Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [coldwarcomms] Active AT&T site info [was re: Article about AT&T Ocean Ga...

Expand Messages
  • hooligan@aol.com
    In a message dated 9/11/2004 7:33:54 PM Pacific Daylight Time, lafrance@att.net writes: AT&T s original request was that I ...remove all reference to...
    Message 1 of 8 , Sep 12, 2004
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      In a message dated 9/11/2004 7:33:54 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
      lafrance@... writes:

      AT&T's original request was that I "...remove all reference to..." certain
      facilities, and I felt that deleting exact location data (street addresses
      and geographic coordinates) and substituting CLLI codes for station names
      (which are usually city/town names) was a reasonable compromise between
      AT&T's security concerns and the legitimate need to document the facilities
      for historical purposes.


      Something just occured to me here (sadly, some of my best ideas arrive
      when I'm half asleep at 2:30AM...). I could swear that back in the days of
      AT&T/Ma Bell being the local telco in the USA for many of us, if anyone wanted
      AT&T/Ma Bell to withhold public reference to their phone number (a request for
      non-publication, so it's not printed in the phone book or available by
      calling Directory Assistance), they had to pay a monthly fee for AT&T/Ma Bell to
      maintain the records in a non-pub manner. I seem to recall that the fee was a
      couple $$ a month, though perhaps it varied by state, and law enforcement,
      judges, 'public figures,' etc. got non-pub status for free.

      If I'm correct about this, I think Albert should send his contact at AT&T
      a monthly bill to maintain the location non-pub status on his web page,
      using the same type of greedy BS verbage that AT&T/Ma Bell used to justify
      charging people $$ to keep their phone #s private. If AT&T wants to claim that's
      extortion, Albert can lead a class-action lawsuit against AT&T/Ma Bell to get
      the public's non-pub fees refunded.


      Tim




      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Mark J Cuccia
      ... This is still the case, throughout the US/Canada (both Bell and independent, and possibly even CLECs these days), as well as in many other countries of the
      Message 2 of 8 , Sep 12, 2004
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        Tim (hooligan) wrote:

        > Albert LaFrance wrote:

        >> AT&T's original request was that I "...remove all reference to..."
        >> certain facilities, and I felt that deleting exact location data
        >> (street addresses and geographic coordinates) and substituting CLLI
        >> codes for station names (which are usually city/town names) was a
        >> reasonable compromise between AT&T's security concerns and the
        >> legitimate need to document the facilities for historical purposes.


        > Something just occured to me here (sadly, some of my best ideas
        > arrive when I'm half asleep at 2:30AM). I could swear that back in
        > the days of AT&T/Ma Bell being the local telco in the USA for many of
        > us, if anyone wanted AT&T/Ma Bell to withhold public reference to
        > their phone number (a request for non-publication, so it's not printed
        > in the phone book or available by calling Directory Assistance),
        > they had to pay a monthly fee for AT&T/Ma Bell to maintain the
        > records in a non-pub manner. I seem to recall that the fee was a
        > couple $$ a month, though perhaps it varied by state, and law
        > enforcement, judges, 'public figures', etc. got non-pub status for
        > free.
        >
        > If I'm correct about this, I think Albert should send his contact at
        > AT&T a monthly bill to maintain the location non-pub status on his
        > web page, using the same type of greedy BS verbage that AT&T/Ma Bell
        > used to justify charging people $$ to keep their phone numbers
        > private. If AT&T wants to claim that's extortion, Albert can lead a
        > class-action lawsuit against AT&T/Ma Bell to get the public's non-pub
        > fees refunded.


