Software Vault: The Diamond Collection/The Diamond Collection (Software Vault)(Digital Impact).ISO/cdr16/tc15_015.zip/TC15-015.TXT

Text File | 1995-01-22 | 40KB | 936 lines

TELECOM Digest     Mon, 9 Jan 95 08:01:00 CST    Volume 15 : Issue 15

Inside This Issue:                         Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Chatter Heard on Scanner Leads to Criminal Charges (Gary
Sanders)
    Re: Chatter Heard on Scanner Leads to Criminal Charges (Michael J
Graven)
    Re: Chatter Heard on Scanner Leads to Criminal Charges (Bill Sohl)
    Re: Chatter Heard on Scanner Leads to Criminal Charges (Richard
Solomon)
    Re: Cellular NAM and ESN (Alan Shen)
    Re: Christmas Greetings From AT&T (Alan Boritz)
    Re: Christmas Greetings From AT&T (Ari Wuolle)
    Re: 101xxxx: Not Yet (Wally Ritchie)
    Re: British Telecom Cuts Rates to Canada and U.S. (Wally Ritchie)
    Re: Noise Introduced by Bit-Robbing? (Wally Ritchie)

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 America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the
moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.

Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:

                 * [e-mail] *

The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
                    9457-D Niles Center Road
                     Skokie, IL USA   60076
                       Phone: [phone]
                        Fax: [phone]
  ** 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 partially funded by a grant from the
*
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland
*
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES)
*
* project.  Views expressed herein should not be construed as
represent-*
* ing views of the ITU.
*
**********************************************************************
***

Additionally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such
as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your
help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per
year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.

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] (Gary Sanders)
Subject: Re: Chatter Heard on Scanner Leads to Criminal Charges
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Columbus Ohio.
Date: Sun, 8 Jan 1995 18:18:23 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, Christopher Zguris
<0004854540@
mcimail.com> wrote:

> Cell phones are another matter, a listener with a scanner modified
to
> get that range will hear little "snippets" of conversations before
the
> phone changes frequencies or cells, that's definately "random". But
as
> for cordless phones, most/all will stay on the same frequency for
the
> entire call, much to the delight of the avid snooper with nothing
> better to do.

You have been listening to to many cell phone sales guys. First, many
scanners don't need to be modified (although new ones may) to listen
to
cell phones. They come out of the box with cellular. As for snippets I
would beg to differ, I know some one who is an active cell listner
(-:)) and depending on your local cell configuration you will hear
most of all phone calls that are placed. "my friend" listened to
someone trying to explain how secure a cell phone is becuase its
allways changing freq.  Was interesting considering the entire call
was 15 minutes long and never changed cells/freq.

As for me, I dont have a scanner. I have an R7000 communications
receiver -:)


Gary W. Sanders (N8EMR) [e-mail]
AT&T Bell Labs 614.860.5965


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I don't know where you shop, but all
the
Radio Shack units make a point of cutting out the cellular
frequencies.
So do quite a few others, and they have for a few years now.   PAT]

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

Date: Sun, 8 Jan 1995 13:27:23 -0500
Subject: Re: Chatter Heard on Scanner Leads to Criminal Charges
From: [e-mail] (Michael J Graven)
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Michael J Graven)


Pat wrote:

> Cordless phone monitoring is merely the 1990's version of what nosy
people
> used to do many years ago. [...]

I am reminded of my great-uncle, who lived on an out-of-the-way farm
near Shepherdsville, Kentucky, in the early part of the century.
According to his sister, my grandmother, their house was the first
drop on the loop ("two shorts on six, please, operator.")  Dwight
appeared to be a bit ahead of his time: he inserted a knife switch
into the loop after the home telephone so he could cut off the
eavesdroppers while he was talking with his girlfriend.

A man after your own heart, Pat.


