Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id VAA24914; Sun, 30 Nov 1997 21:47:34 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 30 Nov 1997 21:47:34 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199712010247.VAA24914@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #336 TELECOM Digest Sun, 30 Nov 97 21:47:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 336 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Toll-Free Service Interruption in Canada (Dave Leibold) Prepaid Cellular Not For Our House (Jonathan I. Kamens) More Thoughts on Prepaid Cellular (Bill Levant) Prepaid GSM Cellular Cards (Rishab Aiyer Ghosh) Cellular Roaming (Rishab Aiyer Ghosh) Ericsson: New Reputation For Incompetence? (Alan Boritz) Competition Heats Up in Canada For PCS (J.F. Mezei) Intranet Security (Felix Leung) Re: LEC Emergency-Break Capability (John Rice) Re: Denver Local-Calling Area May Expand, Postpone 720 (Leonard Erickson) Re: Bellsouth Erroneous Billing (Resolution) (ronnie@twitch.mit.edu) 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. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 23:36:25 EST From: Dave Leibold Reply-To: Dave Leibold Subject: Toll-Free Service Interruption in Canada The following press releases from Stentor (Canadian group of major telcos) indicates an 800/888 service outage on Wednesday, 11-26-97. These are two Stentor press releases on the incident via Canada NewsWire (http://www.newswire.ca): _________________________________________________________________ Attention News/Business/Technology Editors: INTERRUPTION IN CANADIAN TOLL-FREE SERVICE OTTAWA, Nov. 26 /CNW/ - There has been an interruption in Canadian toll-free service which began at approximately 11 am EST today. As of 12:55 pm EST today, service was restored to approximately 80 per cent of toll-free numbers across Canada. Stentor continues working to get the remaining toll-free numbers back on line, and anticipates that the problem will be resolved very shortly. Stentor has traced the interruption to software problems in redundant switches in Calgary and Toronto. Stentor's primary focus right now is on complete service restoration. Once service has been restored, an investigation will begin and measures will be taken to ensure that the problem is not repeated. The Stentor alliance was formed in 1992 by Canada's leading providers of telecommunications services. The alliance works with customers across Cana da to economically deliver leading-edge local, national and international telecommunications services. These companies maintain the world's longest, fully digital fibre-optic network. The members of the alliance are: BC TEL, Bell Canada, Island Tel, Manitoba Telecom Services, Maritime Tel & Tel, NBTel, NewTel Communications, NorthwesTel, QuebecTel, SaskTel and TELUS. For further information: Beth Green, National Media Relations, Stentor Communications, tel: (613) 567-7321, fax: (613) 567-7001, e-mail: greenbb@stentor.ca ------ follow up message later same day ------ Attention News/Business/Technology Editors: SERVICE TO CANADIAN TOLL-FREE NUMBERS WAS RESTORED AT APPROXIMATELY 3:00 P.M. EST OTTAWA, Nov. 26 /CNW/ - Service to Canadian toll-free numbers was restored at approximately 3:00 p.m. EST after an interruption that began at 11:00 a.m. this morning. Stentor continues to monitor the situation to ensure that the system remains stable. Michael Dunlop, Vice President of Long Distance, says, ``In nearly 30 years of toll-free service, we have never had a complete interruption before. We know that this is a rare event but will be diligent in determining the cause in order to prevent any future problems.'' Stentor has traced the interruption to software problems on redundant switches in Calgary and Toronto. An initial assessment of the cause is underway to make sure that further interruptions can be avoided. After this initial risk assessment, a more detailed analysis will take place over the next week to determine how to prevent similar problems in the future. There are approximately 225,000 toll-free numbers in Canada and slightl= y over one million calls each hour on a normal weekday. The interruption affected the toll-free customers of the Stentor Alliance and also, all other long distance carriers in Canada. The Stentor alliance was formed in 1992 by Canada's leading providers of telecommunications services. The alliance works with customers across Canada to economically deliver leading-edge local, national and international telecommunications services. These companies maintain the world's longest, fully digital fibre-optic network. The members of the alliance are: BC TEL, Bell Canada, Island Tel, Manitoba Telecom Services, Maritime Tel & Tel, NBTel, NewTel Communications, NorthwesTel, QuebecTel, SaskTel and TELUS. ------------------------------ From: jik@kamens.brookline.ma.us (Jonathan I. Kamens) Subject: Prepaid Cellular Not For Our House Date: 28 Nov 1997 19:22:24 GMT Organization: Jik's Linux box Apropos of Pat's comments about the new Cellular One prepaid calling plan ... My wife and I decided recently after finally buying a car that we should have a cellular phone for emergencies (both our own and those of the poor souls stranded on the side of the highway who, in this day in age, it's not safe to stop and help). So, we figured out how much we thought we would be using the phone per