The World of Computer Software/World_Of_Computer_Software-02-387-Vol-3of3.iso/t/tc13-115.zip/TC13-115.TXT

Text File | 1993-02-20 | 18KB | 414 lines

TELECOM Digest     Sat, 20 Feb 93 04:04:00 CST    Volume 13 : Issue 115

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: What Could Happen! (Bangkok, Thailand Telecom Uprising) (Bob Goudreau)
    Re: Interesting Tricks You Can Do With Your Phone (Patricia A. Dunkin)
    Re: Salesmen That Won't Quit (Mark Malson)
    Re: Mandatory Measured Service (Steve Forrette)
    Re: 1ESS and CNID (Dave Levenson)
    Re: FCC Proposed Ruling on Scanners That Receive Cellphones (M. McCormick)
    Re: FCC Proposed Ruling on Scanners That Receive Cellphones (J. Sicherman)
    Re: Pac Bell, Caller ID & SS7 (John Pettitt)
    Re: National Data Superhighways - Access? (Andrew Blau)
    Re: White House Phone Factoids (Tim Tyler)
    Re: Curious Local Exchange Problem (Tim Mangan)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1993 14:32:31 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Bob Goudreau)
Subject: Re: What Could Happen! (Bangkok, Thailand Telecom Uprising)


Tony Pelliccio writes:

> Similar things happen here in the US. A few years ago New England
> Telephone went on strike and lo and behold, a few of the key fiber
> trunks got cut.

Ah, but was it ever determined who did the cutting?

If the sabotage turned out to be the work of rogue striking telco
workers or their sympathizers, then the motivation was simply to bring
the company's management to its knees so that it would quickly cave in
to union demands.

This is quite a different thing than the Bangkok scenario, wherein
outraged *customers* were venting their frustration at the whole
telco.

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

Date: Fri, 19 Feb 93 17:39 EST
From: [e-mail] (Patricia A Dunkin [phone])
Subject: Re: Interesting Tricks You Can Do With Your Phone


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Matthew Harttree) writes:

[ amusing story of unexpected recording on misdial ]

> If this type of thing amuses you too, I would love to hear about it.

Since you asked, several years ago, I was in a motel somewhere east of
the Mississippi, trying to call my sister in Nevada.  The otherwise
thorough dialing instructions in the room didn't say how to charge a
call to a credit card (possibly they didn't want to offer help to
guests wanting to avoid surcharges), so I had to experiment a bit
before I found the right combination.  (Okay, I *could* have called
the front desk and asked, but that wouldn't have been nearly as
interesting.)

One of the misdials connected me to a recording that said something
like, "Direct dialing service is not available to the country you are
trying to reach.  Please call the operator for assistance."  I never
did figure out which country the switch thought I wanted.

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

From: kgw2!![e-mail] (Mark Malson)
Subject: Re: Salesmen That Won't Quit
Organization: Xetron Corporation, Cincinnati, Ohio
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1993 23:34:25 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mitch
Wagner) writes:

> I've always thought that if I ever had a salesman that just wouldn't
> stop phoning, even when I asked them to stop, I would inform them that
> if they didn't stop calling I would file harassment charges against
> them with the police.

One way to avoid harrassing phone calls is (if you are willing to
spend $20 a year) to join a group called "Private Citizen". They
provide your name to all the major phone number vendors and tell them
that you are hereby notifying them that you no longer permit them the
free use of your telephone and your time for their profit. If they
wish to call you anyway, your fee is $500 per call. Or something
pretty close to that.

I haven't joined the group yet (I just got my package), so I am not
ENDORSING them. Anyone interested can call 1-800-CUT-JUNK and talk to
them (or their machine).


Mark D. Malson              Xetron Corporation
40 West Crescentville Road  Cincinnati, Ohio  45246   [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Steve Forrette)
Subject: Re: Mandatory Measured Service
Date: 20 Feb 1993 02:03:45 GMT
Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Steve
Forrette) writes:

> There are bills pending in both houses of the Washington State
> legislature which would permanently ban mandatory measured service in
> this state.

> [Moderator's Note: Believe me, there are people who prefer measured
> service because their use of the phone is so minimal.

That's fine.  Then those people who prefer it can order measured
service.  Right now in Washington State, both business and residence
customers can choose between measured or unmeasured service.  The
bills pending in the legislature would only ensure through statute
that it stays this way.  US West says it currently "has no plans" to
phase out measured service, but wants the prohibition to last only 5
years.  The PUC wants the authority to ban unmeasured service at any
time.  Just whose side are they on?


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Dave Levenson)
Subject: Re: 1ESS and CNID
Organization: Westmark, Inc.
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1993 01:34:55 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (John
Higdon) writes:

> I encourage Pac*Bell to not send blocked status on interstate calls.