Michael J. Graven     [e-mail]


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Telco used or uses the same concept to
afford absolute privacy from being overheard by extensions on the same
line. They call it an 'exclusion key'. Remember the old two-line turn
button phones and how the switchook plunger on the left side was made
a little differently than the one on the right side? You would lift it
to put the line you were *not* talking on on hold ... well some single
line phones had that funny plunger on the left side also, but in those
cases it would split the pair. To provide an exclusion, one of the
phones on the premises had to serve as the 'master phone'. The pair
from
the telephone exchange came to that instrument first. It came in on
the first (red/green) pair, the looped back out on the second (yellow/
black) pair. Lifting that plunger a quarter inch or so forced a couple
of metal contacts inside the phone to spread apart, thus preventing
the
loop out from ever getting out of the phone. From the phone it went
out on the second pair, *then* back to the demarc where normal
distribu-
tion began. When the user of the master phone wanted no one else to
hear
what was being said, he would raise that plunger; instantly all the
other
extensions in the house went dead.

When old style answering services were very common, and a subscriber
line
was simply bridged or jumpered in the central office to a pair going
to
the answering service, exclusion keys were used a lot so the answering
service would not 'see' your calls. It was the same principle, but an
'exclusion switch' would generally be mounted near the front door of
your premises. The CO sent your calls in on a pair; someway or another
it got looped back through that switch mounted near your front door,
and back to the CO for the jumper to the answering service. When you
came
in you were expected to remember to flip that switch one way, to cut
off the extension going to the answering service. When you left for
lunch
for for the day or the weekend or whatever you were expected to
remember
to flip the switch the other way, thus putting the answering service
back on line for your calls.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Bill Sohl  Budd Lake)
Subject: Re: Chatter Heard on Scanner Leads to Criminal Charges
Date: 9 Jan 1995 04:15:51 GMT
Organization: Planet Access Networks - Stanhope, NJ


In response to several prior comments, Pat wrote:

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Not only is it illegal for a store to
> sell such units, it is often times against corporate policy to even
> discuss the possibility of modification.

Pat, the sale of such scanners is NOT illegal, see my proposed FAQ
on this subject below.

> but back then 'secret government radio stations' -- oh, the RS
clerks
> knew them all. Then about ten years ago as 800 meg scanners were
> becoming more common, those mysterious mod sheets ("I dunno who left
> it here in the store, but we made some copies for customers ..")
> discussed how to change RS scanners to pick up cellular phones by
> clipping a diode here and there.

> But then the feds came to Fort Worth one day with a blunt message
> for all concerned: "Can the shit!" said the FCC. You betcha!

Maybe that was true, maybe not, regardless, all the MODS are readily
available today and are often written up in publications such as
"Monitoring Times" and other communications hobbyist magazines.

> Within a few days a memo was hanging on the back wall in the office
> of every Radio Shack store which said there would be no further
> discussion of 'mods' with customers under any circumstances. Not
only
> that, if the customer mentioned making mods, the clerk was to
*decline
> the sale* rather than possibly be later found to be part of a
> conspiracy or a scheme.

What kind of "conspiracy"?  Not meant as a flame, but other than
modifying CBs for out-of-frequency operation or for illegally
increasing the CBs power, modifying most other equipment such as
scanners violates nothing.

The above response by Pat, comp.dcom,telecom moderator, contained a
few errors with regard to the sale of equipment (i.e. scanners) that
can or could be used to listen to cellular telephone calls.  To
clarify things a bit, here's the current perspective on the laws that
affect the actual act of listening versus the equipment that might be
used to listen.

I have written this as a set of Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) which
I offer to Pat (or anyone else) to use as they see fit.


FAQ: Listening to CELLULAR or CORDLESS Telephone Conversations

                Version 0.1 (draft), last updated 1/8/94

Send any suggested text changes/corrections updates to Bill Sohl.

                      email:   [e-mail]


Q1 - Is it illegal to listen to CELLULAR telephone converstaions?

YES - The 1986 Electronics Communication Privacy Act made it illegal
for
anyone to listen to cellular telephone conversations.  Doing so since
then has been and still is a federal violaion of the ECPA.

Q2 - Did the 1986 ECPA impact the legality of scanners and/or other
radio
receivers that can be used to receive CELLULAR telephone conversations
(segments of the 800 MHz band)?

