Software Vault: The Diamond Collection/The Diamond Collection (Software Vault)(Digital Impact).ISO/cdr16/tc15_045.zip/TC15-045.TXT

Text File | 1995-01-22 | 52KB | 1,243 lines

TELECOM Digest     Wed, 18 Jan 95 00:29:00 CST    Volume 15 : Issue 45

Inside This Issue:                          Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Chatter Heard on Scanner Leads to Criminal Charges (John
Lundgren)
    Re: Chatter Heard on Scanner Leads to Criminal Charges (John David
Galt)
    Re: Legal Problem due to modified radio ([e-mail])
    Re: New Area Codes Working From Toronto (Carl Moore)
    Re: Anyone Have Experience With LDDS/Metromedia? (Jack Pestaner)
    Re: Inter-LATA Rates in California (Michael Henry)
    Re: Horrible Earthquake in Japan (Ramesh Pillutla)
    Re: Horrible Earthquake in Japan (Jeremy Schertzinger)
    Re: How Can I Encrypt a T-1? (Daniel R. Oelke)

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] (John Lundgren)
Subject: Re: Chatter Heard on Scanner Leads to Criminal Charges
Date: 18 Jan 1995 15:48:53 GMT
Organization: Pacific Bell Knowledge Network


Catching up with several recent comments in this thread:

I'm dealing with contractors that have cellular phones, the little
ones in their briefcases and toolboxes.  The older cell phones mounted
in the car are becoming less and less common nowadays.  I've noticed
that most of the conversations are on the go, from the conference room
or job site to the guy's car -- on foot!  This would, of course, still
be in the same cell.  And a lot of their conversations are short
because it costs money, so those blabbermouths that are on the phone
for long periods are rare.  So I don't believe that much conversation
is missed when someone monitors a cellular channel.

PB Emerton ([e-mail]) wrote:

> Tony Pelliccio ([e-mail]) wrote:

>> Actually the AOR-2500 comes through with the cell band intact. Or
at
>> least it did until the FCC attempted to clamp down on it. The nice
>> thing is the AOR-2500 is considered a communications receiver and
not
>> a scanner and last I heard the whole thing was still tied up in
>> hearings.

>> Of course if you really want to follow a cell call just get a DDI
and
>> hook it up to your PC. The interesting thing is that the company
that
>> sells the DDI will only release software with ESN capability to law
>> enforcement people. Makes you wonder doesn't it?

> What company is it?

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Please see the referenced remarks of
Tony
> Pelliccio above: 'FCC tried to clamp down ... still tied up in
court'.
> A word to the wise: you don't want to mess with those people *too
much*.
> A little maybe, but not too much.

> Like some people here who have disagreed with me over the past
couple
> days on this, I seriously doubt the FCC is going to stage any
massive
> actions to get cellular phone equipped scanners out of circulation,
etc.

The reality is that the CB shops used to sell the GRE downconverters
that would convert the cellular band to freqs 400 MHz lower, and they
were about $70 or so.  THey're not very sophisticated and don't cost
much.  They work.  So even if you have a non-cellular scanner, it can
still pick up the cellular band.  But there is talk among some hams
that you can take an old UHF tuner and use it for downconverting, too.
But it would have to be the old 83 channel kind.  And then it might
not be stable enough.  But it might be something to experiment with.

> But what I can tell you is they can be a nasty bunch of buggers when
> they want to be. In the past they have gone into pirate radio
stations
> and started pulling wires and fuses out of the control board while
the
> station was on the air ... kicked the door down and walked in. They
> have spent hours driving around in a van through some neighborhood
to
> triangulate or get a fix on some signal when they wanted the guy.
Like
> all government agencies, they have loads of money and an infinite
amount
> of time and resources to spend when they decide they will get their
way.

I wish you would tell this th Steve Dunifer of FRB over on
rec.radio.pirate.
ng.  He thinks he's going to break the FCC's back with micropower
stations
on the air.  The FCC is already pursuing legal stuff against him, from
what
I've read.

> As Tony points out, they are still fighting in court over the
> AOR-2500.  When the FCC gets a vendetta of some kind started, for
> whatever reason, they will do a number on all concerned.
Bureaucrats
> will be bureaucrats, and there is nothing worse than a bureaucrat
> scorned.  :)

There was some talk that the FCC wouldn't get so involved, but hand
over the prosecution to the Dept of Justice.

> Selective enforcement of their own code (the Communications Act) at
times?
> Sure ... all government agencies selectively enforce the law ... so
sue
> them.  But if a time comes for whatever reason that you are a big
target
> the FCC would like to get under control and instead of just raiding
your
> premises with a United States Marshall in tow costing you all kinds
of
> grief and money -- the way another government agency did to Steve
Jackson;
> remember him? -- if instead they contact your attorney and tell him
to get
> you on the straight and narrow 'so we do not have to take this
further' then
> you know what you do?  First you Praise Jesus ... then you think
over very
> carefully how far you want to push it.      PAT]

 From the way Dunifer talks, that will never happen in his case.  He
sounds utterly righteous, and he also has an attorney.

