Phoenix Rising BBS/phoenixrising.zip/phoenixrising/tele-dig/td14-019.txt

Text File | 1994-01-08 | 26KB | 587 lines

TELECOM Digest     Sat, 8 Jan 94 09:22:00 CST    Volume 14 : Issue 19

Inside This Issue:                         Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Book Review: "The Phone Book" by Carl Oppedahl (Carl Oppedahl)
    Re: "Anonymous Call Rejection" - Could be Dangerous (Richard Masoner)
    Re: "Anonymous Call Rejection" - Could be Dangerous (Anthony E. Siegman)
    Re: "Anonymous Call Rejection" - Could be Dangerous (James R. Saker Jr.)
    Re: Surcharge for Tone Dialing to be Dropped (Carl Oppedahl)
    Re: Surcharge for Tone Dialing to be Dropped (Ed Greenberg)
    Re: Surcharge for Tone Dialing to be Dropped (A. Padgett Peterson)
    Re: Surcharge for Tone Dialing to be Dropped (Chris Labatt-Simon)
    Correction: Re: Help Needed With V.42bis (Jim Graham)
    Re: Hayes' New Modem (Jakob Hummes)
    Re: Communication Over Power Lines? (Michael D. Griffin)
    Re: How are VCR Plus Codes+ Generated (Peter Capek)
    Sprint (Dvorak) Modem Offer - Finally (Dan Osborn)

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: [e-mail] (Carl Oppedahl)
Subject: Re: Book Review: "The Phone Book" by Carl Oppedahl
Date: 7 Jan 1994 17:52:11 -0500
Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and Unix, NYC


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

> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Carl
> Oppedahl) writes:

>> The state-to-state differences are discussed in my book about phone
>> service.

>> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: What's this about your book about phone
>> service? Please review it for us and tell us how to obtain copies.   PAT]

[most of review omitted here -- thank you by the way to Mr. Verney!]

>   Some complaints:

> -ANI is defined as the service we here call "Caller ID", which will
>  be confusing when talking to those who know the difference.

Yes, Mr. Varney is right.  I incorrectly used the terms as if
interchangeable, which of course they are not.  If and when there is
another edition I will correct this.

> -Quad wire is blessed as a method of installing 2-line telephones, and
>  as a general inside wiring method.

Again Mr. Varney is right.  While I am pleased with most of what I
wrote, I am very embarassed that I did not then appreciate the
difference between quad and twisted-pair for multiline purposes.  As
readers here are aware (1) many home have quad already in place so
adding twisted-pair is more work and (2) quad often yields annoying
crosstalk.  I wish I had made the latter point in my book, and hope to
cover that point in another edition.

> -The cellular information should include information on ESN-cloning
>  and other problems with cellular service.

Again he is right.

> -Information (see below) useful to apartment dwellers is indexed under
>  the term "multiunit buildings", not under "apartment".  (In general,
>  there is little "lawyer-speak" in the book.)

Yes, and what's annoying is, I supplied an index and the publisher did
not use it -- they used one prepared by an index consultant that they
had used on other books.  Oh, well.

> Al Varney - I have no connection with Consumers Union, except as
>            a happy customer.  I have no connection with any lawyer,
>            except as an unhappy customer.

Well, thank you for taking the time to write it up.

Now, dear readers, here is how we can get a new edition that corrects
the bugs Mr. Varney mentioned, and that reflects everything else
people in this newsgroup might want to add -- you can guess.  People
would have to buy the present print run.  So, trot down to your local
bookstore and clear those shelves.  Buy extra copies for use as gifts.
Or call up Consumer Reports Books and order it by phone.

But seriously, thank you for the writeup.


