wmartin@ALMSA-1.ARPA.UUCP (03/23/87)
The following items appeared in the latest Risks Digest and have not
appeared in the Telecom Digest, so I thought I'd send them on for
completeness' sake:
They relate to topics previously discussed here, but some raise new
points I don't recall having been covered in Telecom discussion. I
stuck in some comments in [square brackets].
Will Martin
******
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 87 11:13:37 pst
From: sdcsvax!net1.UCSD.EDU!graifer@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Dan Graifer) (tty08)
To: ucbvax!CSL.SRI.COM!RISKS
Subject: Re: Increased Telephone Switching Capabilities
A recent article ("Telephones: Learning Some Manners"; The Economist, March
14, 1987, pg. 82) discusses a pilot project at three exAT&T local operating
companies of a system called Local Area Signalling Service (LASS). The new
technology is a "line history memory" at the originating line's switch which
records the number dialed. This number can be queried by the receiving
line's switch. Some of the capabilities require a new instrument with display
but most do not. The article quotes $5/month marginal cost.
The big gain is in reducing the current invasion of privacy. Most people
wouldn't admit physical persons into their home before determining their
identity, but we don't know who we are going to talk to until we answer the
phone. Other tricks include:
Got a busy signal? Punch a code for automatic reconnect. When both caller
and called lines are free, the system calls the caller and asks if the call
should be completed. Several calls may be pending.
Pick up the phone just in time to hear the other end disconnect? Ask your
local switch to call him/her back.
The incoming identifier phones would be useful to mail order houses etc. to
verify the origination of a call, as well as the privacy application. (The
article also points out that it will prevent calling your spouse from a bar
with a fib about working late.)
The local switch could also contain a "screen list" of numbers for special
treatment; selective call forwarding, call waiting, or exclusion. (The
original system gave a message "At the customers request, your call is not
being completed" to excluded callers. This annoyed a lot of people, so it
was changed to a "fake" ring-no-answer.)
*[I wonder just WHO was annoyed -- the people making the exclusions,
*whose actions were thereby discovered by the people whose calls were
*excluded? Or the callers themselves? If the latter, what difference
*would THEIR annoyance make? It's because of their offensiveness that the
*system was installed in the first place! However, if the former, it
*could make some sense: this way you could cut off your bothersome
*brother-in-law, say, without him knowing about it. You could cut off
*someone who calls another member of your household without either of
*them knowing who did it! Sounds ideal for the parents of teenagers...-- WM]
The article also points out that over half of all nuisance calls are placed
from home. The new system will discourage that sort of thing.
I discussed this article with a friend, who made two interesting assertions:
1) The information (calling #) is already available, and is encoded somehow
just prior to the ring spike on the receiving line.
2) He was told by manufacturers of telephone sets that a feature to display
this information on the recipient telephone was against current FCC
regulation.
*[THIS I have never heard of before and it wasn't mentioned in our previous
*discussion of this service as being under test (in Florida, I believe).
*Is it correct? How could it be so in this age of FCC deregulation and
*freely-available and -connectible telephones from many sources? - WM]
Such a system opens and closes many abuses of the phone system. The article
mentions nuisance calls and mail order verification. I don't see any
obvious risks to the new features, but I can imagine weird combinations of
screens leading to unintended results.
Can anyone comment on my friend's assertions, or know which three operating
companies were involved in this project?
Dan Graifer
------------------------------
From: lll-crg!micropro!edg@seismo.CSS.GOV
To: risks@csl.sri.com
Subject: Releasing the phone line
Date: 20 Mar 87 11:20:58 PST (Fri)
The issue of automatic callers releasing the phone line is actually
a people issue rather than a technology issue. Most telephone companies
will release an incoming call when the recipient has hung up for about 15
seconds. This does not depend on the caller hanging up. When I was a kid,
we knew that we could move from one phone to another as long as we did so
in less than 15 seconds (and were the recipients of the call) rather than
the callers.
The problem comes when the call is unwanted. The recipient generally hangs
up for as long as it normally takes to get a dial tone (1-2 seconds) and then
goes off-hook, to "check" and make sure that the call was dropped. Naturally,
it was not. The recipient goes on hook for another two or three seconds and
checks again. Call still connected. Panic sets in and a feedback loop
ensues. The recipient is unable to drop the call, not because the line
is being held from outside, but because s/he does not know how to do so.
When I get an unwanted call, I hang up, and walk away. I admit that the
parent trying to call an ambulance does not have this presence of mind,
but in truth, it would work.
This is not to imply that I approve of automatic telephone solicitors.
I consider them to be one of the few things worse than human solicitors.
-edg
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 87 12:58:12 EST
From: Michael Wagner <wagner@gpu.utcs.utoronto>
X-To: risks@sri-csl.arpa
Subject: Automatic dialing devices in Canada
I was recently cleaning up my files in preparation to moving to Europe for
a year, and came across the following insert in a phone bill from some time
ago (a year or two, judging by the stratigraphy). I thought it might be of
interest to RISKS readers. My phone supplier is Bell Canada (I'm in Ontario).
Are you offended by recorded telephone solicitation calls?
To help regulate the number of unwanted phone calls coming into your
home or business, ground rules have been established by the Canadian
Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) governing
automatic dialing and announcing devices (ADADS) _when used for
telephone solicitation purposes_. [italics in the original..mw]
ADADS are ... [explanation of what they are and what they do...mw]
Now, before the pre-recorded message starts, you must be informed
of the nature of the call, the identity of the caller, and that you
may end the call by hanging up.
Within 10 seconds of [your] hanging up, the ADAD must disconnect
from the line. ADAD calls may be made only between
9:30-20:00 weekdays, 10:30-17:00 Saturday, 12:00-17:00 Sunday.
[two more paragraphs explain how and to whom you complain about
violations, and the fact that organizations using ADADs have been
warned what violations will do to their phone privileges...mw]
******
End of inclusions from RISKS.
If you send in comments on any of these, it would be kind to CC the
originator of the original message as reflected in the included
header data above.
Regards, Will Martin