NO - The ECPA did NOT in any way make it illegal to own, manufacture,
import, sell or personally built yourself, the equipment that could be
used to listen to cellular telephone calls.

Q3 - Didn't manufacturers alter their scanner designs to exclude the
CELLULAR frequencies?

YES - Some manufacturers did modify their line of scanners to
eliminate
the ability to receive or tune to cellular frequencies (e.g. the Tandy
line of Radio Shack scanners).  Even in the case of those
manufacturers
that changed their design to eliminate the CELLULAR frequencies, the
design change usually was a simple memory lock-out that was easily
"restored" by simply clipping a diode inside the scanner.
Additionally,
some other manufacturers continued to offer radio receivers and
scanners
that covered the entire spectrum of frequencies including celllar (800
MHz).

Q4 - Are manufacturers still making scanners that can receive
CELLULAR?

NO, not in the USA - As mentioned above, the original ECPA legislation
in no way made such equipment illegal The current REGULATIONS covering
radio scanning receivers (i.e. the receiving equipment) came about by
order of Congress in 1993 (at the prompting of the CELLULAR industry)
to force the Federal Communications Commission to promulgate design
requirements to eliminate "Scanner" manufacturers from making or
importing scanners which could receive CELLULAR frequencies.  The FCC
did promulgate such rules and as of April 26, 1994 it became illegal
to manufacture or import any scanner which could receive CELLULAR
frequencies OR which could be "easily modified" to receive cellular
frequencies.

Q5 - How come scanners are still being advertised for sale as being
capable of receiving CELLULAR?

It is important to note that the FCC design rules impact only NEW
equipment built or imported after April 26, 1994.  Thus, any store
which has any existing stocks of "pre-4/26/94" CELLULAR capable
scanners can continue to sell them until they have no more stock.

Q6 - What is the legality of owning a scanner that can receive
CELLULAR?

It is perfectly legal.  None of the already existing scanners in the
USA (probably a million or more) which can receive CELLULAR or be
easily modified to receive CELLULAR are illegal to own or sell.  Thus,
it is perfectly legal to offer for sale any scanners which may be
cellular capable and where built before the 4/26/94 FCC deadline.

Q7 - Is it illegal to modify a scanner so it can receive CELLULAR?

NO - There is no law which makes it illegal to modify an existing
radio (or scanner) to receive CELLULAR...or, for that matter if one
has the technical ability to do so, from building their own CELLULAR
receiver from scratch.  The FCC regulations against manufacture and
importation are design requirements placed on MANUFACTURERS and not on
individuals who might construct their own radio receiving equipment,
even if it happens to be capable of receiving CELLULAR.

Q7 - What are converters which make it possible to receive CELLULAR
frequencies on scanners that can't receive CELLULAR?

Converters (AKA block converters) receive a range of frequencies and
convert them to another range of frequencies.  A CELLULAR converter
typically will receive the entire 800-900MHz band and convert it to a
range of 400-500MHz which can easily be received by almost any scanner
ever built.

Q8 - Are converters for CELLULAR illegal to manufacture or import?

YES - The same FCC April 26, 1994 deadline for CELLULAR capable
scanners also affected CELLULAR Converter manufacture and importation.
BUT ... the design and construction of a block converter involves, in
general electronic terms, a relatively trivial circuit.  Today there
are several converter "kits" on the market which provide to the
purchaser the circuit design, a how to set of instructions and all the
electronic components to build such a converter themselves with just a
small soldering iron.

Q9 - What about listening to CORDLESS telephone conversations?

A late 1994 congressional action amended the ECPA's listening
prohibition to now include CORDLESS phones.  Prior to that change, it
was completely legal (except in a handful of states with state laws
prohibiting CORDLESS listening) to listen to CORDLESS telephone
conversations.  With the amended ECPA, it is now illegal on a federal
basis (and thus everywhere in the USA) to listen to CORDLESS telephone
conversations as well as CELLULAR conversations.

Q10 - What about scanners that can receive CORDLESS frequencies.

