unorthodox, yet very practical solutions, we have to wonder how long it will take the FCC to reconsider its April Report and Order. Because its 'resource management' mechanisms are clearly running 800 into the ground. 800/888 ICB TOLL FREE NEWS 800/888 ...today's regulatory news for tomorrow's marketing decisions. TRY US FREE FOR 15 DAYS !!! http://icbtollfree.com (ph) 212 684-7210. (fx) 212 684-2714. 1 800 THE EXPERT. ICB Headlines Autosponder: mailto:headlines@icbtollfree.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #261 ******************************