        This is still the case, throughout the US/Canada (both Bell and
        independent, and possibly even CLECs these days), as well as in many
        other countries of the world:

        You can have your number "unlisted" which costs an extra fee, where you
        won't be in the printed public directory but you will be listed with
        Directory Assistance and possibly other telco directories such as a
        street-address-sorted or numeric phone number sorted directory,
        available by telco for sale usually to marketing companies (but I don't
        know if telco makes this info available to "City Directory" publishers
        such as Polk and Criss-Cross)...

        or you can pay an even HIGHER extra monthly fee to be "NON-PUBLISHED",
        and you won't even be listed with (regular) Directory Assistance, and
        also are not supposed to be listed in telco=published "special"
        directories as well (address-sorted, numeric-telephone-number sorted,
        etc).

        As for CLECs (Competitive local telcos), the general rule is that they
        "work togather" with the large/incumbent local telco in the area, and
        supply listings of their customers to the incumbnet local telco, who is
        usually the publisher of the "official" telephone directory in the area.
        Of course, for many years now (even long before divestiture), there were
        private alternative published directories as well - both "white pages"
        as well as "Classified" (Yellow Pages) directories of businesses.
        There's always been this feud between the dominant/incumbent local telco
        claiming that the private directory publishers are "stealing" directory
        information from the incumbent. Anyhow, I suppose that some CLECs also
        contract directory with the alternative/private directory publisher.
        (And in some cases, rival telcos from other parts of the state or US
        will publish "alternative" directories). I do wonder if some CLECs by
        "default", keep all of their customer "private" (non-pub) unless they
        choose ot "opt-in" and be listed by the dominant telco's directory.

        Things aren't always "friendly" between CLECs and incumbents -- many
        incumbents charge heft fees to CLECs to list their customers.

        Wireless phones "by default" have been kept out of the directory. I
        don't know if there has been an option (at cost?) for the customer to
        "opt-in" to being listed if they really want to. But in recent years,
        there has been a move to include all wireless numbers in both Directory
        Assistance listings as well as various published/on-line "public"
        directories. Many wireless customers are opposed to this, since it costs
        them airtime/roaming charges to make/receive calls, although discount
        and package plans these days are making such charge concerns not as
        worrysome as in previous years.

        BTW, another point regarding how telco "wants it both ways" -- they
        charge the customer to be "unlisted" and even more to be "non-pub". Yet
        they charge HEFTY fees for us to call directory assistance to talk to a
        robot voice, and wait to see if it "understands" our speech pattern, or
        even if you get to talk to a live human girl operator, she is often
        quite rude and not very helpful in providing accurate information and
        sometimes necessary detail (such as when trying to get the number of a
        specific department/person in a large business organization). But you've
        already been "charged" anywhere from $1.00 to $3.00 for that "lookup
        attempt"!

        And telco also then wants to charge for having extra printed local
        directories, or especially printed directories from out-of-town while at
        the same time charging for out-of-area D/A as well! :(

        I do like that idea of attempting to send AT&T a monthly invoice to
        "with-hold" such PUBLIC information (afterall, their buildings are on
        tax records). And I think that the use of CLLI abbreviations for the
        locality and state (or province) are a great idea! It doesn't spell out
        the "full" city/locality name, and Albert has said he'd remove street
        addresses, long/lat and V/H co-ordinates, etc. SO, AT&T, Telcos, and
        Telcordia/Bellcore, and others -- have NOTHING to complain about! Of
        course, if they don't like the idea of using Telcordia's CLLIs, Albert
        could just go back to putting ALL of the DETAILED (PUBLIC) info which is
        available on official tax record or property record government websites!

        mjc
      • Spencer
        Wow! Sounds like someone is ticked off at Ma Bell, What s this- tit for tat? (btw) it s a whopping .30 cents to be non-pub in California with SBC, and
        Message 3 of 8 , Sep 12, 2004
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          Wow! Sounds like someone is ticked off at Ma Bell, What's this- tit for tat? (btw) it's a whopping .30 cents to be non-pub in California with SBC, and "telco" hasn't had "girls" in 40 plus years
          Mark J Cuccia <mcuccia@...> wrote:
          Tim (hooligan) wrote:

          > Albert LaFrance wrote:

          >> AT&T's original request was that I "...remove all reference to..."
          >> certain facilities, and I felt that deleting exact location data
          >> (street addresses and geographic coordinates) and substituting CLLI
          >> codes for station names (which are usually city/town names) was a
          >> reasonable compromise between AT&T's security concerns and the
          >> legitimate need to document the facilities for historical purposes.


