
From telecom-request@delta.eecs.nwu.edu  Fri Sep 15 04:24:56 1995
by
1995
04:24:56 -0400
telecomlist-outbound; Thu, 14 Sep 1995 12:14:50 -0500
1995
12:14:48 -0500
To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 14 Sep 95 12:14:00 CDT    Volume 15 : Issue 383

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    FBI Arrests Dozens of America OnLine Users (TELECOM Digest Editor)
    Re: Dialing 911 Instead of Police's 7D Number (Luis Rodriguez)
    Re: Dialing 911 Instead of Police's 7D Number (Peter Laws)
    Re: Dialing 911 Instead of Police's 7D Number (Nick Hingtgen)
    Re: Dialing 911 Instead of Police's 7D Number (Robb Topolski)
    Re: Dialing 911 Instead of Police's 7D Number (David Levine)
    Re: Dialing 911 Instead of Police's 7D Number (kevray@mcs.com)
    Re: Dial 10288 for ATT ... Not (Steven Lichter)
    Re: Dial 10288 for ATT ... Not (Wes Leatherock)
    Re: Dial 10288 for ATT ... Not (Steve Cogorno)
    Re: NANP Area Codes - History (Mark J. Cuccia)

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@eecs.nwu.edu *

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:
                    9457-D Niles Center Road
                     Skokie, IL USA   60076
                       Phone: 500-677-1616
                        Fax: 708-329-0572
  ** Article submission address only: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu **

Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using
anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email
information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to
use the information service, just ask.

************************************************************************
*
*   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, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft
     to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in 
     the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily
     represent the views of Microsoft. 
     ------------------------------------------------------------

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.

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.

----------------------------------------------------------------------



The FBI made dozens of arrests and searched 120 homes and personal 
computers
on Wednesday as part of an investigation into child pornography on 
America
OnLine. 

Management of America OnLine has, over a two year period, supplied the 
FBI
with the names and addresses of users 'suspected' of 'being involved in'
child pornography and/or arranging sex with children. The raids on 
Wednesday
marked the first time federal agents were called upon by an online 
service
to investigate the behavior of their subscribers in private chat rooms.

Attorney General Janet Reno spoke in support of the actions of America 
OnLine
and FBI agents, noting, "We are not going to permit exciting new 
technology
to be misused to exploit and injure children."

The raids were conducted throughout the day Wednesday in 57 of the 94 
FBI
districts in the United States. They were mostly concentrated on the 
east
coast, however arrests and confiscation of computer equipment took place
all over the country in such diverse cities as Miami, New York, Dallas 
and
Trenton, NJ. Carlos Fernandez, an FBI spokesperson in Washington, DC 
said
that 'quite a few more arrests are expected in the next several days' 
and
that the Bureau would wait until those arrests had been effected before
discussing the case in detail.

Pam McGraw, a spokesperson for America OnLine, based in Viennna, VA 
admitted
that the company monitored email and private conversations seeking out 
persons who use their network to transmit pornographic material. She 
said
they always provide the FBI with the names of users suspected of 
involvement
in child pornography.

Ms. McGraw also discussed an online 'neighborhood watch' program in 
effect
on AOL where users are encouraged to oberve each other's activities and
report on them to management of the online service.

Although child pornography certainly is not allowed in public areas of 
AOL,
according to Ms. McGraw it 'usually is transmitted in email between 
users,
or in private chat rooms'. She did not indicate how AOL's interception 
of
email for the purpose of examining it for 'pornography' or their 
monitoring
of private conversations between subscribers could be reconciled with 
various privacy laws, apparently because it can't be. 

FBI spokesperson Fernandez said the federal investigation of AOL users
showed that child pornographers are turning to online networks 'more and
more' to lure curious children. He said, "the utilization of online 
services
and bulletin board systems is rapidly becoming one of most prevalent 
tech-
niques for individuals to create and share pornogrpahic pictures of 
children
as well as to identify and recruit children into sexually illicit 
relation-
ships."

Raids and arrests of other AOL subscribers 'suspected of being involved
in child pornography' will continue over the next few days until all the
user-suspects have been located.