There are no design regulations which prohibit the manufacture or
importation of scanners that can receive the CORDLESS frequenices.
Unlike CELLULAR frequencies which are in the Ultra High Frequency
(UHF) range which was not included in many inexpensive scanners, the
CORDLESS frequencies (46-49 MHz) are in the Very High Frequency (VHF)
range and can be received by literally EVERY scanner ever made
(probably several million).

Q11 - Will it ever be illegal to own receivers (scanners) that can
recieve CELLULAR and/or CORDLESS frequencies?

Speculative answer follows: In as much as there are millions of such
recievers/scanners already legally owned, it is quite unlikely that
any federal or state law would be passed that would make such
equipment illegal to own and, therefor, force peole to turn in to some
government entity.  This is further underscored by the fact that the
CORDLESS and CELLULAR frequencies are only a small segment of the
frequencies that are receivable by any scanner and thus all such
scanners have numerous legal listening capabiliies (police, fire,
rescue, amateur radio, TV, aircraft, etc.) despite their ability to be
used illegally to listen to either CORDLESS or CELLULAR frequencies.

Q12 - How effective are these laws in stopping people from listening
(eavesdropping) on CELLULAR or CORDLESS conversations?

Probably not very effective at all.  Since millions of
receivers/scanners
exist already, such listening, although illegal, probably goes on all
the time.  Illegal listening is impossible to detect and thus
impossible to stop.  The only possible way to learn of someone
eavesdropping on CORDLESS or CELLULAR is if the individual admits
doing so on their own and that isn't very unlikely.

Q13 - Should I be concerned that my CORDLESS or CELLULAR conversation
is
being listened to?

The probability that any individual call is being listened to is very
low, however, it makes good sense to treat any CORDLESS or CELLULAR
conversation as if it was being listened to .. .don't discuss highly
confidential information (especially credit card numbers) on such
calls.

Q14 - Will CELLULAR or CORDLESS conversations ever be safe from
eavesdropping?

If and only if such calls are encrypted will any measure of increased
security be available to users.  The technology is available, but the
deployment of encryption will take time and require current users to
change their equipment (their current non-encrypted CORDLESS and
CELLULAR telephones).

                    -----end of FAQ-----

Bill Sohl  K2UNK     (Budd lake, New Jersey)
([e-mail])


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You are wrong on a couple things,
however
that is because of confusion over contradictory laws. Aside from what
the Electronic Commuications Privacy Act says, the Federal
Communications
Commission addresses the question of radios which have been modified.
Illegal modification (i.e. modification by an unlicensed person) voids
your FCC authority to operate the radio. Furthermore, no *licensed*
person is going to make illegal modifications to a radio and risk
having
such handiwork be traced back to his bench, at the possible risk of
his
loss of his license. Quoting from memory from a conversation over a
year
ago with Bill Bartels, District Sales Manager for Radio Shack for the

·
northern district of Illinois (this does not include Chicago,
considered
a district of its own), after seeing the memorandum sent to RS store
managers on this topic, I noted to Mr. Bartels that 'it looks to me
like
the feds put some heat on RS corporate in Fort Worth ...' and he
responded
that he and several of the DSMs and RSMs (District and Regional Sales
Managers) had met in Fort Worth when 'the topic came up', and 'I would
have to say you are correct, but I cannot discuss it further ...'.

There was no EPCA discussion in this, other than as it coincidentally
occurred. It was simply a case of the FCC telling Radio Shack to 'get
your clerks to quit screwing around with all this illegal stuff', and
Tandy's attornies were sufficiently impressed with what they had been
instructed by the FCC that down through channels it went. The store
here
in Skokie has it hanging in the office in back; a newspaper account of
some company which got banged hard by the FCC; a memo from Tandy to
the
RSM/DSM people (that's the *only* people corporate speaks with; they
never deal direct with the store managers, and certainly never the
clerks, that is the job of the DSM's), and the manager's note to his
employees: "*NEVER* discuss illegal mods with any customer for any
reason."

