Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!know!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!apple!bionet!hayes.fai.alaska.edu!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request From: 0004133373@mcimail.com (Donald E. Kimberlin) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Phreaks of the Monolithic Era of Telephony Message-ID: <12159@accuvax.nwu.edu> Date: 13 Sep 90 15:30:00 GMT Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu Organization: TELECOM Digest Lines: 74 Approved: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 646, Message 2 of 11 ..in a footnote "... some children, phreaks and assorted other folks consider it >quite a funny joke to conference two unrelated parties via >three-way calling, then let them (the two called parties) squabble >with each other while the perpetrator goes spastic with laughter >at his little prank. PAT]" Well, it brings to mind three incidents that I guess can now be told: 1.) The good old "testboard," of course, had the ability to "conference in" several parties, while the person on the testboard could cut off their own talk path, leaving the two parties talking to each other. In an earlier, simpler DDD network, simply dialing an area code plus 121 got the "Inward Operator." a.k.a "Assistance" to the public's view for an entire area code. In a yet-to-be-divulged corner of Long Lines, it was a favorite pastime to dial 809+121 (San Juan, Puerto Rico) and 808+121 (Honolulu, Hawaii) and let two Ernestines of the Lily Tomlin era argue about which had called which and what they were supposed to do. Meantime, gales of laughter could be heard around the monitoring loudspeaker in a testroom thousands of miles from either of them! 2.) In a similar fashion, happenstance listening found an FX between two cities that got dialed up every morning and contained a day-long dialog between two receptionists of the same company. One was named "Rusty." Rusty's nightly romantic exploits in a major seaside resort city, if true, would provide years of material for one of today's "Confessions" 900 numbers! They were replete with details of Rusty's specialized wardrobe and tools of her nighttime trade. Needless to say, the day shift had a monitor speaker plugged into THAT FX daily. (I almost swallowed my chewing gum more than once!) After a long period of unobtrusive listening, a testboardman began to pop in with comments that could be heard only by Rusty and not her audience at the other end. Rusty would respond, leaving her private audience puzzled at who Rusty was talking to. That would cause the discussion to turn to suggestions of reporting eavesdroppers on the phone. However, no reports were ever filed when it got around to, "But what if they ask what we were talking about?" (It would have been hilarious, anyway, because the self-same room that was doing the listening was the place the trouble reporting number was in ... in fact, the self-same people!) 3.) The highest level of development of this art might be classified as an early form of the "Talking to God" service recently purported to have emerged in Italy. This one was over on the 17B Board, where thousands of DDD message trunks terminated in ports of the 4A toll switching machine. Each evening, as the network peaked with the 7 PM rush for cheap rates, it wasn't difficult to find a circuit on which a couple of good old Bible-toting down south mommas were commiserating about their physical aches and heartaches over the foibles of their "chilluns." When one finally asked, as they always did, for the Lord to intervene, an obliging testboardman would plug into the four-wire transmit toward the requester and play God on the Telephone. Invariably, the poor dear would literally swoon and shush the questioning other, who couldn't hear God talking! One can imagine the testimony of miracles next Sunday morning at the country church! But of course, NOBODY ever listens in on YOUR calls...why, the Company would NEVER permit that! Boy, I sure hope the Statute of Limitations has run out on this! [Moderator's Note: I still don't think it is funny. I regard it as a major violation of trust; and I'm sure you are aware that had the employees involved in this little prank been caught and the subscriber's involved elected to sue, telco would have had to pay financially and the employees involved probably would have lost their jobs. PAT]