I don't know about you, but I'm going to purge all the AOL sofware from
my computer today. Child porn does not interest me in the least, but
having AOL scanning my mail and checking up on my in private 
conversations
with other users there is of great concern. It is hard for me to imagine
how any online service could violate the trust of their users in this 
way,
by getting into their email and personal files, regardless of the 
intentions.

We have known for some time that AOL was 'cooperating' with federal 
agents
in their investigation of child pornography, but until the massive raids
and arrests commenced on Wednesday followed by AOL's admission that the
'evidence' was found in email and private chat, we did not know the 
extent
to which AOL was abusing their subscribers in the process of 
cooperating.

PAT

------------------------------

Down


In article <telecom15.379.12@eecs.nwu.edu>, wa2ise@netcom.com (Robert
Casey) wrote:

> A week or two ago, an accident occured at a problem intersection near
> my parent's house in Oradell, NJ.  And a few months ago, we had 911
> installed in town.  So, I reach for the phone to report the accident.
> Times before, we'd dial 261-0200 and get our town's police quickly.
> But I dialed 911, and found that there was a delay in getting my
> report to the town police.  Appears the 911 operator has to identify
> what town I'm in, and then transfer me to my town's police.  Takes
> about 1/2 minute.  "911, what's your emergency?" me: "there's an
> accident at Oradell (ave) and Summit (ave)".  "Ah, hold on, I need to
> transfer you to the Oradell police".  Then I told the Oradell police
> "There's an accident at Oradell and Summit".  A couple minutes, the
> cops show up.

> I don't know if a half minute is that important in reporting an
> accident (someone was injured) or a fire or some other emergency.
> Think I'll dial up the 7D police number when another situation occurs.

The main advantage of 911 is that the operator is able to determine
the address the phone call is beign made from. This way if the person
calling is unable to talk, either because of the emergency situation
or because speech impairemen, the 911 operator can dispatch emergency
vehicles to this address.


Luis A. Rodriguez   lrodrgz@free.org

------------------------------

Down


wa2ise@netcom.com (Robert Casey) writes:

> I don't know if a half minute is that important in reporting an
> accident (someone was injured) or a fire or some other emergency.
> Think I'll dial up the 7D police number when another situation occurs.

Yes, 1/2 minute makes a difference.  You can bleed a *lot* in 30
seconds.

Instead of dialing the 7D of the PD, you should be dialing the 7D of
the 9-1-1 authority and raising a stink.  Let them know that as a
taxpayer you're unhappy with the service.  E9-1-1 provides the town,
the system should be routing the call automatically to the appropriate
PSAP.  Raise a stink.


Peter Laws   ex-NREMT-P
Peter Laws<plaws@comp.uark.edu>
All original portions of this posting are Copyright 1995, Peter Laws

------------------------------

Down 


I do not know why the 911 system in Oradell, NJ is operating in the
way you describe.  The call should be routed straight to the proper
answering point based on the ANI of the originating party if your area
is served by enhanced 911.  A database which associates your ANI with
an answering point (gross simplification) is used to route the call.
This database is updated any time a change is made to a telephone line
(new service, delete service, move service,...)  The ANI is then
supplied to the answering point and is used to display the identity
and location of the caller (usually derived from the billing name and
address).

Generally, most 911 calls are routed to a police department responsible 
for the geographic area you are calling from.  Some 911 networks route
calls from a large geographic or densely populated area to a central
answering point and then dispatch the proper service from there.

If the system is set up properly, the operator who handles your call
should be able to transfer you directly to whatever service you
require by pressing 1 button.  Police, Fire, Ambulance, EMT,...  and
so forth can be connected to in a matter of seconds.  Why this took a
"1/2 minute" is beyond my comprehension.

There are a number of reasons why this wouldn't happen:

 1.) An ANI fail occurred while outpulsing to the switch responsible
     for routing your 911 call properly,
 2.) Your parent's ANI is not associated with the proper answering
     point in the database. 
 3.) Your parent's ANI is not in the database used to properly 
     route 911 calls.  This can happen for a number of reasons:
     - parents have just moved and database has not been updated yet,
     - parents are served by a telephone company or CAP that is
       different than the company that owns the database and the
       information has not or will not be supplied to the database.
 4.) Your parent's have a multiparty line and the proper ANI could
     not be determined,
 5.) Your 911 service routes all calls to a central location and 
     the calls have to be manually sorted out there (Basic 911?).