That is a good position to take.  In Virginia, the telco offers a
customer-controlled per-line option called Anonymous Call Rejection.
If you enable this option, you'll still get "Out of Area" calls (calls
from non-SS7-connected areas), but you will not receive calls where
the calling number is available but its display is blocked.  The
caller reaches a recording which explains how to enable the
transmission of CNID.  If callers from California are prevented from
reaching parties in Virginia, then Pac*Bell probably ought to be
'encouraged' not to send mandatory anonymous calls.  The question is,
John, do they ever listen to your encouragement?


Dave Levenson        Internet: [e-mail]
Westmark, Inc.        UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave
Stirling, NJ, USA    Voice: 908 647 0900  Fax: [phone]

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

Subject: Re: FCC Proposed Ruling on Scanners That Receive Cellphones
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1993 10:57:44 -0600
From: Martin McCormick <[e-mail]>


> Can someone explain why cellphones couldn't gain increased security
> simply by channel-hopping *within a cell*?  Say, every five seconds or
> so?

     The idea of channel-hopping to increase security is, on the
surface, a very good one.  It is another variation on the
military-style system of frequency hopping in a pseudo-randomized
sequence to thwart eavesdropping.  For cellular telephones, as we
presently know them, it wouldn't work very well because of the way a
cellular telephone receives digital control signals.  Presently, once
a cell phone is tuned into a talk channel, the only way the switch can
get its attention is to send it a burst of data on the actual voice
channel.  These bursts are presently used to initiate handoffs to the
next cell and request changes in output power.  They are slightly
disruptive to voice communication and extremely disruptive to any data
communication which relies on a continuous carrier.  That is why data
communication through cell phones works best when done with a modem
actually designed for this purpose.

     When a cellular phone receives a control command from the switch,
the user may hear a little dropout in audio lasting about 1/4-second.
If a frequency hopping scheme were in use, those little dropouts would
happen each time a new channel was selected.  For most people, this
would create an unacceptable degradation of sound quality.


     The only real solution is to go digital.  This would stop casual
eaves-dropping since the scanner-owner would just hear a bunch of
noise, if that much.  Handoffs and other house-keeping commands could
be accomplished without even a click since digital buffering would
take care of any discontinuity as long as it wasn't too bad.

     About the only thing that an intelligently-written law can do to
enhance privacy is to keep it from being too easy.  It probably would
make sense to ban manufacture of scanners with a digital demodulator
built right in, but that is about all that can be done.  If somebody
does figure out how to decode the signals, on their own, then what
they hear is already covered by the Communications Act of 1934.


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

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

Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1993 00:48:37 -0800
From: Jeff Sicherman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: FCC Proposed Ruling on Scanners That Receive Cellphones
Organization: Cal State Long Beach


In article <[e-mail]> Esteemed Moderator parades
his biases again:

> [Moderator's Note: Actually here in the USA, people who bother voting
> wind up only voting for less than one percent of the petty tyrants and
> others who dominate our lives. The rest are appointed or hangers-on;
> civil 'servants' we call them, but rebellious and willful servants is
> more like it. That's why I always thought it was such a joke to hear
> people say 'if you don't like things the way they are, then vote for a
> new bunch.' When is the last time *you* voted for anyone in the
> FCC/FBI/IRS/DOD/HUD/NSA/CIA/ETC?  I don't blame myself for putting
> idiots in office. I didn't vote for any of 'em!   PAT]

   Then again, none of us got to vote for the Telecom Moderator but we
have to put up with him. There seems to be an element of tyranny in
his management of the responsibilities he has undertaken and I don't
always agree with his policies or opinions but I am generally willing
to accept that he is human, fallible, quirky, opinionated, stubborn,
sometimes self-righteous but also a dedicated and hard-working doer of
the moderation task. He does the job as he sees his responsibility to
the 'consumers' and to the policies and laws regulating the medium.

   Frankly, it's hard to see any really essential difference between
his role and modus operandi and the public servants he seems to feel
some superiority towards.


Jeff Sicherman


[Moderator's Note: Ah, but there is a big difference. There is an
unmoderated forum you can use any time expressly devoted to telecom
and Lord knows how many other unmoderated news groups are operating on
the net at any given time. Try telling Uncle you're going to take your
business elsewhere, to an ungoverned country. You can get away from me
anytime you wish ... try avoiding Uncle's hard, staring and watchful
eyes. And despite my own biases, which I freely admit to, I print a
huge diversity of opinion here including yours. If you think I am
disagreeable and hard to get along with, try the <F>ederal <B>ureau of
<I>nquisition. Uncle's little worker bees may humor you, but they can
afford to: when all is said and done, despite your bravado they know
you'll be an obedient and meek citizen when they point a gun at your
head. PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (John Pettitt)
Subject: Re: Pac Bell, Caller ID & SS7
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 93 15:31:11 PST


Following on the from the thread regarding numbers from California
being marked private, I called Pac Bell and asked them about what
happens when I call out of state.  The rep said she did not know and
somebody would call back.