The 'conspiracy connection': the law provides that if you knowingly
transfer ownership of some item to some other person, knowing (or if
you should have known) that the person intends it to be used illegally
then whatever beef the government has with him later on, if it can
be demonstrated that you knew his intentions then you can be charged
as a co-conspirator. It does not have to be radios. For example, you
go to a store and buy a device to automatically tape record what is
said over the phone. You say to the clerk, "I am buying this so I
can spy on my neighbor's (wife's, whoever) phone calls ..." If the
clerk sells it to you knowing your intended use, he aided and abetted
you in the commission of your crime. Haven't you ever noticed how when
someone famous gets shot or killed, along the way there is always an
attempt to drag the gun dealer who sold the weapon to the deranged
person into the process?  Apparently Radio Shack has gotten sued here
and there by the victims of someone spying on them over the radio or
telephone, etc. No one is saying it is against the law to *discuss*
illegal things; merely that you cannot *do* illegal things. Radio
Shack says you won't even *discuss* illegal things if you want to
remain on their payroll. As it was told to me, a few years ago when
FCC agents were raiding the homes/workshops of guys who specialized
in building/selling pirate, out of band CB radios, and guys who were
willfully causing interference on cellular phone frequencies, time
and again they'd find RS equipment being used, and crude typewritten
notes 'published' by RS clerks showing how to do whatever was being
done. The FCC said that could be taken as conspiracy and the Tandy
attornies agreed with the assessment.

How seriously does RS take this?  They even send 'shoppers' out from
corporate unknown to local store personnel who go to the local RS
store to check the store out secretly for general purposes. In the
process, they wave a big wad of money around implying they want to buy
every
peice of radio equipment in the store's inventory, cash of course,
'but I
would rather not give my name for your computer, and I will need some
advice on how to fix these units to work the way I want them to ...'
In other words, they egg the hungry, paid by commission clerk on,
trying
to get him to spill his guts right there in the store. They'll ask
the same questions over and over, a half-dozen different ways, and
let the clerk keep politely dodging the issue. It makes no difference
what magazines publish articles on these things any more than it
matters that 'true detective' magazines publish articles on bank
robberies and how they were done. It's just that you cannot drive the
getaway car for the bank robber any more than you can be the person
who actually robbed the bank.    PAT]

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

Date: Sat, 7 Jan 1995 16:32:35 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Richard Jay Solomon)
Subject: Re: Chatter Heard on Scanner Leads to Criminal Charges


Patrick:

In Digest #9 you ran an AP story, "Chatter Heard on Scanner Leads to
Criminal Charges." Is your bracketed comment in #11 that this was an
overheard play rehearsal related to the original story? Am I missing
something here? I never saw an official press item about the play
rehearsal, just your bracketed comments?


Richard Solomon


[TELECOM Digest Egitor's Note: That part (the overhearing of play
rehersal and the inappropriate actions taken) was a separate incident
not related at all to the originally reported event.    PAT]

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

From: Alan Shen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular NAM and ESN
Date: Sun, 8 Jan 1995 21:13:53 -0800
Organization: University of Washington


On Thu, 5 Jan 1995, Greg Segallis wrote:

> Can two cellular phones be programmed to the same NAM, while their
> ESN's are different, so that either phone can be used on one number?
> Assume only one phone can be on at a time (e.g.  I have a car phone
I
> use while on the road and a portable I use when I'm away from my
car).
> Does the cellular carrier use the NAM to connect calls or the ESN,
or
> both?  If the ESN must be the same, can I alter the one to match the
> other?  This would not be done to steal anyone else's service, just
to
> allow me the convenience of using both my phones as the situation
> requires/allows.  What are the legal issues in doing this?

Call your cellular carrier about this. Some will allow you to have one
NAM for two different phones (with different ESN numbers) for an extra
charge usually from about $5-$8 a month.

Of course, you are correct in stating that you can use only one phone
at
a time. But it sure does beat the heck outta paying for another
monthly
service!