I suggest you call your parent's local telephone company and demand an
explanation.  Expedient routing of a 911 call may mean the difference
between life and death.  Notice that the 911 operator did not
specifically ask you for the city you were calling from according to
the dialog you supplied in your post.  Either the address you were
calling from was available to the operator or the operator was
somewhat familiar with the geographic area and assumed that the corner
of Oradell and Summit is located in Oradell, NJ.  How many Main
streets are there in NJ?

In order to save money, many municipalities are consolidating their
911 centers which means that the operators are being asked to handle
calls from larger and larger geographic areas.  At the same time, the
telephone companies are consolidating their 911 routing into just a
few switches for a whole state.  An article in the NENA (National
Emergency Number Association) News, Vol. 12 No. 4, November 1994,
showed that NJ has three (3) switches which are used to route 911
calls from 567 different municipalities and 3 different phone
companies (Bell Atlantic, Sprint-United, and Warwick Valley).


Nick Hingtgen  ndanger@bnr.ca
E911 Design and Support - Nortel/BNR 
RTP, NC 

------------------------------

Down


wa2ise@netcom.com (Robert Casey) wrote:

> A week or two ago, an accident occured at a problem intersection near
> my parent's house in Oradell, NJ.  And a few months ago, we had 911
> installed in town.  So, I reach for the phone to report the accident.
> Times before, we'd dial 261-0200 and get our town's police quickly.
> But I dialed 911, and found that there was a delay in getting my
> report to the town police.  Appears the 911 operator has to identify
> what town I'm in, and then transfer me to my town's police.  Takes
> about 1/2 minute.  "911, what's your emergency?" me: "there's an
> accident at Oradell (ave) and Summit (ave)".  "Ah, hold on, I need to
> transfer you to the Oradell police".  Then I told the Oradell police
> "There's an accident at Oradell and Summit".  A couple minutes, the
> cops show up.

In almost every area of the country, the Public-Safety Answering Point
(PSAP) is the local police department.  As a former long-term
public-safety dispatcher, I can think of five possibilities for the
above scenerio:

1.  You reached the wrong default agency because you were calling from
a boundry.  The accident was in City 1 and you crossed a jurisdictional 
line into City 2 to use the payphone.

2.  You reached the wrong default agency because the 9-1-1 system is
new and when a PSAP is not programmed for a particular phone you get
the PSAP for where the telco's central office is located.  Or, the
wrong PSAP is programmed due to a clerical error and your call arrives
in the wrong city.  The 9-1-1 operator is supposed to detect this and
arrange for a correction.

3.  You dialed from a cellular phone.  These are handled differently
 -- in some areas the agency with highway/freeway jursidiction answers.
In other areas you get the PSAP for the city/county in which the cell
is located.

4.  There was an ANI or ALI failure.  When this happens, the PSAP
where the central office is located answers.

5.  Your PSAP is handled by a separate agency.  I've heard of this,
but it's extremely rare and the reasons for it range from political
problems between public-safety agencies to political pork spending.


Robb Topolski   Robb_Topolski@ccm.jf.intel.com

------------------------------

Down


Not to change the subject, but the police probably took longer because 
there was traffic on Kinderkamack and they couldn't get from the Dunkin 
Donuts in Emerson to Oradell Avenue any quicker.  Only kidding!

As I was reading your post, my initial guess as to the intersection you 
were describing was Soldier Hill Road and Forest Ave.  My wife grew up 
on 
Soldier Hill Road, and her best friend still lives at the corner house 
at 
Soldier Hill and Forest.

Of course this has nothing to do with why you posted.  If all that 911 
in 
Bergen County is going to do is transfer the call to a local police 
station, then maybe all they should ask for is what town you are in.  If 
the caller is not from the area and doesn't know, then the 911 operator 
can ask more questions.


David Levine            mailto:levined@ccmail.nhq.sony.com
Sony Electronics        phone: (201) 930-7039 
Sony Drive - MD#3D2     fax:   (201) 930-6361 
Park Ridge, NJ 07656    http://www.sony.com   

------------------------------

Down


Unfortunately if they did it as they did in our town when it went to
911 (about fifteen years? now) you'll have the same wait (possibly).