Carl Oppedahl AA2KW    Oppedahl & Larson (patent lawyers)
Yorktown Heights, NY    voice 212-777-1330

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

From: cendata![e-mail] (Richard Masoner)
Subject: Re: "Anonymous Call Rejection" - Could be Dangerous
Organization: Central Data Corp., Champaign, IL
Date: Fri, 7 Jan 1994 21:44:22 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> drharry![e-mail]
(Alan Boritz) writes:

> Then you probably don't receive a lot of calls from telemarketing
> idiots and nosy scam artists.  We go through periods at work when
> we're inundated with those, and calls from telemarketing machines (our
> exchanges are low numbers in the 201 area).  Telemarketing calls are
> an enormous time-waster, and more than half of the investment scam
> callers are pushy and rude.  Invade my privacy at home with a useless
> sales pitch AND hide your CNID from me and I'll redefine the word
> "rude" for you. ;)

Many (not all) telemarketing calls actually originate from somewhere
outside of your area code (places where rent and labor is cheap).
Rejecting anonymous callers doesn't work for them.

> If you're hiding your identity from me (privacy block), then I don't
> want to talk to you.  My time is worth more than yours (anonymous
> caller, that is) and I don't appreciate it being wasted.

Many people do have legitimate privacy concerns, and don't want their
phone numbers to be known outside of a select circle.  Just my
observations.


Richard F. Masoner      Central Data Corporation
1602 Newton Dr., Champaign, IL 61821   [phone] x251

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

Date: Fri, 7 Jan 94 16:57:53 PST
From: Anthony E. Siegman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: "Anonymous Call Rejection" - Could be Dangerous


> Then you probably don't receive a lot of calls from telemarketing
> idiots and nosy scam artists.  We go through periods at work when
> we're inundated with those, and calls from telemarketing machines ...
> Telemarketing calls are an enormous time-waster, and more than half
> of the investment scam callers are pushy and rude.

  Ditto here.  In past two days San Jose Mercury telemarketers have
managed to ring all four university extensions on my secretary's desk
(selling newspaper subscriptions to Stanford University office
extensions? -- but then, who expects intelligence from telemarketers).

   Let me once again pitch the simple idea that telemarketers should
be allowed total freedom to call anyone -- but required to do it with
CNID from a special "telemarketing area code" prefix, like 300 or 400
or ??? (just like the "Advertisement" warning at the top of commercial
inserts in reputable magazines).  Those who wanted could then buy a
cheap black box to block all such calls.  No First Amendment problems,
no "do not call this number" databases to prepare and maintain, burden
of protection entirely on the callee (but easily done), etc.

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

From: [e-mail] (James R. Saker Jr.)
Subject: Re: "Anonymous Call Rejection" - Could be Dangerous
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Date: Fri, 7 Jan 1994 19:22:27 GMT


Ron Schnell <[e-mail]> writes:

> I have anonymous call rejection enabled on my phone in Miami, FL, and
> someone tried to call me from a cellular phone that was installed in a
> rental car in San Diego in their rental car and got the rejection
> message.
> I assume that the cellular rental company uses some ultra-cheap LD
> service (to make the most amount of money possible on the $2.00/minute
> rental charge!) that uses a local out-going line in Miami that
> disabled CID.

I've got US West Cellular service in Omaha, Nebraska (all you can eat
a month for $150!). Several of my friends and business associates who
have caller ID services have noticed that whenever they receive calls
from me on my cellular phone, they appear as anonymous calls.
Attempts to use last-call-return also fail (with some useless
message).  Evidently it's not just cheap cellular providers which
demonstrate this problem ...


Jamie Saker                     [e-mail]
Chief Operating Officer         Business/IS Major
Synergistic Communications      Univ. Nebraska at Omaha
voice: [phone]           fax: [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Carl Oppedahl)
Subject: Re: Surcharge for Tone Dialing to be Dropped
Date: 7 Jan 1994 17:24:46 -0500
Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and Unix, NYC


In <[e-mail]> Eric De Mund <[e-mail]>
writes:

> Dave Niebuhr <[e-mail]> in TELECOM Digest V14 #15:

>> NYTel, as part of a multi-million dollar rate rollback has been
>> ordered to reduce the cost of touch-tone dialing from $1.35 to $.50
>> per month which is still not enough.

> Given that backwards state of affairs, maybe my dad *is* telling me
> the truth when he says that he can't even *get* touch-tone service at
> his home in central Nassau County (Westbury), Long Island, New York,
> telephone number (516) 333-xxxx. Incredible.

