DP Tool Club 12/CD_ASCQ_12_0294.iso/vrac/tc14_51.zip/TC14-51.TXT

Text File | 1994-02-06 | 32KB | 759 lines

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 30 Jan 94 09:33:00 CST    Volume 14 : Issue 51

Inside This Issue:                          Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Modems to Merlins (Steven Warner)
    Re: Modems to Merlins (Walter Syrek)
    Re: Modems to Merlins (Charlie Mingo)
    Re: "Anonymous Call Rejection" - Could be Dangerous (Robert Endicott)
    Re: "Anonymous Call Rejection" - Could be Dangerous (Randy Gellens)
    Re: Are LATA Maps Available? ([e-mail])
    Re: Are LATA Maps Available? (David Esan)
    Re: How to Phone US 0800 Numbers From the UK? (Laurence Chiu)
    Re: How to Phone US 0800 Numbers From the UK? (Linc Madison)
    Re: How to Phone US 0800 Numbers From the UK? (Arthur Rubin)
    Re: Unmetered Local Service (Charles Reichley)
    Re: Unmetered Local Service (Chaim Frenkel)
    Re: Unmetered Local Service (J. D. McDonald)
    Re: New York Telephone Issuing "New" Rotary Phones (Martin McCormick)
    Re: New York Telephone Issuing "New" Rotary Phones (Jerry Leichter)
    Re: Distinctive Ringing and Ring Detectors (Dan Lanciani)
    Re: Distinctive Ringing and Ring Detectors (Charles Roberson)
    Telephone Nunbers in France (Earle Robinson)
    GSM Radio Interface Security ([e-mail])
    Nine Pin Jack Into Cellular Phone - Connect to Computer? (John Hardin)
    Problems With French Telephone in Canada (Michel Brunet)

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 GEnie.
Subscriptions are available at no charge to qualified organizations
and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:

                 * [e-mail] *

The Digest is compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson Associates of
Skokie, Illinois USA. We provide telecom consultation services and
long distance resale services including calling cards and 800 numbers.
To reach us:  Post Office Box 1570, Chicago, IL 60690 or by phone
at 708-329-0571 and fax at 708-329-0572. Email: [e-mail].

    ** Article submission address only: [e-mail] **

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 gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup comp.dcom.telecom. It has no connection with the unmoderated
Usenet newsgroup comp.dcom.telecom.tech whose mailing list "Telecom-Tech
Digest" shares archives resources at lcs.mit.edu for the convenience
of users. Please *DO NOT* cross post articles between the groups. 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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Steven Warner <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Modems to Merlins
Organization: RTFM / beachSystems, Sunnyvale, CA, USA
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 1994 05:08:25 GMT


(Cliff Sharp) writes:

>   1.  The primary reason I want the modem there is so that I can call
> their machine and use some sort of remote-access software to figure
> out what they're doing to their poor machine when they break it.  The
> Merlin "solution" sounds to me as though I would never be able to get
> to their modem (or that the modem would answer any call that came in,
> not just mine).  Yes?  No?

Using a BTMI or a GPA (as you stated) will work.  More below.

>   2.  For some incredibly silly reason I can't talk them out of, they
> demand that the first line(s) of their hunt group remain open at all
> times possible and unused by outbound calls.  (Explaining hunting to
> them is very like teaching the proverbial pig to sing.)  From what I
> understand, the adapter either seizes the first open line or has to be
> manually routed.  How does it really work?

The GPA is plugged into a merlin set.  It picks up whatever line the
merlin phone would pick up, if you raised the handset.  The GPA must
plug into the expansion connector in the back of the phone.  It will
NOT plug directly into the switch.

The BTMI (Basic telephone and modem interface) plugs directly between
the switch and a modem, elimininating the need for a Merlin voice
terminal. The BTMI can be programed to pick up any or all lines, and
can be programed to select outgoing lines in a selection sequence much
like that of a regular set.

There are two versions of BTMI.  The BTMI-1 has a problem that if the
modem is using the line, and another line rings (that the BTMI would
normally seize), camp-on tones are fed to the modem.  This can cause a
few problems.  Modems plugged into a BTMI-1 also must dial '9' to get
outside lines.

The BTMI-2 has modes that disallow the camp-on tones, and even a mode
that will present outside lines to the modem without dialing 9.