Daniel Kao

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

Subject: Re: Christmas Greetings From AT&T
From: drharry![e-mail] (Alan Boritz)
Date: Sun, 08 Jan 95 17:32:36 EST
Organization: Harry's Place - Mahwah NJ - [phone]


[e-mail] (Donald J. Zanolla) writes:

>> You might want to call AT&T up and tell them you don't appreciate
them
>> slamming your line.  (Their ears perk up nicely when they hear
"slam"
>> too).

> Please define SLAM in this context.

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: "Slamming" has always been defined in
this
> context as the unauthorized switching of long distance carriers on a
phone
> line. If for example you are a customer of AT&T and one day you
discover
> that your default (one plus or zero plus) carrier has been changed
to
> Sprint -- just an example -- without your permission or knowledge,
then
> we say that (in this example) Sprint 'slammed' your line.   PAT]

Here's how the FCC defines "slamming":


NEWS Report No. DC-2681     ACTION IN DOCKET CASE      November 10,
1994

   FCC TAKES FURTHER ACTION TO PREVENT UNAUTHORIZED SWITCHING
     OF LONG DISTANCE CARRIERS
        (CC DOCKET NO. 94-129)

     Citing over 4,000 complaints received in the last two years, the
FCC today asked for comments on ways to eliminate the practice of
changing a customer's long-distance telephone company without the
customer's knowledge or approval.  This practice is commonly known as
"slamming."

     Current FCC rules require that a company must obtain the
customer's authorization in order to change his or her long distance
service.  One method of obtaining this authorization is by a Letter of
Agency (LOA), by which the customer indicates, in writing, that he or
she wishes to switch long distance companies.  The Commission's
investigation of "slamming" complaints has revealed that a significant
cause of the problem has been confusion regarding the purpose of the
LOAs.  The Commission's proposed rules are designed to prevent such
consumer confusion.  At present, many long distance carriers combine
LOAs with promotional inducements, such as contest entries, prize
giveaways, and checks, which are designed to attract new customers.
As a result, recipients may be unaware that by signing the document to
enter the contest, claim the prizes, or cash the checks, they also are
supposedly "authorizing" the company to change their long distance
carrier.

     In order to further protect consumers from these misleading
inducements, the Commission has proposed to require (1) that LOAs be
separate from other promotional or inducement materials; (2) that the
LOAs be limited strictly to authorizing a change in long distance
carriers; and (3) that they be clearly identified as an LOA.  Further,
the Commission has proposed that the language in the LOA be clear and
unambiguous and that the print be of sufficient size and readable
style to be clear to the consumer that the document, if signed, would
change his or her long distance company.

     Noting that it is very concerned about the problem of slamming in
the non-English speaking community, the Commission is also seeking
comment on whether it should adopt rules to govern bilingual or
non-English language LOAs.  For example, the Commission seeks comment
on whether it should require all parts of the LOA to be fully
translated if any parts are translated.

     Finally, the Commission seeks comment on several other issues
pertaining to unauthorized changes of consumers' long distance
companies that have come to its attention as a result of consumer
complaints.  For example, comments are requested concerning: (1)
whether and to what extent consumers should be liable for the long
distance telephone charges billed to them by the unauthorized carrier;
and (2) whether all LOAs should be captioned "An Order to Change My
Long Distance Telephone Service Provider" or a similar title that
makes it clearer to consumers that the LOA authorizes a change in
their long distance service.

     Action by the Commission, November 10, 1994, by Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (FCC 94-292).  Chairman Hundt, Commissioners
Quello, Barrett, Ness and Chong.

         -FCC-

News Media contact:  Susan Lewis Sallet at [phone].
Common Carrier Bureau contacts: Donna Lampert at [phone] and
                                Wilbert  Nixon, Jr. at [phone].

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

Date: Sun, 8 Jan 1995 03:10:03 +0200
From: [e-mail] (Ari Wuolle)
Subject: Re: Christmas Greetings From AT&T


> Well, we'll find out how this works over here in a couple of years.
> Austria just joined the EU, and the EU has decreed the end of
telecom
> monopolies by the end of 1996 (or is it 1998)? We will all be faced
> with the same problems and privileges then.