          > Something just occured to me here (sadly, some of my best ideas
          > arrive when I'm half asleep at 2:30AM). I could swear that back in
          > the days of AT&T/Ma Bell being the local telco in the USA for many of
          > us, if anyone wanted AT&T/Ma Bell to withhold public reference to
          > their phone number (a request for non-publication, so it's not printed
          > in the phone book or available by calling Directory Assistance),
          > they had to pay a monthly fee for AT&T/Ma Bell to maintain the
          > records in a non-pub manner. I seem to recall that the fee was a
          > couple $$ a month, though perhaps it varied by state, and law
          > enforcement, judges, 'public figures', etc. got non-pub status for
          > free.
          >
          > If I'm correct about this, I think Albert should send his contact at
          > AT&T a monthly bill to maintain the location non-pub status on his
          > web page, using the same type of greedy BS verbage that AT&T/Ma Bell
          > used to justify charging people $$ to keep their phone numbers
          > private. If AT&T wants to claim that's extortion, Albert can lead a
          > class-action lawsuit against AT&T/Ma Bell to get the public's non-pub
          > fees refunded.


          This is still the case, throughout the US/Canada (both Bell and
          independent, and possibly even CLECs these days), as well as in many
          other countries of the world:

          You can have your number "unlisted" which costs an extra fee, where you
          won't be in the printed public directory but you will be listed with
          Directory Assistance and possibly other telco directories such as a
          street-address-sorted or numeric phone number sorted directory,
          available by telco for sale usually to marketing companies (but I don't
          know if telco makes this info available to "City Directory" publishers
          such as Polk and Criss-Cross)...

          or you can pay an even HIGHER extra monthly fee to be "NON-PUBLISHED",
          and you won't even be listed with (regular) Directory Assistance, and
          also are not supposed to be listed in telco=published "special"
          directories as well (address-sorted, numeric-telephone-number sorted,
          etc).

          As for CLECs (Competitive local telcos), the general rule is that they
          "work togather" with the large/incumbent local telco in the area, and
          supply listings of their customers to the incumbnet local telco, who is
          usually the publisher of the "official" telephone directory in the area.
          Of course, for many years now (even long before divestiture), there were
          private alternative published directories as well - both "white pages"
          as well as "Classified" (Yellow Pages) directories of businesses.
          There's always been this feud between the dominant/incumbent local telco
          claiming that the private directory publishers are "stealing" directory
          information from the incumbent. Anyhow, I suppose that some CLECs also
          contract directory with the alternative/private directory publisher.
          (And in some cases, rival telcos from other parts of the state or US
          will publish "alternative" directories). I do wonder if some CLECs by
          "default", keep all of their customer "private" (non-pub) unless they
          choose ot "opt-in" and be listed by the dominant telco's directory.

          Things aren't always "friendly" between CLECs and incumbents -- many
          incumbents charge heft fees to CLECs to list their customers.

          Wireless phones "by default" have been kept out of the directory. I
          don't know if there has been an option (at cost?) for the customer to
          "opt-in" to being listed if they really want to. But in recent years,
          there has been a move to include all wireless numbers in both Directory
          Assistance listings as well as various published/on-line "public"
          directories. Many wireless customers are opposed to this, since it costs
          them airtime/roaming charges to make/receive calls, although discount
          and package plans these days are making such charge concerns not as
          worrysome as in previous years.