>   3.  This whole thing sounds as though they're going to have to plug
> the adapter into a phone and route RJ-11 cable all over the office.
> Friend likes the idea now, but he's gonna change his mind when he sees
> it.  Is there any other way to do it so we can run 4-pair to the modem
> location?

See BTMI above.

>    ANY ideas are welcome, including how to explain to a wall that a
> dedicated line is his best solution.

It may or may not be. a properly connected modem interface will allow
quite functional sharing of the line.  Be aware that 9600 baud is
about as good as you will do thru this thing.


Steven Warner  (34W 36L)  [e-mail]

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

Subject: Re: Modems to Merlins
From: [e-mail] (Walter Syrek)
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 94 08:39:00 -0600
Organization: C-9 Communications


I have an AT&T Merlin set on my desk at the office. It has two plugs
on the bottom, one for the line cord, one marked "other". Does anybody
know if I can plug a modem into the "other" socket?  It's a strange
size, not the same as the standard modular phone jack.

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

From: [e-mail] (Charlie Mingo)
Subject: Re: Modems to Merlins
Date: 30 Jan 1994 01:41:21 -0500
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC


In article <[e-mail]>, Cliff Sharp <clifto@indep1.
uucp> wrote:

>   A friend is part owner of a small business using a Merlin Plus
> system.  He wants to add a modem to his coterie of computer equipment
> (and I've been trying to get him to do it for the longest time!).
> However, for some reason he feels that a dedicated line is too
> expensive and wants to hook it into his Merlin system.

>   Now, a little research turned up a general-purpose adapter that
> AT&T sells for just such use; it plugs into one of the telephones and
> provides a POTS look-alike that somehow can use any line.

While we're on that subject, my brother is trying to do exactly this
with a Northern Telecom PBX dating from the mid-1980's.

Does anyone know if Northern Telecom sells a similar POTS-line
adaptor?  Any idea how much it would be or where one would find it?

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

From: [e-mail] (Robert Endicott)
Subject: Re: "Anonymous Call Rejection" - Could be Dangerous
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 1994 05:22:47 GMT


Mark Crispin ([e-mail]) wrote:

> I just saw in an electronics toy catalog (Danmark or one of those) a
> Caller ID box that implements something like Anonymous Call Rejection
> as its own feature.  If you enable it, it automatically answers the
> call and plays a refusal message, than hangs up.

> What I see as different between this box and the telco's feature:

> 1) You don't have to beg the ACLU for this feature, after having begged them
>    for CNID.
> 2) No monthly charge beyond the CNID.
> 3) You need to wire the box in series with all your extensions, otherwise
>    you won't get the ring suppression on the other ones.
> 4) I doubt that it interacts well with Call Waiting.
> 5) The ability to set the refusal message (I don't know if this particular
>    box has it, but doubtless others will).  Big win.

I have solved the problem by putting a computer with a telephone
interface board on the line. It answers the phone line and sounds just
like an answering machine, and takes a message if the caller leaves
one.

HOWEVER, anyone I want to be able to get through. I tell them to
touchtone a code during the outgoing message and it will interrupt the
message and ring my phone.  NOONE I don't know, ever knows that there
is a way to get through.  If the call is valid, I return the call.

Since I've programmed it myself, I can have as many codes as I want.


Robert Endicott

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: 30 JAN 1994 11:01 GMT
Subject: Re: "Anonymous Call Rejection" - Could be Dangerous


[e-mail] writes:

> Also note that telco can elect to turn on supervision when
> connecting to the ACR announcement, so the call will be considered
>"completed" for billing purposes.

Do any telcos do this?  How appalling.  It violates the basic assumption
of intercepts.


Randall Gellens           [e-mail]|
A Series System Software
Unisys Corporation        [Please forward bounce messages|
Mission Viejo, CA.        to: [e-mail]]|


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Not really. Intercepts assume no useful
information was passed to the caller, where with anonymous call rejection
the information being passed tells the caller that the called party does
not wish to speak with them since the caller is not known to them. It
might be looked at as a way of saying 'I do not speak to strangers'.
Unlike no such number, no circuit or out of order intercepts where the
lack of communication is not the fault of the caller or called party,
in this instance the called party is plainly saying that he refuses to
communicate. Telco's posture seems to be they do not wish to be in the
middle of a possible dispute between the parties, etc.   PAT]

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

Date: Sun, 30 Jan 94 09:52:21 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Are Lata Maps Available?
Organization: AT&T


I received a National Lata Map at a trade show two years ago (believe
it was COMNET)

Anyway the company name and address on the bottom of the map is:

CCMI
Suite 1100
11300 Rockville Pike
Rockville, MD 20852-3030
Phone [phone] ext 835.