I don't know the situation now, but a few years ago a friend in
Westbury had three lines in the house, one of which was a 516-333.
The 516-333 had been in place for a decade or more, and he kept it
because it was a flat-rate line -- no charge for local calls.

Makes me think that 516-333 was some sort of ancient equipment, a
stepper exchange, maybe.


Carl Oppedahl AA2KW     Oppedahl & Larson (patent lawyers)
Yorktown Heights, NY    voice 212-777-1330

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

From: [e-mail] (Ed Greenberg)
Subject: Re: Surcharge for Tone Dialing to be Dropped
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Date: Sat, 8 Jan 1994 14:20:02 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> Eric De Mund <eademund@lbl.
gov> writes:

> Given that backwards state of affairs, maybe my dad *is* telling me
> the truth when he says that he can't even *get* touch-tone service at
> his home in central Nassau County (Westbury), Long Island, New York,
> telephone number (516) 333-xxxx. Incredible.

Since 516-333 is served out of the Westbury DMS-100, it would surprise
me if it couldn't handle touchtone.  Now, NYTel may have some foolish
reason for not providing it, but be assured that 516-333 isn't step or
some other ancient technology.


Ed Greenberg [e-mail]  Ham Radio: KM6CG

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

Date: Fri, 7 Jan 94 08:39:39 -0500
From: [e-mail] (A. Padgett Peterson)
Subject: Re: Surcharge for Tone Dialing to be Dropped


> In addition, it is phasing out the optional business Flat Rate and
> untimed Message Rate plans for businesses in upstate NY and imposing
> timed message rate for them.

This is the scary part simce everywhere I go I see regional carriers
attempting to eliminate "flat" and "unmetered" plans. As telecommuting
and information hightway access begins to take hold, the elimination
of unmetered local service is the biggest threat to individual
connectivity that I can imagine.

Of course, the biggies (Compu$erve, Plodigy, etc.) will have 800
numbers and just pass the cost along, but one might expect amateur
BBSs, SLIPs, and the like to become much less popular. The biggest
threat would be to the infant telecommuting industry and the home
office which relies on unlimited local service and the best means for
achieving the Clinton/Gore "20% reduction in commuting" would go up in
smoke.

True, TANSTAAFL still applies and I suppose metering is inevitable
particularly since it is both cheap and desirable for the Telcos. The
only advantage that I can see for the consumer would be that with
metered service, the subscriber would have a right to a call detail
listing the individual calls by called number, time, and duration.


Chilly today,

Padgett


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Chilly is an understatement, Padgett.
Four degrees below zero at 9:00 AM this Saturday morning is not my
idea of a pleasant spring day in Chicago!  :) PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Chris Labatt-Simon)
Subject: Re: Surcharge for Tone Dialing to be Dropped
Date: 7 Jan 1994 22:51:01 GMT
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY, USA


Eric De Mund <[e-mail]> writes:

> Given that backwards state of affairs, maybe my dad *is* telling me
> the truth when he says that he can't even *get* touch-tone service at
> his home in central Nassau County (Westbury), Long Island, New York,
> telephone number (516) 333-xxxx. Incredible.

I have a friend in Islip (Nassau County) who has touchtone.  I though
this was a capability that was in all switches manufactured in the
last umpteen (how much is an umpteen anyway?) years, and that if a
customer wanted pulse service, the phone company had to disable
touchtone.  Anyone?  Anyone?


Chris Labatt-Simon                            Internet: [e-mail]
Design & Disaster Recovery Consulting              CIS: 73542,2601
Albany, New York
PHONE: [phone]                              FAX: [phone]
Subscribe to the Lotus Notes Mailing List - e-mail me for info....

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

From: [e-mail] (Jim Graham)
Subject: Correction: Re: Help Needed With V.42bis
Organization: Future site of Vaporware Corporation (maybe).  --Teletoons (NW)
Date: Fri, 7 Jan 1994 16:13:08 GMT


The purpose of this posting is to correct some major technical goofs
in another post.  These corrections come right out of the ITU-T
(ex-CCITT) text for V.42 and V.42bis, as well as info from one of the
authors of both standards.  General comments, of course, are mine. :-)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Janusz Purwin tel [phone]) writes:

> Well don't worry about if it does work or not. Firstly V.42 requires
> that both modems have to have that feature enabled.  Secondly it is
> most useless feature ever put into modem. Its good for marketing
> people to brag about and give false advertising about how faster modem
> will transmit data without pointing out when it happens.