month, compared the cost of that usage for the various plans offered by the various companies, and came to the conclusion that in fact, the Cellular One prepaid plan would be the cheapest for us (remember, there's no monthly service charge -- you only pay for what you use, or at least that's what we thought). So, the next day, I went to a local Cellular One deal and told them I wanted to buy a Nokia 638 and sign up for a prepaid plan. No problem. They had me fill out the account application, they programmed the phone, and they had me sign the service agreement. Just as they were about to run my credit card through the computer, they handed me the prepaid calling card, and imagine my surprise when I saw written in small print on the front of it, "This card expires in 60 days." "What does this mean?" I asked with some trepidation. C1: "Well, any minutes on that card that you don't use within sixty days expire and you lose them." ME: "Excuse me, but neither your Web site nor the literature you gave me here mentions that." C1: "It's written on the account agreement you signed." ME: "Really? Show me where." Of course, it wasn't written anywhere on any agreement that I signed. I told them that my wife and I very carefully calculated how much we would be using the phone and how much it would cost, and being required to use it a minimum amount each month did not enter into our calculations, so they could just cancel my application. They tried to convince me to go ahead with it, of course, but in the end, I walked out (and, fortunately, the credit-card statement I received today confirms that although they charged me for the phone, they gave me a credit afterwards to offset the charge). Their slimy advertising prompted us to go with Bell Atlantic Mobile instead, and so far, we've been perfectly happy with them. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I still think the best cellular service anywhere comes from Frontier/Call Home America. They do not sell it as a stand-alone product; you need to otherwise have long distance service from them. (I have an 800 number via Call Home America, but damned if I am going to publish it in print here after all the mean tricks that have been suggested toward spammers and *their* 800 numbers ... grin ... ). Frontier resells the local service provider in various communities and they generally stay on the 'B' (landline) side but there are some exceptions to that. I pay ten dollars per month service charge and about 18 cents per minute with no minimum usage requirements. Here in Chicago they resell Ameritech at the 'corporate/preferred customer' rates of that company, thus a very low rate per minute. Ameritech Cellular is a very progressive comp- any, and very user-friendly on things like roaming, at least within their own five-state territory. There is no roaming fee; the per- minute rates are slightly higher than the local rates, and they automatically locate you in any of their service territories as soon as your phone is turned on (no need to activate 'roaming' or set up call-forwarding, etc.) I can't say everyone will get the same good rates/service from Frontier everywhere since they are at the mercy of whoever they are reselling, and I understand cellular prices in places like New York and Los Angeles are absolutely dreadful. Still, I suggest a look at them as an alternative. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Wlevant@aol.com Bill Levant) Date: Sat, 30 Nov 1997 12:55:20 EST Subject: More Thoughts on Prepaid Cellular Our Esteemed Moderator wrote, in ish 331: > No identification needed when purchasing a new phone > or converting an established one ... 'you say your name is John Smith? > ... that's great ... here's your new phone Mr. Smith ...' and no > names needed to purchase additional minutes from several locations. Suppose you are a dealer in one illegal substance or another (drugs, "escorts", cigars from Cuba; whatever ...) and you want to use a cell phone without the local or federal constabulary being able to (easily) listen in. Unlike "regular" cellular, where said gendarmes might be able to find said individual's cellphone number in the cellular company's records with a well-placed search warrant, it could be impossible to do that with "prepaid" cellular if the cell company doesn't have customer records. Replace your phone every few months, and you are probably virtually trace-proof. Bill [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Oh really? Did you come to that conclusion also? Of course credit card billing will never do ... never, never do ... pay cash each time. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Rishab Aiyer Ghosh Subject: Prepaid GSM Cellular Cards Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 01:39:02 +0530 Pat wrote: > Prepaid phone cards have been a success in some places, so > maybe prepaid cellular will be also. PAT] With GSM, you buy prepaid SIM cards which you insert in any handset where you would put in an ordinary SIM card. In India if you already have a handset -- you may or may not be a subscriber -- you just plug in a prepaid SIM card costing, say, Rs 1000, and you get Rs 1000 worth of calls free. In the "packaged" offers where you just pick up a handset and prepaid card without credit check etc, the price (for the airtime on the card) is the same as normal airtime rates for subscribers, no "anonymity premium." However, you can only get special discounted prices if you are a regular subscriber, which is reasonable. -rishab The Indian Techonomist - http://dxm.org/techonomist/news/ The newsletter on India's information markets Editor and Publisher - Rishab Aiyer Ghosh (rishab@techonomist.dxm.org) Mobile +91 98110 14574; Fax +91 11 2209608; Tel +91 11 2454717 A4/204 Ekta Apts., 9 Indraprastha Extn, New Delhi 110092 INDIA ------------------------------ From: Rishab Aiyer Ghosh Subject: Cellular Roaming Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 04:48:45 +0530 Scott Robert Dawson wrote: > GSM-experts, is there any equivalent to > North American "roamer-access numbers" on GSM networks? If it's a caller-pays system as in Europe you have a separate "area code" for your phone anyway whether you're in the same city as your caller or far away. With callee pays it's more complicated, as your cellular number typically follows a _geographical_ area code, so the _caller_ could be billed long-distance by the wireline telco. In India the numbering plan is unusual in that cellular networks have their own "area" codes, but can also be dialed as local numbers. so you can call me on 98110-14574 in Delhi -- a local number -- or 0119811014574 from Bombay, where 011 is the Delhi LD prefix. Then your wireline op in Bombay will bill you for an LD call. or you could dial 09811014574 (or from abroad, +91 98110 ...) Your wireline bill will depend on the arrangement made by my cellular op in Delhi, a cellular op in Bombay and the wireline op. Typically this would mean that if I'm in Bombay, the caller pays a local call, but if I'm in Delhi it's an LD call to Delhi. The GSM handset is, of course, smart enough to handshake with a friendly roaming network outside your "home" area automatically. The network is smart enough to avoid redundant re-routing of your call, but the operators are smart too, and can try to rip you off by charging the earth for roaming. -rishab The Indian Techonomist - http://dxm.org/techonomist/news/ The newsletter on India's information markets Editor and Publisher - Rishab Aiyer Ghosh (rishab@techonomist.dxm.org) Mobile +91 98110 14574; Fax +91 11 2209608; Tel +91 11 2454717 A4/204 Ekta Apts., 9 Indraprastha Extn, New Delhi 110092 INDIA ------------------------------ From: aboritz@CYBERNEX.NET (Alan Boritz) Subject: Ericsson: New Reputation For Incompetence? Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 10:37:53 -0500 I'm now on my *fourth* Ericsson DH368 digital cellphone, the last two being exchanged by AT&T Wireless, the first two exchanged by Ericsson. The last one started buzzing in my ear about a half-hour after I picked it up. This fourth one may not last long, though, since the numeric keys are starting to bounce (double digits or double touchtones), and on occasion I can't terminate a call in progress without removing the battery. AT&T Wireless still won't exchange this junk for another manufacturer's product, even though I picked it up at one of their own stores. And the latest word on loaner phones (at the AT&T store, itself) is that AT&T will NOT issue an equivalent loaner for one of these phones (no text display or mail box alerts), and will NOT guarantee that you won't lose your features (like voice mail). This should be comforting to mobile customers who depend upon their voice mail for their businesses. The overwhelming majority of customers and technicians with which I've discussed this Ericsson product are dissatisfied with the quality of the product, and the poor manufacturer's customer service. Ericsson "expedited" my request for a second replacement phone, and five days later I had to call them more than once to get them to fax me the return authorization. "Incompetent" would be the nicest thing I could say about a customer service group like this. They'll need a LOT more slick TV commercials to brainwash potential customers about Ericsson "reliability" in the US. It's great that it comes with a one-year warranty, but of what value is it to have to wait a week or more to get replacement product, and then find that all Ericsson seems to be doing is cleaning up defective phones, putting them in boxes, and sending them out to other customers without repairing them? I think a bigger concern may be for PCS carriers who have purchased, or are committed to purchasing, Ericsson switch and RF equipment. With the turmoil in their US corporate structure and staffing, I don't think I would have much confidence that this once great telecommunications giant can handle multiple PCS system build-outs if they can't handle simple consumer products, and consumer customer service. ------------------------------ From: J.F. Mezei <"[non-spam]jfmezei"@videotron.ca> Subject: Competition Heats Up in Canada For PCS Date: Sun, 30 Nov 1997 01:45:15 -0500 Organization: VTL Reply-To: "[non-spam]jfmezei"@videotron.ca When Microcell/FIDO introduced their GSM service in the Montreal area in '96 they required no long term contract. When it was time for me to renew my AT&T (formerly Cantel) account in May/June 1997, I was still expected to renew a three year contract, even if moving to their PCS version. Their PCS pricing structure was closer to their old AMPS, even though FIDO had already been around for some time already. (Bell/Mobility still had no PCS product). Then, it was interesting to see