There is a _whole_ lot of diffwerence between S Jackson Games, who
never did
a thing to provoke the actions taken against him, and Dunifer, who
keeps
acting like Kevorkian in that he's constantly challenging the laws.

David Moon ([e-mail]) wrote:

> Bill Sohl contributed a FAQ about scanners, and part of Pat's
response
> was:

>> 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.

> I'm sure this is true for radio transmitters, but for receivers? Are
> you saying I need FCC authority to operate a receiver? What kind of
> license are you talking about?

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You don't need a printed license.
Your
> 'authority' is granted by the FCC by default. The FCC claims
absolute
> control over all radio devices and the airwaves, etc.  As discussed
> in an earlier message today, they claim in section 15.21 of their
> code that they can revoke your (default) authority.  Transmitter,
> receiver, cordless phone, baby monitor, whatever.   PAT]

So far I've been reading a lot and not getting any info from anyone
about what or if this has had anything decided in the courts.  The FCC
claiming absolute authority over the airwaves is, to, me, a lot like
the police claiming absolute authority over drug sales.  Hmmph.

I was reading some state supreme court rulings somewhere here, and
they are interesting.  The state Environmental Protection Admin
getting ruled against for overstepping their authority, or cities
getting told that they don't have the authority to do certain things.
Then I've seen what happened to our own college district when they
laid off all of our gardeners and hired a contractor to do the job.
Not a very bright move.  They got told by the courts that they can lay
off the gardeners if their positions have been eliminated, but they
just can't do it to save money, and then turn around and hire a
contractor to do the job.  They violated the law.  The lawns weren't
eliminated!  So they had to reinstate the gardeners with back pay and
benefits.  And this isn't the only dumb thing that they have done.  I
won't even get into Orange County's bankruptcy, another debacle.

Until I've seen some court ruling on this, I will treat it as just
what
it is: opinions.

Bob Keller ([e-mail]) wrote:

> In TELECOM Digest V15 #32, Bill Sohl <[e-mail]> wrote:

>> I have no problem with this statement and I'll state unequivocally
>> that scanners and/or other types of radio receivers are not (if
>> designed properly) included in the catagory "intentional or
>> unintential radiator" and they are not, therefore, licensed.

> I did not realize this was such a heated matter or I never would
have
> stuck my nose into it ... but, now that I'm here <G> ...

> A scanner most definitely is a "radiator".  If nothing else, the
micro-
> processor circuitry that makes it scan constitutes an unintentional
> radiator within the meaning of the rules.

I have difficulty accepting this statement.  There are several
reasons.  The scanners are usually wide band receivers, capable of
receiving large parts of the spectrum.  Many of the scanners are
hand-held and operate off batteries.  The microprocessors in both
kinds are extremely low power ones because of at least a couple
reasons that I can think of.  One is to conserve pattery power.  They
are usually CMOS, and draw only microamps of current from the supply.
Another reason they draw little power is that they don't have to have
much calculating capability or MIPS because they do a simple job.
They also draw very little power because the less power they draw, the
less RF energy they radiate, and that means the less they might
interfere with their own receiver.  Since the receiver is very
sensitive, the RF radiated from the microprocessor must be very low
since it's only inches away from the receiver.

Another thing I get from the part 15 rules as far as intentional
radiation is concerned is that the FCC is basically saying that they
don't want anything to do with them.  In other words, in the
instructions where it says you must not interfere and you must
tolerate interference, they are saying that no one has any legal
recourse if they are getting interference.  The only recourse that the
user has is to either turn the interference off or move the
interference source or device receiving the interference farther apart
from each other.

The last paragraph about building or modifying has an explanation
that's more to my liking.

> I am _not_ saying that home-built devices and/or user-modified
devices
> are therefore automatically unlawful.  In building or modifying a
> device, however, the user is responsible for keeping the technical
> parameters of the device within the radiation limits prescribed by
> Part 15 and, if those limits are exceeded, the user no-longer enjoys
> the right conferred by Part 15 to use the device without a license.
> With the possible exception of cellular scanners (which is an issue
> contaminated by political/industry pressures and other laws having
> nothing to do with the regulatory purposes of Part 15), I don't
think
> there is any intent on the part of the government to prevent someone
> from building or modifying non-transmitter devices (on a
> non-commercial basis) in ways that do not cause interference, nor do
I
> think there is any governmental interest in expending resources
> worrying it.