If two calls come in (let's assume two different emergencies) with one
on the 7D number and the other on the 911 the dispatcher (and in small
towns usually only ONE) will answer the 911 line FIRST letting the 7D
police line just ring.

About eight or ten years ago we had a fire in my parents home (small,
thank God :-) and I had the 7D number burned in my head since
childhood. I called the number and on the fourth ring I picked up the
other line and dialed 911. 911 answered on the second ring while the
other call was STILL ringing ... she answered the other call after the
911, but I dropped the phone and was heading for the door at that
time... :-)

------------------------------



                                                                              



There could be a programming problem, or the number you were dialing 
could have been within the same LATA which may not have allowed using
anything but the Local Carrier. I know in California you can use anyone 
you want, but some areas still don't have equal access.


The above are my ideas and have nothing to do with whoever my employer 
is.
SysOp Apple Elite II and OggNet Hub (909)359-5338 2400/14.4 24 hours,
Home of GBBS/LLUCE Support for the Apple II. 
slichte@cello.gina.calstate.edu

------------------------------



mstrandrew@aol.com (MSTRANDREW) wrote:

     [ ... text deleted ... ]

> My experience has been it is cheaper to use my ATT card calling rather
> than US West.  So, I dialed 10288-0-503-xxx-xxxx to use ATT.  I was
> connected to a live operator.  I gave the card number and the operator
> responded: "Thank you for using GTE".  Confused, I hung up and dialed
> again and experienced the same process.  On the third try, I dialed
> 10288-0 and waited.  The operator answered GTE!  I asked for a ATT
> operator and was cheerfully connected.

      A couple of years ago I was calling from a coin telephone in
either the Hearne or Bryan-College Station, Texas, market area (like a
LATA, only GTE).  I got in an argument with the GTE operator about
using (or not using) AT&T.

      She informed that AT&T had contracted with GTE in this area to
provide operator service for them and that she *was* the AT&T operator
as well as the GTE operator.

      GTE, of course, is not forbidden by the MFJ to do this, as an
RBOC would be.


Wes Leatherock    wes.leatherock@hotelcal.com   
wes.leatherock@oubbs.telecom.uoknor.edu                       
wes.leatherock@f2001.n147.z1.fidonet.org           


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Except I believe GTE signed off on that
consent decree also with the understanding that the Justice Department
was going to come after them next if they did not. I think they are
bound by much the same terms as AT&T is now. Also, while it is true that
the 'GTE operator is also the AT&T operator' in cases such as you have
described, the local Bells also have this don't they?  It seems to me
at one of the major centers here in the Chicago area the operators 
answer
for both Ameritech as well as AT&T. Am I mistaken on that?    PAT]

------------------------------



MSTRANDREW said:

> responded: "Thank you for using GTE".  Confused, I hung up and dialed
> again and experienced the same process.  On the third try, I dialed
> 10288-0 and waited.  The operator answered GTE!  I asked for a ATT
> operator and was cheerfully connected.

GTE does this in the Northern California too.  I was a bit confused by
it the first time I used a GTE payphone, because it was clearly
labeled that long distance calls are handled by AT&T.  I dialed "00"
and sure enough, the operator answered "GTE How may I help you?"  I
told her I was trying to reach an AT&T operator, and she said that she
*was* an AT&T operator, and that they handled GTE calls on behalf of
GTE.


Steve   cogorno@netcom.com

------------------------------



I have looked thru the Telecom Archives from time to time, looking at
back issues of TELECOM Digest and many of the other files, and have
seen various articles regarding the original assignments of areacodes.
Most of us know by now that N0X codes were identified with 
states/provinces 
with ONE areacode and if a state needed MORE than one areacode, it was
assigned codes from the N1X set. Bud Couch's (bud@kentrox.com) recent
TD submission mentioned that codes with shorter dial spins were
assigned to regions where a larger volume of incomming calls were
anticipated -- i.e. Metro areas. (I don't know why 413 for Philadelphia
area was noted in his submission -- probably a type. 215 has always been
southeast Pennsylvania and 413 has always been western Mass.)