Well they just did.  After we got to the same level (yes I understand
ANI, SS7, CLASS etc etc) the following is the postion:

1) If I call NY from here (Palo Alto, CA) then depending on which LD
company I use they may or may not get my number.

2) Pac Bell is looking for customers to complain about display of
numbers out of state so that they can "ask the long distance companies
to not pass on the number".

3) When I asked how they were to do this -- the rep did not know and
seemed confused as to a) they would discontinue SS7 in an out of CA (I
don't believe this) or b) they would mark data private.

4) I asked that my lines not be marked private as I wanted people in
the rest of the country to take my calls.  This completely confused
him.

Anyway he promised to go find some papers on the subject and fax them
to me. I will OCR anything that arrives and pass it on.

Confused?  Not as confused as Pac Bell is !

If somebody out of state has a caller ID box I can call we can run
some tests and see just what is going on.


John Pettitt      Mail: [e-mail]
CEO, Dolmus Inc.  Voice: [phone]  Fax: [phone]

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

Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1993 20:36:12 -0500
From: Andrew Blau <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: National Data Superhighways - Access?


In TELECOM Digest V13 #107, Robert L. McMillin ([e-mail])
writes:

> Andrew Blau <[e-mail]> writes:

>> In fact, the telcos have become *very* involved in this.  During
>> President Clinton's Economic Summit after the election, the one moment
>> of reported conflict was when Robert Allen of AT&T challenged Mr.
>> Gore's contention that the superhighway should be a public works
>> project.  [Allen's quote deleted]

> Three cheers, then, for Robert Allen.  We should hold off on the 21-gun
> salute until AFTER we've heard AT&T's full proposal.

Absolutely.  I don't think that anything I wrote could or should be
construed as a 21-gun salute to Robert Allen or AT&T.  It's simply to
suggest that telcos have become quite vocal about trying to get in on
the Data Superhighway action.

> It's no surprise that the LECs see digital services in their crystal
> balls.  The question that needs to be asked is this: will these
> digital services to the residential demarc be affordable?  My guess is
> not, especially if the LECs or the IXCs have anything to say about it.

[...Info about EDS v. AT&T "dark fiber" controversy deleted...]

> Somebody once said that the triumph of capitalism is not that it can
> produce silk stockings for the Queen, but that it makes affordable
> nylons for the secretaries.  That is the approach we need to take with
> digital services: by making them available cheaply, we can spread
> their benefits widely.  All we need is the capital and the vision to
> apply it.

Three cheers, then, for Robert McMillin.  I could not have said it
better myself.  Affordable digital service for residential users so
that the benefits of this system can be widely shared is one of the
most critical public policy issues in this area, and one that is often
overlooked.  Moreover, much of the financial capital that Mr. McMillin
refers to has already been sunk over the last eight years, if we are
talking about the first level of digital services for the home.  The
real capital that needs to get spent is likely to be political
capital, and, following Mr. McMillin, the vision to apply it.


Andrew Blau                Electronic Frontier Foundation   202-544-9237(v)
Associate for              666 Pennsylvania Ave., S.E.      202-547-5481(f)
Telecommunications Policy  Washington, DC  20003            [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Tim Tyler)
Subject: Re: White House Phone Factoids
Organization: UMCC
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1993 04:03:29 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Brian
Gordon) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:

>> "Contrary to widespread belief the old "hotline" between Washington
>> and Moscow was not a telephone to warn against an impending doomsday
>> attack, but rather a teletype manned at the Pentagon."

> Maybe it's been moved, but the "hot line" _used to_ terminate
> somewhere other than the Pentagon -- in the dark recesses of No Such
> Agency ...

    Using a reasonable definition of 'terminate,' you're wrong.  The
primary 'subscriber' terminals for the CONUS end of the computer and
facsimile link are at the Pentagon and White House.



Tim Tyler      Internet: [e-mail]  MCI Mail: 442-5735
P.O. Box 443    C$erve: 72571,1005  DDN: [e-mail]
Ypsilanti MI    Packet: KA8VIR @KA8UNZ.#SEMI.MI.USA.NA
48197

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

From: Tim Mangan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Curious Local Exchange Problem
Organization: TyLink Corporation
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1993 03:29:13 GMT


More strange phone setups --

I had a phone in college that was set up to not have a dial tone.
This prevented anyone from making an outside call from the phone; you
could only receive calls.  So far so good ...

If someone left the phone off the hook when the caller hung up, the
next caller would get connected without the phone ringing.  As there
were several extensions to this phone it would happen quite often.
When you gave anyone your phone number, you had to add the
instructions that after dialing if they hear hall noises instead of a
ring, yell like crazy until someone notices that you are on the line.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V13 #115
******************************