I don't know if they are still in business but it might be worth a try
if you're still looking for a lata map.

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

From: [e-mail] (David Esan)
Subject: Re: Are LATA Maps Available?
Date: 30 Jan 94 05:13:44 GMT
Organization: Moscom Corporation, Pittsford NY


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:

> in most states there is only one LATA.

Not true.  Most states (and provinces) have more than one LATA.
Attached are a list of states/provinces and the number of LATAs
associated with them.

AK 1     VT 1 NJ 4     MI 6 LA 8     OH 10
DC 1     CT 2 NM 4     MS 6 NE 8     TN 10
DE 1     NS 2 NV 4     PR 6 NY 8     FL 11
HI 1     ON 2 WA 4     UT 6 SC 8     IN 11
MB 1     AB 3 WV 4     KS 7 AL 9     NC 12
ME 1     BC 3 AZ 5     KY 7 IA 9     PA 12
NB 1     MA 3 ID 5     MT 7 SD 9     VA 12
NF 1     PQ 3 OR 5     OK 7 WI 9     CA 14
NH 1     MD 4 WY 5     CO 8 MN 10     IL 18
RI 1     ND 4 AR 6     GA 8 MO 10     TX 20
SK 1

The LATAs in NY, where I live, include:

132 - NYC
133 - Hudson Valley
134 - Albany
136 - Syracuse
138 - Binghamton
140 - Buffalo
921 - Fisher's Island (Independant)
974 - Rochester Telephone (Independant)

The names associated with these places are just the large city in
those LATAs.  LATA 140 includes all of Western NY from Rochester (but
not including Rochester) to the west, and three exchanges in Pennsylvania.


David Esan      [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Laurence Chiu)
Subject: Re: How to Phone US 0800 Numbers From the UK?
Date: 29 Jan 1994 23:10:42 -0800
Organization: CRL Dialup Internet Access, California
Reply-To: [e-mail]


In article <[e-mail]>, John R. Grout wrote:

> 1.  How would 800 Directory Assistance (which, for the benefit of
> readers outside North America, is 800-555-1212), handle calls coming
> through USA Direct?  I can imagine an AT&T operator asking such a
> person "what area code are you calling from?", as they often do here,
> and the conversation taking a turn for the worse.

I don't know about 800 Directory assistance but on the few occasions I
used USA Direct to make calls when I didn't know the number, I would
hang on and wait for an operator. They knew what country I was calling
from based on the line I guess. When I asked for directory assistance
they would call that area's DA and identify themselves as AT&T and get
the number for me and then connect me.


Laurence Chiu          Walnut Creek, California
Tel: [phone](wk)  Internet: [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Linc Madison)
Subject: Re: How to Phone US 0800 Numbers From the UK?
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 1994 09:06:37 GMT


Another point to mention is that (although every PTT in the world will
deny it until they're blue in the face) the fact is, from many places
you can simply dial +1-800-whatever, and the call *will* go through,
at normal international rates.  It isn't supposed to work, they don't
want you to think it will work, but I have done it myself.  I remember
slugging Australian dollars into a callbox in the middle of the Outback.


Linc Madison  *  Oakland, California  *  [e-mail]

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

Subject: Re: How to Phone US 0800 Numbers From the UK?
From: [e-mail] (Arthur Rubin)
Date: 30 Jan 94 03:12:56 GMT
Organization: Beckman Instruments, Inc.


In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John R.
Grout) writes:

> 1.  How would 800 Directory Assistance (which, for the benefit of
> readers outside North America, is 800-555-1212), handle calls coming
> through USA Direct?  I can imagine an AT&T operator asking such a
> person "what area code are you calling from?", as they often do here,
> and the conversation taking a turn for the worse.

Correct answer (to what area code are you calling from?): How should I
know?  (I once called 800 information from a SkyPhone (TM).)


Arthur L. Rubin: [e-mail] (work) Beckman Instruments/Brea
[e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] (personal)

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

Date: Sun, 30 Jan 94 08:59:03 EST
From: Charles Reichley <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Unmetered Local Service
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: IBM Federal Systems Company (for now)- Manassas, VA USA


For MOST things in this world, we all pay the same price regardless of
how much we use it.  I will pay the same for a TV as you, even if you
watch your TV eight hours a day and I only watch mine for an hour a
day.  The only things which we pay for use are things that are
actually USED UP.  We pay for each gallon of heating oil, for each
gallon of water, for each kilowatt of electricity (Electricity is a
grey area -- while I can't use the same kilowatt as someone else, it
is also the case that for many generating stations, there is a minimum
output that exists and is 'wasted' if nobody uses it.  But even in
this case, the power is put somewhere and is lost).