John Lundgren - Elec Tech - Info Tech Svcs
Rancho Santiago Community College District
17th St. at Bristol \ Santa Ana, CA 92706
[e-mail]\[e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Chatter Heard on Scanner Leads to Criminal Charges
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 95 01:39:41 PST


Maybe I'm misinterpreting this, but somewhere in the FCC regs that
were posted, it IS now illegal to manufacture a radio that receives
cellular frequencies.  I'll bet anything you like that building your
own, or modifying a scanner that didn't get cellular before you worked
on it, is "manufacturing" in the eyes of the law.

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

Date: Wed, 18 Jan 95 9:05:06 CST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Legal Problem Due to Modified Radio


Maybe someone already noticed this, but the officer involved has
provided sworn testimony indicating that he violated federal law.  He
used the radio out-of-band on a channel for which it is not licensed.
A copy of the court transcript might interest the FCC's Chicago Field
Engineer.

The FCC takes a very dim view of modified ham gear on the commercial
bands.  If the modified radio you own was capable of out of band
operation as the result of a receive, CAP or MARS mod, they probably
won't care.  If, however, specific modification was required to permit
out of band transmitting, you may be inviting scrutiny that you would
prefer to avoid.

They don't care a whit if you listen to the police on on your ham rig,
but if you intentionally transmit on frequencies you should not they
*WILL* make your life miserable.  They will do it more swiftly and
with greater impunity than the locals.


Just my opinion,

[e-mail]       (Rich Osman)         SwRI didn't say it, I did.
[phone] (w)                   [phone] (h;v/msg/fax)


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Thank you for that comparison between
local and federal law enforcement and justice systems. Indeed, most
state and local law enforcement agencies are almost like the Three
Stooges by comparison to the federal mechanism.

You've heard the joke I guess about the Catholic priest, the Jewish
rabbi, and assorted, sundry other preachers who die and go to heaven:
at the front desk they see one of these 'take a number and wait your
turn' dispensers.  They take their numbers and sit down in the waiting
room reading old copies of {Time Magazine} and whatever. They sit
there a long time while the angel in charge seems to ignore them all
as he works on his paperwork.  Suddenly an old lady walking with a
cane comes wobbling in and up to the counter. Sez the angel, "Oh, Mrs.
Brown ... we've all been waiting for you!  Come right in, we have your
accomodations ready for you now!" She wobbles right on past and into
the inner sanctum, where angels get their wings, and all that.

The various Men of God all see this, and become quite indignant that
they have been kept waiting and Mrs. Brown gets to walk right in. They
go up to the front desk and ask what's the idea?  Why did she go right
in and we are kept waiting all this time?

"Well," says the angel, "you see, Mrs. Brown was a federal
probation/parole
officer for forty years in New York. In a single day's time, she
scared
more hell out of people by threatening to unsatisfactorily terminate
their
federal probation than you guys did with a lifetime of preaching!"
PAT]

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

Date: Wed, 18 Jan 95 21:28:50 GMT
From: Carl Moore <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: New Area Codes Working From Toronto


So you were able to get a Seattle number from 360 directory
assistance.
Maybe 360-555-1212 is at least temporarily being routed identically to
206-555-1212.

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

From: [e-mail] (Jack Pestaner)
Subject: Re: Anyone Have Experience With LDDS/Metromedia?
Date: 19 Jan 1995 04:29:52 GMT
Organization: Oregon Grad. Inst. Computer Science and Eng., Beaverton


Stay away from LDDS if the ability to receive calls (inbound 800) is
essential to your business.  One of our customers, a major
telemarketing
company, switched to LDDS.  Almost constantly, regions of the US could
not get through on the 800 number, and actually got disconnect
messages
in some cases.

You see, LDDS is really an umbrella corporation that has taken over
many small regional LD companies.  As you can imagine, all the
networks are different, and SS7 is just a pipe dream in that
environment.  They really don't have a network like AT&T, MCI, and
Sprint.

If you just need cheap outgoing LD, and don't care if it works all the
time, LDDS is your company.  If you have inbound 800, stick with the
big three!!!


Good Luck,

Jack

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

From: [e-mail] (Michael Henry)
Subject: Re: Inter-LATA Rates in California
Date: 18 Jan 1995 18:32:32 GMT
Organization: UC Berkeley


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Eric Paulak)
says:

> Linc Madison asked:


·
>> Have the IXC's reduced their rates on calls between LATAs in
                   ^^^^^^^
>> California to be more in line with both the new intra-LATA and
>> interstate rates?

> The answers a resounding "yes." In fact, AT&T, MCI and Sprint have
all
> undercut Pac Bell's rates.

I haven't seen any new tariffs or price changes from the carriers for
calls between LATA's.