          BTW, another point regarding how telco "wants it both ways" -- they
          charge the customer to be "unlisted" and even more to be "non-pub". Yet
          they charge HEFTY fees for us to call directory assistance to talk to a
          robot voice, and wait to see if it "understands" our speech pattern, or
          even if you get to talk to a live human girl operator, she is often
          quite rude and not very helpful in providing accurate information and
          sometimes necessary detail (such as when trying to get the number of a
          specific department/person in a large business organization). But you've
          already been "charged" anywhere from $1.00 to $3.00 for that "lookup
          attempt"!

          And telco also then wants to charge for having extra printed local
          directories, or especially printed directories from out-of-town while at
          the same time charging for out-of-area D/A as well! :(

          I do like that idea of attempting to send AT&T a monthly invoice to
          "with-hold" such PUBLIC information (afterall, their buildings are on
          tax records). And I think that the use of CLLI abbreviations for the
          locality and state (or province) are a great idea! It doesn't spell out
          the "full" city/locality name, and Albert has said he'd remove street
          addresses, long/lat and V/H co-ordinates, etc. SO, AT&T, Telcos, and
          Telcordia/Bellcore, and others -- have NOTHING to complain about! Of
          course, if they don't like the idea of using Telcordia's CLLIs, Albert
          could just go back to putting ALL of the DETAILED (PUBLIC) info which is
          available on official tax record or property record government websites!

          mjc

          Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT


          ---------------------------------
          Yahoo! Groups Links

          To visit your group on the web, go to:
          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coldwarcomms/

          To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
          coldwarcomms-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

          Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.




          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • David Lesher
          ... A) That fee was in the words of one wag {to cover the cost of} pushing all the other people up one line... B) Savvy folks know unlisted addresses, but
          Message 4 of 8 , Sep 12, 2004
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            Speaking on Deep Background, the Press Secretary whispered:
            >
            >
            >
            > Something just occured to me here (sadly, some of my best ideas arrive
            > when I'm half asleep at 2:30AM...). I could swear that back in the days of
            > AT&T/Ma Bell being the local telco in the USA for many of us, if anyone wanted
            > AT&T/Ma Bell to withhold public reference to their phone number (a request for
            > non-publication, so it's not printed in the phone book or available by
            > calling Directory Assistance), they had to pay a monthly fee for AT&T/Ma Bell to
            > maintain the records in a non-pub manner. I seem to recall that the fee was a
            > couple $$ a month, though perhaps it varied by state, and law enforcement,
            > judges, 'public figures,' etc. got non-pub status for free.

            A) That fee was in the words of one wag {to cover the cost of}
            "pushing all the other people up one line..."

            B) Savvy folks know unlisted addresses, but listed names, are free.

            C) ATT is too broke to pay Albert's bill.


            --
            A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@...
            & 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
          • Albert LaFrance
            ... From: David Lesher To: Sent: Sunday, September 12, 2004 4:13 PM Subject: Re: [coldwarcomms] Active AT&T
            Message 5 of 8 , Sep 12, 2004
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              ----- Original Message -----
              From: "David Lesher" <wb8foz@...>
              To: <coldwarcomms@yahoogroups.com>
              Sent: Sunday, September 12, 2004 4:13 PM
              Subject: Re: [coldwarcomms] Active AT&T site info [was re: Article about
              AT&T Ocean Ga...


              > A) That fee was in the words of one wag {to cover the cost of}
              > "pushing all the other people up one line..."
              >
              > B) Savvy folks know unlisted addresses, but listed names, are free.
              >
              > C) ATT is too broke to pay Albert's bill.

              Maybe I should apply for a Homeland Security grant to cover the expense,
              under the Critical Infrastructure Protection category.

              Albert
            • Dave Emery
              ... That would be in the fine tradition of many folks supping at the government trough... farmers paid NOT to grow crops etc... Kinda a bribe or shakedown...
              Message 6 of 8 , Sep 12, 2004
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment
                On Sun, Sep 12, 2004 at 05:17:28PM -0400, Albert LaFrance wrote:
                > >
                > > C) ATT is too broke to pay Albert's bill.
                >
                > Maybe I should apply for a Homeland Security grant to cover the expense,
                > under the Critical Infrastructure Protection category.