SO the question is, is phone service something you 'use up' by the
minute, or something that is a fixed item.  Cable TV is a lot like
phone service, and I don't pay per minute for cable (well I don't have
cable, but if I did I wouldn't be paying per use).  It does cost the
cable company more if there are more people on the line, as they have
to boost the signal.  But once the signal boosters are in place, it
makes no difference whether I watch the cable or not.  In the same
way, if more people make phone calls, the phone company has to install
additional switches/lines/equipment.  But once the equipment is in
place, the cost for the phone company is the same whether I make a
phone call or not.  Maybe phone usage should be billed on a split-system,
where people are charged by the minute during times when the usage is
over 80%, but not charged when the usage is less than that.


Charles W. Reichley,   Loral/FSC???, Manassas, Va.


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: How would people know which condition
was in effect at the time? Many folks would gladly wait until overall
usage dropped below a certain point in order to use the service 'for
free' if they knew what the usage was. How would you convey that?   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Chaim Frenkel)
Subject: Re: Unmetered Local Service
Date: 30 Jan 94 05:40:22 GMT
Organization: Nonlinear Knowledge, Inc.


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Lars
Poulsen) writes:

> Hahahaha hahaha ha ha ... he ho hummmm ...  Here in Denmark, local
> calls have been metered for many, many years -- by the pulse method.
> Itemized billing is NOT available, and there would be an uproar from
> office workers -- on privacy grounds -- if the telco were to start
> itemizing bills. Itemized billing, like flat rate local calling -- is
> a feature of the American telephone system; it has ended up that way
> mostly by accident. Certainly there is no logic that says subscribers
> have the right to an itemized bill. (There may, however, in many
> jurisdictions be a PUC regulation saying so.)

I would argue that the customer has every right to an itemized bill.
Consider an order placed with a mail order outfit, (or as they do in
my neighborhood, place large phone orders with the local grocery store
for delivery): would you accept only a total?

If I would have a meter at my end that would independently corrobrate
the phone company's numbers/total, you might have an argument. But as
it is you have only the phone company's word as to the correct amount.
There is no easy way to determine if the phone company is being honest
(ie design error / built-in bias :-) or whether your phone line is
being hacked/abused.


Chaim Frenkel      On contract at:
[e-mail]      [e-mail]
Nonlinear Knowledge, Inc.   Bear Stearns & Co., Inc.

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

From: [e-mail] (J. D. McDonald)
Subject: Re: Unmetered Local Service
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 1994 06:26:53 GMT
Organization: UIUC SCS


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Bill Pfeiffer) writes:

>> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The thing Jack Decker and other pro-
>> ponents of flat rate billing seem to forget or ignore is that in most
>> instances of measured billing, the majority of telephone subscribers
>> actually pay LESS for service than with flat rate.  A small minority
>> of the users -- mainly people with telephone intensive lifestyles such
>> as modem users -- pay more.

> Please, Pat.  That is not at all true.

I live in downstate Ill., in Champaign. At one time we had the choice
of measured or flat rates. The measured rate was clearly cheaper for
me, in fact I seem to remember $6 monthly phone bills.

Then they did away with the flat rate entirely ... everybody now has
measured rates. At the same time they raised the minimum one paid for
no calls at all, so as to be almost equal to what the previous flat
rate was. So (almost) everybody lost.


Doug McDonald

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

From: [e-mail] (Martin McCormick)
Subject: Re: New York Telephone Issuing "New" Rotary Phones
Organization: Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 1994 07:58:58 GMT


 The technology to remove the DTMF tones is definitely here.
The amateur radio magazine "QST" had an introductory series of
articles, last year, about digital signal processing.  The series
featured a Texas Instruments DSP chip programmed to remove steady
tones from an audio channel.  The program simulated a filter which was
capable of removing complex, but repetitive wave forms so it could
remove several tones occurring at once from an audio signal.  The
article described what it was like to use the filter and mentioned
that it occasionally produced very strange effects when it would
mistakenly eat part of a human voice, but it generally did the job in
removing heterodynes from voice signals without effecting the voice.
Such a filter would gobble up DTMF signals without leaving anything
behind but a click.