A few months ago, I faxed Carl Moore with many notes, lists, maps that
I'd compiled over the years of research from back issues of Bell's
journals, regarding areacodes, long-distance dialing, etc. so that he
could fill in the gaps, particularly those gaps from the late 1940's
and thru-out the 1950's (and even early 1960's). Carl lists the
original 1947 assignments alphabetically by state and then provinces.
I have put the codes in a NUMERICAL chart/grid showing how the shorter
dial pulls/pulses were assinged to dense areas and longer ones
assigned to remote states/regions.

Please note that the lower right-hand portion of the N0X chart is
blank in 1947. Also note that a smaller part of the lower right-hand
part of the N1X chart is also blank, and also notice that there is a
blank diagonal in the N1X chart. Since N1X states/provinces (those
with two or more areacodes) were states with larger metro areas, they
probably anticipated that they would split first. The shorter N1X
codes were assigned to the metro area and the longer N1X codes
assigned to rural/remote parts of a state with multiple codes. My
charts only identify the two-letter code for the state (or province)
and not the city or regions within a state, but they still are
more-or-less the same today, if one needs more detail. The diagonal
was probably reserved if when a metro area split, the inner area (or
more dense area) could keep their original code, and the suburbs --
outer area -- less dense area could get a code from the diagonal, rather
than a longer pulse code from the lower righthand part of the chart.


If one looks thru the actual year by year assignments in Carl Moore's
files at the ftp archive site, you'll see that the first codesp
assigned after 1947 were indeed from that diagonal: 219, 318
(*temporarily* for San Francisco, 1951), 417, 516, 714. Bell
more-or-less abandoned this pattern by 1953, as well as the rigid
meanings of N0X vs. N1X.  Also please note that N09 codes weren't
assigned until around 1957, some 10 years AFTER the areacode format
was finalized in 1947. BTW, I saw in a 1953 (GTE) Automatic Electric
publication similar to AT&T's Notes on Nationwide Dialing that there
were 128 possible NPA codes- i.e. the N09's, N10's, N00's and N11's
were not included. And most of us know that the N11's have never
intended to be NPA codes since they had been in use since the 1920's
(in mostly Panel and Crossbar localities) for local service codes. The
N00's were reserved from assignment until the mid-60's when 800 was
used for toll-free.  The N10's (another long dial pull series) was
originally used for TWX beginning in the early 1960's.


MARK J. CUCCIA   PHONE/WRITE/WIRE:     HOME:  (USA)    Tel: CHestnut 1-
2497
WORK: mcuccia@law.tulane.edu          |4710 Wright Road| (+1-504-241-
2497)
Tel:UNiversity 5-5954(+1-504-865-5954)|New Orleans 28  |fwds on no-answr 
to
Fax:UNiversity 5-5917(+1-504-865-
5917)|Louisiana(70128)|cellular/voicemail


FINALIZED ORIGINAL NPA ASSIGNMENTS (1947) (86 CODES TOTAL)

NOn Form (States/Provinces with only ONE code assigned)
(40 codes assigned)

201 NJ 301 MD 401 RI 501 AR 601 MS 701 ND 801 UT 901 TN
202 DC 302 DE 402 NE 502 KY 602 AZ 702 NV 802 VT 902 mrtm.prv.
203 CT 303 CO 403 AB 503 OR 603 NH 703 VA 803 SC 
204 MB 304 WY 404 GA 504 LA 604 BC 704 NC  
205 AL 305 FL 405 OK 505 NM 605 SD   
206 WA 306 SK 406 MT     
207 ME 307 WY      
208 ID       


N1N Form (States/Provinces with several codes assigned)
(46 codes assigned)

212 NY 312 IL 412 PA 512 TX 612 MN 712 IA 812 IN 
213 CA 313 MI 413 MA 513 OH 613 ON 713 TX  913 KS
214 TX 314 MO 414 WI 514 PQ 614 OH  814 PA 914 NY
215 PA 315 NY 415 CA 515 IA  715 WI 815 IL 915 TX 
216 OH 316 KS 416 ON      616 MI 716 NY 816 MO 916 CA
217 IL 317 IN  517 MI 617 MA 717 PA  
218 MN  418 PQ 518 NY 618 IL   
 319 IA 419 OH     


N = {2,...,9}  ;  n = {1,...,8}

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #383
******************************

                                             