Michael Henry  Analyst Telecommunications,
University of California, Berkeley

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

From: [e-mail] (Ramesh Pillutla)
Subject: Re: Horrible Earthquake in Japan
Date: 18 Jan 1995 14:14:08 GMT
Organization: Alcatel Network Systems Inc.
Reply-To: [e-mail]


Hi,

I am interested in any press reports/info regarding the state of the
terrestrial lines and cellular phone system in Kobe, Japan following
the earthquake. I have heard from some of my Japanese friends that the
cellular phone system is not fully operational but, roaming is out and
a few cells are still operational. Currently, all private phone users
have been asked not to use their phones and all available cellular
facilities have been commandeered by the emergency services.  Land
lines are completely out of the question with all major CO's out due
to lack of power. If anybody has any information, please post here.


Ramesh

[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The last I heard today, the death toll
is now about 3000. Hospitals are turning people away because they have
no resources or supplies left for treatment. They have given up
looking
for bodies. In many instances, people are simply sitting in front of
their (former) homes, protecting the piles of rubble which remain. As
one might expect, people are showing how *good* they can be with one
another. Several women who have given birth in the past couple days
who
were unable to obtain service in a hospital have simply been assisted
by their neighbors when the time came ... won't they have a story to
tell that child in a few years!  As you point out, telecommunications
services still in operation have been seized by the government for
emergency use.

I am reminded of the scene here in Chicago the day of the great fire,
in October, 1871: people kept trudging along northward, assuming that
the fire would stop eventually. The fire jumped the river and
proceeded
to consume much of the north side. By mid-afternoon that Monday, about
a hundred thousand people were milling around in Lincoln Park,
homeless
with what possessions they could salvage sitting on the ground in
front
of them. As the flames came closer and the smoke so dense they could
not breath, most of them simply walked out into Lake Michigan into
water up to their shoulders and stood there, facing away from the
fire, with their possessions held out of the water above their head.
In an editorial in the {Chicago Tribune}, October 9, 1871 entitled
"Chicago Will Rise Again" the writer told of a nine year old girl who
stood neck-deep in the lake with her one beloved possession, a
parakeet
in a cage held in the air out of the water. The bird succombed to the
dense smoke and burning embers which were flying through the air, and
the little girl wept quietly as the bird lay dead on the bottom of its
cage.

According to the {Tribune} that day (it had not published the day
before, having been burned out of its own quarters on Dearborn Street)
"Mayor Mason early Monday called an emergency meeting of the City
Council
to instruct the aldermen in their duties. They were informed that the
city had seized the First Congregational Church to be used as the seat
of government pending rebuilding of City Hall, as well as seizing the
wires and telegraph facilities of the Western Union Company in Chicago
so that communications could continue unabated. Magistrates were
charged
with the duty of 'taking control of railroad trains passing through
the
city, seizing any food provisions contained therein for distribution
to
our citizens'. But most important, the aldermen were instructed to
take their horses, ride out to the park and circulate among the
citizens
to lessen their fears. 'Let the people know the government has been
re-instated, that they have not been abandoned and that everything we
can do will be done' ..."

And the {Tribune} account concluded by noting that later that night it
had begun to rain; not heavily but just a steady drizzle, enough to
finally extinquish what remained of the fire which had begun two days
before. "A hundred thousand of our citizens stayed there in Lincoln
Park all night; with no shelter they stood there in the rain with
nothing
to eat for their supper, none the less with gratitude that their lives
and the lives of their families had been spared."

There are surely many people in Japan today feeling the same gratitude
despite the terrible losses of the past three days.    PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Jeremy Schertzinger)
Subject: Re: Horrible Eartquake in Japan
Organization: Eskimo North (206) For-Ever
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 1995 01:14:57 GMT


I have collected about 25 images of the Kobe earthquake from the net
for viewing.  Many of them are from NHK Television.  All files are in
GIF or JPEG format.  Check them out at ftp.eskimo.com in
/jeremyps/quake .

Please use these instead of the Japanese servers.  They are already
overloaded.


Thanks.

Jeremy Schertzinger            [e-mail]  --
[e-mail]
      http://www.eskimo.com/~jeremyps/           Happy New Year!

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

From: [e-mail] (Daniel R. Oelke)
Subject: Re: How Can I Encrypt a T-1?
Date: 18 Jan 1995 20:08:19 GMT
Organization: Alcatel Network Systems Inc.
Reply-To: [e-mail]


Previously in this thread someone mentioned that Rockwell (through a
division that had previously been Collins Radio) had a T1 scrambler or
encrypter of some sort.  Well, that company is now owned by Alcatel
Network Systems (my employer).  You can call 1-800-Alcatel for your
local sales person.  Sorry, I work in the Sonet OC-48 area and don't
have any idea if we even have such a product anymore.