Finland also just joined EU, but our local and long distance
monopolies
ended already 1st January 1994. International call traffic was
deregulated
fully in summer 1994.

So far none of the three LD carriers have started sending checks to
persuade customers selecting their service as default service. Only
one carrier offers extras others don't. Since switching carriers
doesn't cost anything here in Finland, LD carriers don't even need to
offer to pay for swiching.

There were few small price cuts last spring, but since then prices
have been steady. (Telecom Finland had been reducing their rates
already before LD competition, so their charges were competitive to
other carriers right from begining of 1994.) Even new year didn't
change long distance call rates here in Finland.

If you choose Telecom Finland to be your default carrier and accept
direct billing from them, you will get three extras - free itemised
bill on your Telecom LD calls, 1 second increment billing and
"Tasarahaetu". Tasarahaetu means that if your LD calls (within one
billing period, two months) are over 100 FIM, your LD bill will be
rounded down to next 50 FIM. E.g. 149 FIM will round to 100 and 155
FIM will round to 150 FIM.

If you have meter pulses sent down on your line for e.g. payphone or
hotel PBX then you cannot have these three extras - result would be
getting meter pulses only for local call part and not for LD call.

Other two carriers bill traditionally only through your local telco in
meter pulses.

You can always choose different carrier by dialling its carrier code
before telephone number you are calling to. Telcom Finland is 101,
Telivo 1041 and Kaukoverkko Ysi 109.

Currently you cannot choose default international carrier - you must
use correct international access code, which are now carrier
dependent, 990 for Telecom Finland, 994 for Telivo and 999 for Finnet.
(Old international access code was 990.) Hopefully this will change in
1996 when new 00 international access code will take over old ones.

If someone is interested, here are current Finnish LD rates:
 FIM/minute         Mon-Fri  Mon-Fri & Sat-Sun    Everyday
 incl. tax           08-17    17-20     08-20       20-08

Telecom Finland      0.40    1)  0.33, 0.09     1) 0.33, 0.09
Telivo               0.33        0.23              0.23
Kaukoverkko Ysi      0.40        0.25              0.20
NoZj} carrier 2)        0.40        0.33              0.33

1) First 5.6 minutes of call is charged 0.33 FIM/minute, following
   minutes are charged 0.09 FIM/minute.
2) If you do not choose any carrier you are charged a rate defined by
   ministry of traffic and communications (read: the highest rate any
   carrier uses. Actually now it is higher than with any carrier
   after working hours.) This type of calls are divided between LD
   carriers in respect of their market share. All money also goes to
   LD carriers - ministry won't get any leftovers.

1 FIM is about US$ 0.21

Distance doesn't matter with LD calls - if it is within a
telecommunications region it is local, if it is to another
telecommunications region it is long distance. Finland is divided into
13 telecommunications regions.


Ari Wuolle

Disclaimer: All opinions are mine, not HUT's.

e-mail  [e-mail] s-mail Kolkekannaksentie 10 B 4
telephone + 358  0 509 2073  02720  ESPOO
cellphone + 358 49 431 140                FINLAND
fax  + 358  0 428 429  (temporary)

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: 101xxxx: Not Yet
Date: 8 Jan 1995 04:19:41 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]


In <[e-mail]>, Paul Robinson <[e-mail]>
writes:

> In attempting to do a carrier check from a 301-587 number in
> Montgomery County, Maryland, I got a time out and a recording of
> inability to complete the call, when attempting to dial

>1010288 1 700 555 1212

> The call timed out as if I was trying to call

> 10102 881 7005

> E.g. making a local call using carrier 10102 instead.

> So it's not set up yet.

I tried the same thing on the 3rd and it worked fine in Southern Bell
Ft. Lauderdale.

1010XXX calls all route permissivly with 10XXX, regardless of IXC.


Wally Ritchie     Ft. Lauderdale, Florida

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: British Telecom Cuts Rates to Canada and U.S.
Date: 8 Jan 1995 04:34:24 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]


In <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Dave Leibold)
writes:

> British Telecom calls from the UK to Canada and the U.S. will cost
> about 20% less effective February 1995, according to a BT
announcement
> reported by the Associated Press. The cuts were reportedly
authorized
> by the UK regulator last year as part of a price reductions scheme.