ATT/CANTEL acknowledge competition by changing their rate structure. They advertised a 400 minute package similar to FIDO's, however, the small print still required a contract and limited those free minuts to off-peak hours. Now, Bell/Mobility has entered the market with its own ads that are very general (no pricing content) and Clearnet has started to market its own PCS (I beleive that they are the operators of MIKE, aren't they ?) ATT/CANTEL now has a "no contract required" and pricing which is very close to FIDO's. ATT/CANTEL does state that your get the first 100 incoming minutes for free. FIDO doesn't. But in the past, the "billed by the second" had a minimum one minute timer with ATT/CANTEL whereas it was exact seconds with FIDO. I am not sure if ATT/CANTEL still charges a minimum 60 seconds for each call tough. What I find interesting is that ATT/CANTEL stuck to its old costly contracts at first, but has now had to backtrack to slowly match FIDO's rates. Can we assume that ATT/CANTEL lost a lot of market share because of this and have now been forced to take FIDO seriously? ------------------------------ From: Felix Leung Subject: Intranet Security Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 00:11:47 -0600 Organization: University of Winnipeg I read a book and it mentions some technique that for keeping out some people to accessing the Intranet, the techniques are included: 1)Using non-standard ports. The standard port is 80. Using a different port will make it harder to find. 2) Using hard to guess names. Most companies use WWW for the Web server machine name. Using something different can make it harder to find. 3) Hiding your server's name. This can be done by not listing it in the DNS tables for your site, and not using it to browse the Web, send e-mail, or post to Usenet. However, I am confused on the first one; what is standard port and what is it for? If selecting non-standard ports has the security functions, why not everybody using different port number instead of using standard port 80? For the second one, does the author suggest that I should use www.very_private_name.com insteal of using www.microsoft.com? For the third one, where is the place for keeping the DNS tables? And will someone know the existence of Intranet when browsing the Web, etc? Any suggestions would be very appreciated. Felix Leung University of Winnipeg Business of Computing http://www.uwinnipeg.ca/~cleung1 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: In the very early days of Unix and on through the 1970's certain protocols or standards were agreed to by the sysadmins of those days. In general, if you logged into one Unix machine it looked and acted like every other Unix machine, give or take a few minor variations. One of the standards set was which ports or sockets would be used for what purposes. Mail, the finger daemon, telnet, FTP, other stuff all went between machines according to mutually agreed upon routes. I forget now what all the sockets were used for, but for example if mail was sent between machines on socket 25 then any Unix machine you went to in the early days of the Internet would handle mail on socket 25. Maybe the Unix command rlogin (meaning remote login on some other machine) went via port or socket 17 ... again this is just an example. The more modern program called IRC (Internet Relay Chat) is quite often associated with socket 6666 or 6667. Normally when a user has some business to transact with a computer at some location other than his own, he calls the software intended to do the job. If I send you email, I'd say at my command line prompt, "> mail joeblow@somewhere.com" without the quote marks of course. Now when my letter is prepared and being sent the software and the computer interact and off it goes to the distant computer where some software on that end (assigned let's say to 'watch' at socket 25 for activity) takes over and delivers the letter. What happened however was that as users became more sophisticated, they disovered that it was quite possible to do 'telnet somewhere.com 25' and go direct to the socket on the distant end handling mail. The distant end *assumed* it was talking to another computer and that the computer on your end had done all the necessary checks and balances, etc, i.e. if he says his name is Santa Claus that must be correct; if it were not the software on his end would never have passed the mail to me, yet here it is, it just said HELO to me when I opened the socket window and asked who was calling. He must be calling from who-knows-where.com, after all, it is a computer calling me and that is what it said. So users learned it was quite easy to 'spoof' the mail software into believing whatever it was told; just bypass what little protection the software offered in those early days of very naive, trusting sysadmins by telnetting right to the 'standard' port or socket where everyone handled mail, hand off your forgery to the software at the other end and get away with it ... time after time. But a little hanky-panky and a few anonymous obscene letters in the mail was the least of the problem. There are sockets for a wide variety of rather sensitive applications such as executing a remote shell and other stuff. At one point, everyone knew what everyone else was doing because everyone did it the same way. If I had the ability and knowledge to loot