Dan Oelke            Alcatel Network Systems
[e-mail]       Richardson, TX
http://spirit.aud.alcatel.com:8081/~droelke/

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #45
*****************************



 @FROM   :[e-mail]
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
From [e-mail]  Thu Jan 19 02:37:19 1995
Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu (delta.eecs.nwu.edu [129.105.5.103])
by
coyote.channel1.com (8.6.9/8.6.4) with SMTP id CAA13522; Thu, 19 Jan
1995
02:37:19 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (4.1/SMI-4.0-proxy)
 id AA17196; Thu, 19 Jan 95 00:30:15 CST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (4.1/SMI-4.0-proxy)
 id AA17189; Thu, 19 Jan 95 00:30:12 CST
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 95 00:30:12 CST
From: [e-mail] (TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson))
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #45


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 18 Jan 95 00:29:00 CST    Volume 15 : Issue 45

Inside This Issue:                          Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Chatter Heard on Scanner Leads to Criminal Charges (John
Lundgren)
    Re: Chatter Heard on Scanner Leads to Criminal Charges (John David
Galt)
    Re: Legal Problem due to modified radio ([e-mail])
    Re: New Area Codes Working From Toronto (Carl Moore)
    Re: Anyone Have Experience With LDDS/Metromedia? (Jack Pestaner)
    Re: Inter-LATA Rates in California (Michael Henry)
    Re: Horrible Earthquake in Japan (Ramesh Pillutla)
    Re: Horrible Earthquake in Japan (Jeremy Schertzinger)
    Re: How Can I Encrypt a T-1? (Daniel R. Oelke)

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] (John Lundgren)
Subject: Re: Chatter Heard on Scanner Leads to Criminal Charges
Date: 18 Jan 1995 15:48:53 GMT
Organization: Pacific Bell Knowledge Network


Catching up with several recent comments in this thread:

I'm dealing with contractors that have cellular phones, the little
ones in their briefcases and toolboxes.  The older cell phones mounted
in the car are becoming less and less common nowadays.  I've noticed
that most of the conversations are on the go, from the conference room
or job site to the guy's car -- on foot!  This would, of course, still
be in the same cell.  And a lot of their conversations are short
because it costs money, so those blabbermouths that are on the phone
for long periods are rare.  So I don't believe that much conversation
is missed when someone monitors a cellular channel.

PB Emerton ([e-mail]) wrote:

> Tony Pelliccio ([e-mail]) wrote:

>> Actually the AOR-2500 comes through with the cell band intact. Or
at
>> least it did until the FCC attempted to clamp down on it. The nice
>> thing is the AOR-2500 is considered a communications receiver and
not
>> a scanner and last I heard the whole thing was still tied up in
>> hearings.

>> Of course if you really want to follow a cell call just get a DDI
and
>> hook it up to your PC. The interesting thing is that the company
that
>> sells the DDI will only release software with ESN capability to law
>> enforcement people. Makes you wonder doesn't it?

> What company is it?

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Please see the referenced remarks of
Tony
> Pelliccio above: 'FCC tried to clamp down ... still tied up in
court'.
> A word to the wise: you don't want to mess with those people *too
much*.
> A little maybe, but not too much.

> Like some people here who have disagreed with me over the past
couple
> days on this, I seriously doubt the FCC is going to stage any
massive
> actions to get cellular phone equipped scanners out of circulation,
etc.

The reality is that the CB shops used to sell the GRE downconverters
that would convert the cellular band to freqs 400 MHz lower, and they
were about $70 or so.  THey're not very sophisticated and don't cost
much.  They work.  So even if you have a non-cellular scanner, it can
still pick up the cellular band.  But there is talk among some hams
that you can take an old UHF tuner and use it for downconverting, too.
But it would have to be the old 83 channel kind.  And then it might
not be stable enough.  But it might be something to experiment with.

> But what I can tell you is they can be a nasty bunch of buggers when
> they want to be. In the past they have gone into pirate radio
stations
> and started pulling wires and fuses out of the control board while
the
> station was on the air ... kicked the door down and walked in. They
> have spent hours driving around in a van through some neighborhood
to
> triangulate or get a fix on some signal when they wanted the guy.
Like
> all government agencies, they have loads of money and an infinite
amount
> of time and resources to spend when they decide they will get their
way.

I wish you would tell this th Steve Dunifer of FRB over on
rec.radio.pirate.
ng.  He thinks he's going to break the FCC's back with micropower
stations
on the air.  The FCC is already pursuing legal stuff against him, from
what
I've read.

> As Tony points out, they are still fighting in court over the
> AOR-2500.  When the FCC gets a vendetta of some kind started, for
> whatever reason, they will do a number on all concerned.
Bureaucrats
> will be bureaucrats, and there is nothing worse than a bureaucrat
> scorned.  :)

There was some talk that the FCC wouldn't get so involved, but hand
over the prosecution to the Dept of Justice.