> The sample rate given was for a three minute call at the lowest rate
> period: the former rate was equivalent to CAD$3.14; the new rate
will
> be CAD$2.49.

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Do you think this price reduction is
> somehow tied in with the recent ability to dial 1-800 numbers in the
> USA from the UK as Clive pointed out a couple days ago?    PAT]

Wow! How is BT going to survive. This reduction reduces there gross
margin from about 89% to 85% on these calls. Poor monopoly. :)

If they only realized that it works like a tax cut. Reduce the rate
and you take in more revenues. In a truly competitive environment at
both ends, US/UK calls would be about $0.25 per minute in either
direction.


Wally Ritchie    Ft. Lauderdale, Florida

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Noise Introduced by Bit-Robbing?
Date: 8 Jan 1995 05:02:38 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]


In <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Andy Spitzer)
writes:

> [e-mail] (Christian Weisgerber) writes:
<snip>
> On a "quiet" idle channel (AB bits both 0), using u-Law PCM, pattern
sent
> over the channel would be: (in hex, LSB last)
>   FF FF FF FF FF FE  FF FF FF FF FF FE ...

> The difference in voltage of a standard CODEC (A/D converter for
PCM)
> from FF to FF is about 2 mV (on a scale from -8031 to +8031 mV).
So,
> converted to an analog signal, the above waveform is a series of 2
mV
> impulses occuring every 8000/6 = 1333.3 Hz.  This waveform is rich
in
> harmonics, so it "sounds" like a very high pitched, (although rather
> quiet) whine, similar to the "ringing in your ears" sound.

> Once the line is taken offhook (aka AB bits both become 1), then the
> pattern becomes:
>   FF FF FF FF FF FF  FF FF FF FF FF FF ...

> which is dead quiet.  (And since LSB=1, and AB=1 there is no
distortion!)

> Thus the noise associated with robbed bit signalling can be viewed
as
> superimposing the intended signal with the above impluse train.
> Perhaps armed with this information, someone else can calculate the
> noise/distortion measurments you are seeking.

The above discussion concerns only idle circuit noise.


·
(continued next message)


 @FROM   :[e-mail]
· (Continued from last message)
For voice-band modem transmission (or actual speech) the bit stolen
bit will be wrong on average 1/2 of the time. The absolute magnitude
of the error will depend on the absolute level being encoded. The
impact on the S/N ratio is on the order of 2db.

Other types of bit errors are much more serious that robbed bit
because they are likely to affect more signficant bits and are likely
to cause a great enough error to affect the demodulation resulting in
an error in one more data bits.

In <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (sohl,william
h) writes:

> Final comment, where you would possibly have ribbed bit signaling
from
> the premise to the central office is if there is a PBX which is
connected
> to the central office using a DS-1 trunk/tie line arrangement, but I
don't
> think that was what the original poster was questioning.

 .. Or a D4/AMI channel bank in the loop plant at either or both ends.
 .. Or a D4/AMI EC interoffice trunk at either or both ends.
 .. Or a D4/AMI Feature Group D trunk at either or both ends.
 .. Or a D4/AMI Intermachine Trunk in the IC's network.

There must have been about four godzillion lines of D4 equipment
deployed in the networks. If you guys have replaced it all with B8ZS,
where I can I buy the "old" D4's and M13's :) Or are they all buried
in a hole somewhere so they stay in the rate base ? ;)

Also, I'm interested in the number of Feature Group D trunks that are
now both B8ZS ... AND ... SS#7.  If this number is more than a few
percent it means that the LEC's and IC's together accomplished the
quickest large scale technical deployment in the history of the world.

I can believe that SS#7 penetration is growing fast. This, however,
does imply elimination of the AMI trunks. The IC's can selectively
route the few clear channel calls over B8ZS tandem trunks and take
years to slowly replace the AMI trunks.


Wally Ritchie   Ft. Lauderdale, Florida

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #15
*****************************