Martin McCormick WB5AGZ   Stillwater, OK
O.S.U. Computer Center Data Communications Group

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

Date: Sun, 30 Jan 94 08:19:36 EDT
From: Jerry Leichter <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: New York Telephone Issuing "New" Rotary Phones


You know, some of the ancient Greeks would have loved this mailing
list (and the net general).  It's populated by people who, like them,
believe that sheer logic is enough to understand the world -- you don't
need any "dirty" observation.

"Everyone knows" (by simple reasoning) that replacing touchtone phones
with rotary phones won't help because "the bad guys" will just go to
Radio Shack and buy tone dialers.  "Everyone knows" (by simple
reasoning) that this whole approach just won't do anything.

Well, the {New York Times} article that reported on the change
contained information explicitly addressing both of these points.  I
don't have the article in front of me so don't recall exactly who was
quoted, but I think it was a Nynex spokesman who mentioned tone
dialers but also said that *as a matter of observed fact* few drug
dealers bother to buy or use them.  Why?  Go ask them; but they don't.

Further, in neighborhoods where rotary phones have been installed --
and remember, we are no longer just applying "pure reason", there have
been such neighborhoods for a couple of years now -- it's a matter of
*observed fact* that those phones tend not to be used as "offices" for
drug dealers.  Why?  Again, go ask the drug dealers.

Sometimes little things can have a disproportionate impact. Explaining
*why* may be very difficult, but doesn't change the result -- the world
works the way it does despite our lack of understanding of it.  I
don't know about you, but while I'm very willing to listen to reason,
I'm even more willing to look at facts.


Jerry


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Jerry, what you say makes very good sense.
We have known for years that drug dealers are not usually the smartest
people in the world (I am speaking now of the street corner salepeople,
not the wholesalers and importers). You are quite correct that time and
again in Chicago at least, when payphones have been converted to (a) one
way outgoing service; (b) calling card/collect/third party billing only
 -- no coin -- during overnight hours; and/or (c) rotary dial service the
drug dealers have simply moved elsewhere -- to phones which DO still
have unrestricted service -- to conduct business. And for most people
in the neighborhood, that's all they want is for the drug dealers to
*go somewhere else*.

I think often times people on Usenet (and some of that may rub off on
the people who participate in this group) assume all the people in the
world are of the same level of sophistication as themselves. I've
caught myself falling into that rut. From my recent observations at a
local Radio Shack store, I've noticed how many people have no idea
even how to hook a modular cord into the back of the phone on one end
and into the wall jack on the other end without it being done for them
or shown to them in detail. Smart Radio Shack salesmakers (as Tandy
likes to call them) make extra money going to customer's homes outside
of business hours as a separate thing and installing what the customer
bought that day in the store. Drug dealers do not read the {New York
Times} and they certainly do not participate in Usenet newsgroups. Drug
dealers are not too bright. *That* is probably the reason the rotary
dial/outgoing service only combo works so well in the 'war on drugs'.
The neighbors don't care who sells drugs; they just don't want the
traffic around their area. You are right ... it works!  Of course the
neighbors are not much smarter and they can't see why touch tone is
needed either so they are not inconvenienced for the most part even
if the rest of us are.   PAT]

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

Date: Sun, 30 Jan 94 00:10:02 EST
From: [e-mail] (Dan Lanciani)
Subject: Re: Distinctive Ringing and Ring Detectors


[e-mail] wrote:

> I also use AT&T's switch box (pressing #1 transfer to yet ANOTHER
> 'fake' line -- good for modems, faxes, multi answering machines, etc)
> and the multi-ring box with this little toy did not work together
> nicely (ie: MAJOR voltage problems ON the phone line).

> Just so you know the one I have is called "Ring Decipher" by Command
> Communications, Inc (Aurora, CO).

The main problem with CCI's product is that it puts out a piddling 18V
to simulate an on-hook condition.  If you connect anything that
monitors line voltage to determine on/off hook status to the CCI box,
that device will likely be confused.  I talked to CCI about this and
they claim that most devices are happy with 18V to indicate on-hook.
However, every device that *I* tried (including an AT&T answering
machine, switch box (for similar additional fake line effect), fax
machine, and phone) interpreted 18V as off-hook.