> Selective enforcement of their own code (the Communications Act) at
times?
> Sure ... all government agencies selectively enforce the law ... so
sue
> them.  But if a time comes for whatever reason that you are a big
target
> the FCC would like to get under control and instead of just raiding
your
> premises with a United States Marshall in tow costing you all kinds
of
> grief and money -- the way another government agency did to Steve
Jackson;
> remember him? -- if instead they contact your attorney and tell him
to get
> you on the straight and narrow 'so we do not have to take this
further' then
> you know what you do?  First you Praise Jesus ... then you think
over very
> carefully how far you want to push it.      PAT]

 From the way Dunifer talks, that will never happen in his case.  He
sounds utterly righteous, and he also has an attorney.

There is a _whole_ lot of diffwerence between S Jackson Games, who
never did
a thing to provoke the actions taken against him, and Dunifer, who
keeps
acting like Kevorkian in that he's constantly challenging the laws.

David Moon ([e-mail]) wrote:

> Bill Sohl contributed a FAQ about scanners, and part of Pat's
response
> was:

>> 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.

> I'm sure this is true for radio transmitters, but for receivers? Are
> you saying I need FCC authority to operate a receiver? What kind of
> license are you talking about?

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You don't need a printed license.
Your
> 'authority' is granted by the FCC by default. The FCC claims
absolute
> control over all radio devices and the airwaves, etc.  As discussed
> in an earlier message today, they claim in section 15.21 of their
> code that they can revoke your (default) authority.  Transmitter,
> receiver, cordless phone, baby monitor, whatever.   PAT]

So far I've been reading a lot and not getting any info from anyone
about what or if this has had anything decided in the courts.  The FCC
claiming absolute authority over the airwaves is, to, me, a lot like
the police claiming absolute authority over drug sales.  Hmmph.

I was reading some state supreme court rulings somewhere here, and
they are interesting.  The state Environmental Protection Admin
getting ruled against for overstepping their authority, or cities
getting told that they don't have the authority to do certain things.
Then I've seen what happened to our own college district when they
laid off all of our gardeners and hired a contractor to do the job.
Not a very bright move.  They got told by the courts that they can lay
off the gardeners if their positions have been eliminated, but they
just can't do it to save money, and then turn around and hire a
contractor to do the job.  They violated the law.  The lawns weren't
eliminated!  So they had to reinstate the gardeners with back pay and
benefits.  And this isn't the only dumb thing that they have done.  I
won't even get into Orange County's bankruptcy, another debacle.

Until I've seen some court ruling on this, I will treat it as just
what
it is: opinions.

Bob Keller ([e-mail]) wrote:

> In TELECOM Digest V15 #32, Bill Sohl <[e-mail]> wrote:

>> I have no problem with this statement and I'll state unequivocally
>> that scanners and/or other types of radio receivers are not (if
>> designed properly) included in the catagory "intentional or
>> unintential radiator" and they are not, therefore, licensed.

> I did not realize this was such a heated matter or I never would
have
> stuck my nose into it ... but, now that I'm here <G> ...

> A scanner most definitely is a "radiator".  If nothing else, the
micro-
> processor circuitry that makes it scan constitutes an unintentional
> radiator within the meaning of the rules.

I have difficulty accepting this statement.  There are several
reasons.  The scanners are usually wide band receivers, capable of
receiving large parts of the spectrum.  Many of the scanners are
hand-held and operate off batteries.  The microprocessors in both
kinds are extremely low power ones because of at least a couple
reasons that I can think of.  One is to conserve pattery power.  They
are usually CMOS, and draw only microamps of current from the supply.
Another reason they draw little power is that they don't have to have
much calculating capability or MIPS because they do a simple job.
They also draw very little power because the less power they draw, the
less RF energy they radiate, and that means the less they might
interfere with their own receiver.  Since the receiver is very
sensitive, the RF radiated from the microprocessor must be very low
since it's only inches away from the receiver.

Another thing I get from the part 15 rules as far as intentional
radiation is concerned is that the FCC is basically saying that they
don't want anything to do with them.  In other words, in the
instructions where it says you must not interfere and you must
tolerate interference, they are saying that no one has any legal
recourse if they are getting interference.  The only recourse that the
user has is to either turn the interference off or move the
interference source or device receiving the interference farther apart
from each other.

The last paragraph about building or modifying has an explanation
that's more to my liking.

> I am _not_ saying that home-built devices and/or user-modified
devices
> are therefore automatically unlawful.  In building or modifying a
> device, however, the user is responsible for keeping the technical
> parameters of the device within the radiation limits prescribed by
> Part 15 and, if those limits are exceeded, the user no-longer enjoys
> the right conferred by Part 15 to use the device without a license.
> With the possible exception of cellular scanners (which is an issue
> contaminated by political/industry pressures and other laws having
> nothing to do with the regulatory purposes of Part 15), I don't
think
> there is any intent on the part of the government to prevent someone
> from building or modifying non-transmitter devices (on a
> non-commercial basis) in ways that do not cause interference, nor do
I
> think there is any governmental interest in expending resources
> worrying it.