                That would be in the fine tradition of many folks supping at the
                government trough... farmers paid NOT to grow crops etc...

                Kinda a bribe or shakedown...


                --
                Dave Emery N1PRE, die@... DIE Consulting, Weston, Mass 02493
              • Albert LaFrance
                ... From: Dave Emery To: Sent: Sunday, September 12, 2004 6:21 PM Subject: Re: [coldwarcomms] Active
                Message 7 of 8 , Sep 12, 2004
                View Source
                • 0 Attachment
                  ----- Original Message -----
                  From: "Dave Emery" <die@...>
                  To: <coldwarcomms@yahoogroups.com>
                  Sent: Sunday, September 12, 2004 6:21 PM
                  Subject: Re: [coldwarcomms] Active AT&T site info [was re: Article about
                  AT&T Ocean Ga...


                  > On Sun, Sep 12, 2004 at 05:17:28PM -0400, Albert LaFrance wrote:
                  > > >
                  > > > C) ATT is too broke to pay Albert's bill.
                  > >
                  > > Maybe I should apply for a Homeland Security grant to cover the expense,
                  > > under the Critical Infrastructure Protection category.
                  >
                  > That would be in the fine tradition of many folks supping at the
                  > government trough... farmers paid NOT to grow crops etc...
                  >
                  > Kinda a bribe or shakedown...

                  Seriously, I'd never do anything like that. In fact, it I thought that
                  anything I'd posted was a threat to national security, I'd have removed it
                  without even being asked. At the same time, I think those of us doing this
                  research have a responsibility to make our material as accessible as we can,
                  and to be fairly aggressive in collecting information that's in danger of
                  being lost forever.

                  Albert
                • Albert LaFrance
                  ... From: To: Sent: Sunday, September 12, 2004 5:49 AM Subject: Re: [coldwarcomms] Active AT&T site info [was
                  Message 8 of 8 , Sep 12, 2004
                  View Source
                  • 0 Attachment
                    ----- Original Message -----
                    From: <hooligan@...>
                    To: <coldwarcomms@yahoogroups.com>
                    Sent: Sunday, September 12, 2004 5:49 AM
                    Subject: Re: [coldwarcomms] Active AT&T site info [was re: Article about
                    AT&T Ocean Ga...

                    > Something just occured to me here (sadly, some of my best ideas arrive
                    > when I'm half asleep at 2:30AM...). I could swear that back in the days
                    of
                    > AT&T/Ma Bell being the local telco in the USA for many of us, if anyone
                    wanted
                    > AT&T/Ma Bell to withhold public reference to their phone number (a
                    request for
                    > non-publication, so it's not printed in the phone book or available by
                    > calling Directory Assistance), they had to pay a monthly fee for AT&T/Ma
                    Bell to
                    > maintain the records in a non-pub manner. I seem to recall that the fee
                    was a
                    > couple $$ a month, though perhaps it varied by state, and law
                    enforcement,
                    > judges, 'public figures,' etc. got non-pub status for free.
                    >
                    > If I'm correct about this, I think Albert should send his contact at
                    AT&T
                    > a monthly bill to maintain the location non-pub status on his web page,
                    > using the same type of greedy BS verbage that AT&T/Ma Bell used to
                    justify
                    > charging people $$ to keep their phone #s private. If AT&T wants to
                    claim that's
                    > extortion, Albert can lead a class-action lawsuit against AT&T/Ma Bell to
                    get
                    > the public's non-pub fees refunded.
                    >
                    >
                    > Tim

                    How about this online "Yellow Pages" listing for AT&T's mysterious Chatham,
                    NC "Project Office"? At least it's not under "Bunkers, Secret" or
                    "Locations, Undisclosed":
                    http://www.triangleipages.com/t/telephonecommunication/telephonecommunicationssvc/default.htm

                    Albert
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.