Beware that other ring decoders have similar problems.  Beware further
that several other brands are simply re-labeled CCI boxes (e.g., Black
Box).  The only unit that I could find which put out a respectable 48V
is the one sold in AT&T phone centers.  (I think it is made by
Multilink or somesuch.)  Even this device required modifications
(additional capacitors in the voltage trippler) to put out reasonable
current at 48V.


Dan Lanciani   ddl@harvard.*

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

From: [e-mail] (Charles "Chip" Roberson)
Subject: Re: Distinctive Ringing and Ring Detectors
Date: 29 Jan 1994 16:42:39 GMT
Organization: Alcatel Network Systems, Inc., Raleigh, NC


> Just saw an ad for a gizmo that will decipher the unique ringing cadence
> for up to four lines and route them to a specified telephone device.

I borrowed a friend's Viking PDF-2 (Phone/Data/Fax switch with
Distinctive Ringing) and it doesn't want to work with my AT&T
Answering System 1332.  According to Mike at Viking Electronic's tech.
support, AT&T doesn't like their ring signal.  (The PDF-2 answers the
line on the first ring and then generates the 'ring' back to the user
as it rings the appropriate port.)  Mike said get a new answering
machine or try their FastPath switch which provides a clear channel to
the phone port (which is where the normal ring is directed) so the
answering machine will receive the CO ring signal.  I guess the
FastPath answers the other cadences.  This apparently runs about $100.
(The PDF is about $150).

Hello Direct has a simple, four-port Ring Decipher for $89 which I'm
considering as an alternative.  Does anybody know of any other `well
behaved' devices that are reasonably (read "less expensively") priced?

Is there a dinstinctive ringing switch that can pass the CO ringing
straight through on any port?  In other words, can they just switch
the line without answering the call (going off hook) to the CO?

What about one that gives a each port a ringing signal that is similar
in quality to the CO's for a simple cadence?

Any reviews out there?


Thanks,

Chip
Alcatel Network Systems  *  2912 Wake Forest Road  *  Raleigh, NC 27609
Phone: [phone]                         FAX: [phone]
DoD #1161                [e-mail]                  o&>o

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

Date: 29 Jan 94 22:21:30 EST
From: Earle Robinson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Telephone Nunbers in France


Richard D G Cox said that the change in French phone numbers is put
off due to complaints from users.  This I doubt, since almost no one
in France is aware of any impending change.  There is almost complete
ignorance of such questions in France, in part due to the few people
who have access to Internet.  Anyway, France Telecom does what it
wants.  There's no competition and the French just bow and obey.


 -er

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: GSM Radio Interface Security
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 1994 09:11:16 GMT
Organization: Defence Science and Technology Organisation


Can anyone direct me to any information that quantitatively analyses
the risk of interception and spoofing on the GSM radio interface?

I am interested in any work which anybody has done to somehow quantify
how hard it would be and what resources it would take (time,
computing, equipment etc) to reverse calculate the relevant inputs of
the cryptographic algorithms (A3,A8,A5) in GSM from there outputs.

Cheers.

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

From: [e-mail] (John Hardin)
Subject: Nine Pin Jack Into Cellular Phone - Connect to Computer?
Organization: Tyrell Corp.
Date: Sat, 29 Jan 1994 18:11:47 GMT


Hi there -

There's a port on my cellular phone that looks like a parallel port
for a computer. Is it possible to connect my computer to this port and
reprogram my phone or do some good hacks on it?


Thanks,

John

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

Date: Sat, 29 Jan 1994 22:23:19 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Michel Brunet)
Subject: Problems With French Telephone in Canada
Reply-To: [e-mail]


Recently I returned from France and brought back an Alcatel telephone
with me. The telephone has a built in answering machine. After
connecting the telephone I tested some of the features. Everything
that has to do with making a call with the telephone works just fine.
However, to receive a call all I get from the telephone is a semi
ring. I'm hoping someone could explain to me why it is doing this. If
not, I would appreciate any information that anyone has on the ring
voltage used here in Canada and the ring voltage used in France.

Any help will be greatly appreciated. Merci!


·
(continued next message)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Area # 700  EMAIL                   01-30-94 10:33      Message # 21789
From    : TELECOM Moderator
To      : ELIOT GELWAN                                  PVT  RCVD
Subj    : TELECOM Digest V14 #51

 @FROM   :[e-mail]
· (Continued from last message)

Michel Brunet   Ottawa (Canada)   E-Mail [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V14 #51
*****************************