John Lundgren - Elec Tech - Info Tech Svcs
Rancho Santiago Community College District
17th St. at Bristol \ Santa Ana, CA 92706
[e-mail]\[e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Chatter Heard on Scanner Leads to Criminal Charges
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 95 01:39:41 PST


Maybe I'm misinterpreting this, but somewhere in the FCC regs that
were posted, it IS now illegal to manufacture a radio that receives
cellular frequencies.  I'll bet anything you like that building your
own, or modifying a scanner that didn't get cellular before you worked
on it, is "manufacturing" in the eyes of the law.

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

Date: Wed, 18 Jan 95 9:05:06 CST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Legal Problem Due to Modified Radio


Maybe someone already noticed this, but the officer involved has
provided sworn testimony indicating that he violated federal law.  He
used the radio out-of-band on a channel for which it is not licensed.
A copy of the court transcript might interest the FCC's Chicago Field
Engineer.

The FCC takes a very dim view of modified ham gear on the commercial
bands.  If the modified radio you own was capable of out of band
operation as the result of a receive, CAP or MARS mod, they probably
won't care.  If, however, specific modification was required to permit
out of band transmitting, you may be inviting scrutiny that you would
prefer to avoid.

They don't care a whit if you listen to the police on on your ham rig,
but if you intentionally transmit on frequencies you should not they
*WILL* make your life miserable.  They will do it more swiftly and
with greater impunity than the locals.


Just my opinion,

[e-mail]       (Rich Osman)         SwRI didn't say it, I did.
[phone] (w)                   [phone] (h;v/msg/fax)


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Thank you for that comparison between
local and federal law enforcement and justice systems. Indeed, most
state and local law enforcement agencies are almost like the Three
Stooges by comparison to the federal mechanism.

You've heard the joke I guess about the Catholic priest, the Jewish
rabbi, and assorted, sundry other preachers who die and go to heaven:
at the front desk they see one of these 'take a number and wait your
turn' dispensers.  They take their numbers and sit down in the waiting
room reading old copies of {Time Magazine} and whatever. They sit
there a long time while the angel in charge seems to ignore them all
as he works on his paperwork.  Suddenly an old lady walking with a
cane comes wobbling in and up to the counter. Sez the angel, "Oh, Mrs.
Brown ... we've all been waiting for you!  Come right in, we have your
accomodations ready for you now!" She wobbles right on past and into
the inner sanctum, where angels get their wings, and all that.

The various Men of God all see this, and become quite indignant that
they have been kept waiting and Mrs. Brown gets to walk right in. They
go up to the front desk and ask what's the idea?  Why did she go right
in and we are kept waiting all this time?

"Well," says the angel, "you see, Mrs. Brown was a federal
probation/parole
officer for forty years in New York. In a single day's time, she
scared
more hell out of people by threatening to unsatisfactorily terminate
their
federal probation than you guys did with a lifetime of preaching!"
PAT]

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

Date: Wed, 18 Jan 95 21:28:50 GMT
From: Carl Moore <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: New Area Codes Working From Toronto


So you were able to get a Seattle number from 360 directory
assistance.
Maybe 360-555-1212 is at least temporarily being routed identically to
206-555-1212.

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

From: [e-mail] (Jack Pestaner)
Subject: Re: Anyone Have Experience With LDDS/Metromedia?
Date: 19 Jan 1995 04:29:52 GMT
Organization: Oregon Grad. Inst. Computer Science and Eng., Beaverton


Stay away from LDDS if the ability to receive calls (inbound 800) is
essential to your business.  One of our customers, a major
telemarketing
company, switched to LDDS.  Almost constantly, regions of the US could
not get through on the 800 number, and actually got disconnect
messages
in some cases.

You see, LDDS is really an umbrella corporation that has taken over
many small regional LD companies.  As you can imagine, all the
networks are different, and SS7 is just a pipe dream in that
environment.  They really don't have a network like AT&T, MCI, and
Sprint.

If you just need cheap outgoing LD, and don't care if it works all the
time, LDDS is your company.  If you have inbound 800, stick with the
big three!!!


Good Luck,

Jack

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

From: [e-mail] (Michael Henry)
Subject: Re: Inter-LATA Rates in California
Date: 18 Jan 1995 18:32:32 GMT
Organization: UC Berkeley


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Eric Paulak)
says:

> Linc Madison asked:


·
>> Have the IXC's reduced their rates on calls between LATAs in
                   ^^^^^^^
>> California to be more in line with both the new intra-LATA and
>> interstate rates?

> The answers a resounding "yes." In fact, AT&T, MCI and Sprint have
all
> undercut Pac Bell's rates.

I haven't seen any new tariffs or price changes from the carriers for
calls between LATA's.