First off, V.42 *IS* an important feature, especially for high-speed
modems.  If you didn't have some type of error control, you could run
into all kinds of problems.  Remember, high speed modems (e.g.,
V.32bis and the up-and-coming V.34) really stretch the limits of a
normal POTS line.  I won't bore everyone here with the details, since
that's not going to be anything new to anyone anyway.

Second, V.42 (and MNP3) strip off the start/stop bits, thus using only
8 bits per character instead of 10.  For a V.32bis connection, this
means going from a throughput of absolutely no more than 1440 cps to
somewhere around 1650 cps to 1724 cps (after protocol overhead).  See
the discussion over in comp.dcom.modems for more details on this.  But
when have you ever seen a vendor 'brag' about this?

> The V.42 uses Limpel-Ziff compression scheme

Sorry, but V.42 doesn't do any compression, period.  V.42 is an error
control protocol, as is clearly indicated by the title of ITU-T
(ex-CCITT) Recommendation V.42: "Error-Correcting Procedures For DCEs
Using Asynchronous-to-Synchronous Conversion" (originally in
all-caps).  V.42 is an HDLC-based error control procedure.  It
operates in one of two modes: LAPM (Link Access Procedure for Modems),
which is its primary mode, and an alternate mode specified in Annex A,
which is basically an MNP4 clone (added to provide support for older
modems that don't have V.42).  If you can find anything about data
compression in Recommendation V.42, you must be reading a different
version than the one that was written by the CCITT (now the ITU-T).

Now, assuming that your reference to V.42 was a typo, and you really
meant V.42bis ...

> The V.42 uses Limpel-Ziff compression scheme that is based on
> generating dictionary as you transfer a file. What that mean is, it
> will not compress as you type.

First off, V.42bis uses a modified version of Lempel-Ziv-Welch
compression.  Various extensions were added to LZW to make it more
effective in a modem environment where it would be required to
compress continuous streams of data.  It compresses whatever data it
can, regardless of whether that data is typed by you, is a screen of
data from the remote computer, or is a file being transferred.

Second, even if V.42bis only worked when *FILES* were being
transferred, and not when text screens, etc., were moving, would you
please explain to me how it's supposed to know the difference?  :-)
Think about it ...

> But here is the catch normally ALL files are compressed

You seem to be assuming that the only use for high-speed modems is
downloading files from a BBS.  This is, in fact, far from the truth.
There are lots of people using modems to access various other online
applications, and V.42bis can definitely help a *LOT* in this case.
And even if all you're doing is snarfing up some file from a BBS,
isn't it nice to have those file listings move faster?  Hey, if I'm
grabbing a file from a BBS, I usually have something I want to do WITH
that file -- I'd rather get on with that than sit there waiting for
screen after screen of info.

> by PKzip, ARC or ARJ LHA GIF programs. Those are using precisely
> same algorithm as V.42.

As already covered above, V.42 isn't data compression, and V.42bis
(which *IS* data compression) uses a modified version of LZW that is
designed specifically for the modem world.  In fact, zip, etc.,
usually do better than V.42bis, so where possible (and it isn't always
possible) you're better off compressing files with something like zip
or gzip prior to sending them.

> So those files are not compressible.  If you try to compress them
> again the file size will be larger than original.

Not true.  Unlike MNP5, V.42bis is nice enough to not expand
pre-compressed data, so the worst you'll get is 1:1.  For more
details, refer to section 7.8 of Recommendation V.42bis ("Data
compressibility test").

> ... So the benefits of V.42 for the user are minimal!

That depends on what the user is doing.  The benefits for YOU may be
minimal, and that's fine.  But just remember that there are other
modem users in the world, and they don't all do things exactly the
same way you do.