and ransack one computer, I had the ability and knowledge to loot and ransack all of them ... that's how things were in the early days. So what the person is trying to say in what you read is while you can certainly co-operate and work with other sysadmins in the overall management of the Internet, your first responsibility is the protection and well-being of your own site. Don't let your sockets talk to strangers, ... or at least make it more difficult for them to do so. And as far as what people know when browsing the web, start with the assumption that most of them know too much for their own good, and work down from that point. Be *extremely* careful about any sort of interactive stuff you allow website visitors to do. When you stop and think about it, having a website with a hundred thousand visitors a day is about the worst security risk there can be. Don't be so interested in having the most fancy, flashy, interactive web site around that you leave buggy software and holes all over for the pests to climb through. CGI scripts need to be closely examined before allowing a user to install them as part of his pages. Never let a user write directly to cgi-bin. Make him submit the script for approval by one or more admins first. Well, you'll get the idea after your site has been looted and ransacked a couple times. :( PAT] ------------------------------ From: **rice.nospam.ttd.teradyne.com@teradyne.com (John Rice) Subject: Re: LEC Emergency-Break Capability Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 05:47:05 GMT Organization: Teradyne Telecommunications In article , Connie Curts wrote: > LECs have been able to directly access lines on the cable pair since > the 1980s when I was still working at the 'phone factory.' However, > it is the repair department that used to do this, not the operator > assistance group. Perhaps you should call the number to 'report a > problem on your line' and ask them if they could do this for you if > there is ever another emergency. Not a good idea. Repair centers of today only have access to automated test equipment which can test the line and return a test result to their screen. They have no direct access to the lines and the 'indirect test access is usually through three or more 'layers' of computerized equipment. John Rice __|__ K9IJ | "I speak for myself, not my employer" ________(*)________ | o/ \o | rice(@)ttd.teradyne.com | Miracles,Magic and Sleight-of-hand done here. ------------------------------ From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) Subject: Re: Denver Local-Calling Area May Expand, Postpone Start of 720 Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 21:29:00 PST Organization: Shadownet ahk@chinet.chinet.com (Adam H. Kerman) writes: >> With 42 rate centers in the 303 area code and prefixes assigned in >> blocks of 10,000 numbers, a new telecommunications company must have >> 420,000 numbers to provide service throughout the area code even if it >> has only a few customers. > Why must a Competitive Local Exchange Carrier have exchanges with the > same boundaries as the Incumbent Local Exchange Carrier? Several reasons. First, if the boundaries are different, it means using seperate entries in the rate center database, which makes it larger and adds to the complexity of billing software. Second, it would mean that switching carriers would change which areas were local/long distance to you. Again, a complication nobody wants. Third, most competetive LECs are actually *renting* the local loop from the *existing* LEC rather than installing their own! They just have their own switching equipment and possibly trunks, co-located with the LEC switches. Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow) shadow@krypton.rain.com <--preferred leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com <--last resort ------------------------------ From: ronnie@twitch.mit.edu Subject: Re: Bellsouth Erroneous Billing (Resolution) Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 01:29:39 EST Reply-To: ronnie@twitch.mit.edu Thanks for all of the responses I got regarding this issue. Since there was so much interest, I thought I would post the resolution. It turns out that even more background information is required to understand the problem. When I initially moved and my ISP started calling me, there was a problem. My provider's Ascend MAX could not call two different phone numbers to bond 128k, and my CiscoPro 750 could not receive two calls on one phone number to get 128k. I called BellSouth to set up a "hunt group" between my two B channels. It took them a month and a half to get this working, during which time, I was forced to have only 64k. Eventually, they got it to work. Now, turns out that what they did was get it to work with some combination of "hunting" and "call-forwarding-busy". Apparently, the "call-forwarding-busy" won out, and ever time my provider bonded the second B channel, there was a call made from my first B channel to my second B channel, which was being charged to me! As of this writing my bill is up to about $1500 which they say they will back out, but they still don't know how to fix it without breaking my 128k back to 64k! I guess not too many people have a BRI line that receives incoming calls? Stay tuned for more. Ron ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #336 ******************************