Michael Henry  Analyst Telecommunications,
University of California, Berkeley

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

From: [e-mail] (Ramesh Pillutla)
Subject: Re: Horrible Earthquake in Japan
Date: 18 Jan 1995 14:14:08 GMT
Organization: Alcatel Network Systems Inc.
Reply-To: [e-mail]


Hi,

I am interested in any press reports/info regarding the state of the
terrestrial lines and cellular phone system in Kobe, Japan following
the earthquake. I have heard from some of my Japanese friends that the
cellular phone system is not fully operational but, roaming is out and
a few cells are still operational. Currently, all private phone users
have been asked not to use their phones and all available cellular
facilities have been commandeered by the emergency services.  Land
lines are completely out of the question with all major CO's out due
to lack of power. If anybody has any information, please post here.


Ramesh

[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The last I heard today, the death toll
is now about 3000. Hospitals are turning people away because they have
no resources or supplies left for treatment. They have given up
looking
for bodies. In many instances, people are simply sitting in front of
their (former) homes, protecting the piles of rubble which remain. As
one might expect, people are showing how *good* they can be with one
another. Several women who have given birth in the past couple days
who
were unable to obtain service in a hospital have simply been assisted
by their neighbors when the time came ... won't they have a story to
tell that child in a few years!  As you point out, telecommunications
services still in operation have been seized by the government for
emergency use.

I am reminded of the scene here in Chicago the day of the great fire,
in October, 1871: people kept trudging along northward, assuming that
the fire would stop eventually. The fire jumped the river and
proceeded
to consume much of the north side. By mid-afternoon that Monday, about
a hundred thousand people were milling around in Lincoln Park,
homeless
with what possessions they could salvage sitting on the ground in
front
of them. As the flames came closer and the smoke so dense they could
not breath, most of them simply walked out into Lake Michigan into
water up to their shoulders and stood there, facing away from the
fire, with their possessions held out of the water above their head.
In an editorial in the {Chicago Tribune}, October 9, 1871 entitled
"Chicago Will Rise Again" the writer told of a nine year old girl who
stood neck-deep in the lake with her one beloved possession, a
parakeet
in a cage held in the air out of the water. The bird succombed to the
dense smoke and burning embers which were flying through the air, and
the little girl wept quietly as the bird lay dead on the bottom of its
cage.

According to the {Tribune} that day (it had not published the day
before, having been burned out of its own quarters on Dearborn Street)
"Mayor Mason early Monday called an emergency meeting of the City
Council
to instruct the aldermen in their duties. They were informed that the
city had seized the First Congregational Church to be used as the seat
of government pending rebuilding of City Hall, as well as seizing the
wires and telegraph facilities of the Western Union Company in Chicago
so that communications could continue unabated. Magistrates were
charged
with the duty of 'taking control of railroad trains passing through
the
city, seizing any food provisions contained therein for distribution
to
our citizens'. But most important, the aldermen were instructed to
take their horses, ride out to the park and circulate among the
citizens
to lessen their fears. 'Let the people know the government has been
re-instated, that they have not been abandoned and that everything we
can do will be done' ..."

And the {Tribune} account concluded by noting that later that night it
had begun to rain; not heavily but just a steady drizzle, enough to
finally extinquish what remained of the fire which had begun two days
before. "A hundred thousand of our citizens stayed there in Lincoln
Park all night; with no shelter they stood there in the rain with
nothing
to eat for their supper, none the less with gratitude that their lives
and the lives of their families had been spared."

There are surely many people in Japan today feeling the same gratitude
despite the terrible losses of the past three days.    PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Jeremy Schertzinger)
Subject: Re: Horrible Eartquake in Japan
Organization: Eskimo North (206) For-Ever
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 1995 01:14:57 GMT


I have collected about 25 images of the Kobe earthquake from the net
for viewing.  Many of them are from NHK Television.  All files are in
GIF or JPEG format.  Check them out at ftp.eskimo.com in
/jeremyps/quake .

Please use these instead of the Japanese servers.  They are already
overloaded.


Thanks.

Jeremy Schertzinger            [e-mail]  --
[e-mail]
      http://www.eskimo.com/~jeremyps/           Happy New Year!

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

From: [e-mail] (Daniel R. Oelke)
Subject: Re: How Can I Encrypt a T-1?
Date: 18 Jan 1995 20:08:19 GMT
Organization: Alcatel Network Systems Inc.
Reply-To: [e-mail]


Previously in this thread someone mentioned that Rockwell (through a
division that had previously been Collins Radio) had a T1 scrambler or
encrypter of some sort.  Well, that company is now owned by Alcatel
Network Systems (my employer).  You can call 1-800-Alcatel for your
local sales person.  Sorry, I work in the Sonet OC-48 area and don't
have any idea if we even have such a product anymore.


Dan Oelke            Alcatel Network Systems
[e-mail]       Richardson, TX
http://spirit.aud.alcatel.com:8081/~droelke/

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #45
*****************************