Later,

jim

73 DE N5IAL (/4)                         < Running Linux 0.99 PL10 >
      [e-mail]                 ICBM: 30.23N 86.32W
  ||  [e-mail]          Packet:  N5IAL@W4ZBB (Ft. Walton Beach, FL)
E-mail me for information about KAMterm (host mode for Kantronics TNCs).


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: My thanks to Jim for submitting this
correction. It is very difficult from where I sit to catch some of the
errors in the more complex technical articles which appear here in
the Digest, thus the importance of readers sending in corrections when
they are needed. Never hesitate to send in corrections and to be sure
they catch my eye given the high volume of mail received, be sure to
add some phrase in the subject line such as 'correction to posting' or
similiar.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Jakob Hummes)
Subject: Re: Hayes' New Modem
Date: 7 Jan 1994 21:04:43 GMT
Organization: Open Software Foundation


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Michael P. Deignan) writes:

> Of course, I don't know if this is how Hayes does it, but remember,
> you can only modulate a sine wave one of three ways: amplitude, phase,
> and frequency.

> Ain't technology wonderful?

Yes, it is. But there is an absolute limit (Shannon's Law).  The
question was about the transmission over a *real* phone line. And that
means there exists *noise*.  The limit of bps is proportional to the
logarithm of the signal to noise ratio. Unfortunately I don't remember
the constant factors.


Jakob Hummes

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

From: [e-mail] (Michael D. Griffin)
Subject: Re: Communication Over Power Lines?
Date: 7 Jan 1994 19:38:21 GMT
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA


James H. Haynes ([e-mail]) wrote:

> I believe the power companies also use carrier current for signaling
> and controlling their relays and things, again working on the high-voltage
> side of things so they don't have to go through transformers.

Actually many of them (most) have discovered that they can run a fiber
optic cable right along side or even inside the high voltage cables
since the opticial signals are immune to the electrical interference
 ... now if someone could only figure out how to transmit electric
power via fiber cable the power companies would really be happy.

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

Date: Fri, 7 Jan 94 15:14:54 EST
From: Peter Capek <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: How Are VCR Plus+ Codes Generated


VCR Plus codes are a "secret" encoding of the channel, start date and
time, and length of a program.  Gemstar seems to have elected to try
to keep the encoding secret, so as to maintain their ability to sell
the device, and also to sell to the newspapers the codes.  This may be
because they couldn't get an effective patent or other form of
protection.

Unfortunately, they seem not to have anticipated that this strategy
would be interpreted by many as a challenge. As a result, almost all
details of the encoding were deduced and published in a paper,
published in Cryptologia about two years ago.  As far as I know,
there's no other protection on the encoding, so that no legal barrier
prevents a newspaper (at least, one which isn't already under contract
to Gemstar) from creating the codes itself and publishing them (modulo
the missing details), although there is undoubtedly protection on the
VCR Plus trademark itself.


Peter Capek

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Fri, 07 Jan 94 15:28:01 EST
Subject: Sprint (Dvorak) Modem Offer - Finally


Pat:

As a final effort to obtain my sprint modem, I scanned back issues for
Diane Worthy's number.  The number associated with her is no longer in
service.  However, in my search I came across the number for Shawn
Larimer.  One article listed him as the person in charge. I called
that number and left a message.

Well, I just received a return call, not from Mr. Larimer, but from
Don Sivesind (913-624-5136).  He was very nice, even cheerful.  When I
breifly explained to him my tale of woe, he (much to my delight) said
that he would order me a modem right away.  It turns out that instead
of setting up a new account (which would have trigged a modem order)
they re-activated on old account.

Well, I'm a "happy camper" now, and not "so" down on Sprint's customer
service.  Although, this still leaves David in a quandry about what to
do with his extra modem.


Dan Osborn


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Thanks for the followup on this. I'm
glad to hear Sprint was willing to work along with you. Regards
David and his extra modem, I wonder if he has been staying awake
all night wondering what to do about it. :)  Hey, he can send it to
me if nothing else; somehow I will find a way to sacrifice one of
the empty slots in my 386.  :)  I'll try to stay warm today as it
is miserably cold here in Chicago, and the forecast is for sub-zero
weather for a couple days.  Otherwise, have a nice weekend!  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V14 #19
*****************************