Hacker Chronicles 2 (Alt)/The_Hacker_Chronicles_Volume_II-CD2.iso/td2/td14_02.txt

Text File | 1995-01-03 | 29.7 KB | 662 lines

TELECOM Digest     Tue, 4 Jan 94 02:14:00 CST    Volume 14 : Issue 2

Inside This Issue:                        Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Rate of Change (Stewart Fist)
    Caller ID in Pennsylvania (Jeffrey J. Carpenter)
    Wireless Transceiver Boards (Aninda Dasgupta)
    Post Cool Phone Numbers - Strange Recorded Info Services (Earl Vickers)
    Question About Ring Frequency (Jascha Franklin-Hodge)
    Connecting Two Phone Lines to One Phone Jack (Jeffrey L. Haynes)
    Questions About VOXSON 899 Mobile Phone (Yang Yu-shuang)
    US West's India Project Delayed by Foreign Investment Debate (A. Indiresan)
    Dialing 1 First Prohibited in Dallas (Linc Madison)
    Operator, Where Are My Car Keys? (Charles Hoequist, Jr.)

TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and GEnie.
Subscriptions are available at no charge to qualified organizations
and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:

                 * [e-mail] *

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

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

Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using
anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email
information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to
use the information service, just ask.

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

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

Date: 03 Jan 94 23:18:27 EST
From: Stewart Fist <[e-mail]>
Subject: Rate of Change


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: This semi-thread, a wee bit off-topic
perhaps, was in progress as last year came to an end and it seems a
very fitting way to begin the new year; thus I present as the first
order of business in 1994 this essay from Stewart Fist.  PAT]


On 28 Dec 1993, H.A. Kippenhan Jr wrote:

> It's probably safe to say that technology is advancing at a greater
> than exponential rate. One of the things that is often overlooked is
> that there are more scientists alive [and hopefully working - 8-)]
> today than the total in mankind's history to date.  It's no wonder
> that things are changing so fast.

> We want to be careful about 'run(ning) out of things to invent'.
> There was a proposal just shortly after the Civil War to close the
> U.S.Patent Office because everything that could possibly be invented
> had been thought of. No criticism here (I assume that 'run(ning) out
> of things to invent' was a -in-cheek remark).

Without being critical, what's interesting in this string is that your
correspondents find it curious and worthy of note, that our ancestors
(stupidly) thought their old pace of change was extraordinary.  We are
being invited to snicker at this quaint and ridiculous idea. Everyone
knows, that (by comparison with today) the pace of change of our
ancestors was very slow and sedate?

That's the sub-text here.

But! Every generation thinks that it lives in THE period of most rapid
change.  Past generations always look slow by comparison because we
look at THEIR change from OUR perspective.

My guess is that we technologists view the world, distorted in this
egoistic way, because our 'present' is always mid-stream in the
technological changes that dominate our lives.  And, since we egoists
are obviously at the centre of the universe, ipso facto, these changes
must appear extraordinary and revolutionary to the hoi polloi who
don't understand things as well as we do.  To our ancestors, these
changes would be extraordinary!

The distortion comes about because of our viewpoint. The problems and
attitudes of the past always appear trivial to us -- because they are
SOLVED.  Relativity is such a simple and obvious concept -- why did it
take an Einstein and X years to work it out? A smart high-school kid
today could write a better explanation of relativity than Einstein in
a week.

And, similarly, we judge the rate of change selectively from our own
perspective, having grown up with the 'solved' technologies which
caused all the troubles in the past.  And our judgement as to what is
important is always a perspective from today's vantage point -- but
people in the past found other aspects of change more important and
difficult to handle -- things that are now trivial to us.

This is where Tofler falls down in his "Future Shock" idea.  I don't
see any evidence that people today don't handle technological change
reasonably well and easily.  Ten years after Toffler warned us of
technology's disruptive effects, Future Shock hasn't appeared in the
way that was postulated.  Today's technologies certainly aren't any
more difficult for us to handle than those that gave 'Future Shock' to
past generations (Crystal sets, for instance.  Trams and buses for
another) Morse-code telegraphy had ten times the impact of satellites.
Telex has been a thousand times more important and more revolutionary
than electronic mail.

Computers and modern communications technologies might be revolutionary
to the half-million technologists, but to the five billion users these
chips and fibres are just creating marginal improvements on the
adequate 'service facilities' they had before.  Computers produce a
very evolutionary, rather than revolutionary, change to our culture
when you compare them to the impact of something like the motor car.

My mother was ten before she saw her first motor car, 18 before she
saw an aeroplane, but she lived to fly the Concorde and see a man step
on the moon.  How does this pace of change compare with my life span,
when cars, aeroplanes and space travel are reasonably commonplace?
And the car I drive now is not really much different to the one I
drove 30 years ago. The car has made very little 'revolutionary'
impact on my life because I've always had one, and it has always
worked at about the same speed and travelled the same miles.

So I have reservations about all this philosophical "Future Shock" and
"Information Society/Age" stuff -- I think it is tabloid sensationalism
under the guise of a pseudo-academic cloak. I see little evidence that
the 'perceived' pace of change in the community is faster now than it
has been over the last hundred years.  It seems to me that 'present'
change has always been perceived as 'amazingly fast' -- it's a
perspective illusion.

If you were to identify the time in recent history where citizens
faced most 'Future Shock' then it would have to be the 1890s and early
1900s.  This was when Bell invented the telephone; Edison the light
bulb and phonograph; photography and the movies became popular;
Marconi and De Forrest created radio; and trams, buses, cars, trucks
(and later aeroplanes) replaced the horse and carriage and bicycle.

All of these technologies had a direct, disruptive and rapid effect on
the way (and place) people lived, worked and played.  It is hard to
think of anything in the last twenty years with one-tenth the impact
of the steam-train in the 1800s.

In fact, if you stand back and look at the last century of technology
with a dispassionate eye, then the computer and fibre revolution has
been rather benign for the average citizen.  Fibre optics just means
better phone quality.  And these days the technologists placed
considerable emphasis on 'user-friendliness' and on the 'transparency'
of most computer applications -- so a large part of the computer's
power is directed at making it easy to assimilate, and easy to use.
This didn't happen with technologies in the past - 'real men' learned
to double de-clutch.

Most computers are hidden, and work behind the scene.  Technologists
see these things and marvel, but the average Joe Bloggs in the streets
just finds things easier to work, or with a few extra features.  Few
people are conscious when driving a modern car, that computers are
controlling the ignition, brakes and radio-tuning.  These 'revolutionary'
technical changes are just technical trivia.

How do you compare these things with the impact on people and cultures
from the 'transport revolution' of the early 1900's: horses almost
disappeared from the roads, and trams, trains and motor cars replaced
them. Suddenly everyone could travel -- from suburbs to the city,
between towns, and even between states.  Families were no longer
isolated by distance; people had access to all forms of entertainment
and recreation, most of which had only previously been available to
the rich with stables.

And it all happened in about the same period of time that we have been
dealing with the computer revolution -- about 20 years.  I think we
need to get our feet back on the ground and stop imagining that we are
more important than we are.

                        ================

[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Mr. Fist, thanks very much for an
excellent presentation of a point of view we often tend to overlook.
If any readers want to present a rebuttal to Mr. Fist, or elaborate
further on his comments, I'll be happy to carry the thread here for
a bit longer. It makes a great topic to begin the new year.   PAT]

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

Date: Mon,  3 Jan 1994 12:13:27 EST
From: Jeffrey J. Carpenter <[e-mail]>
Subject: Caller ID in Pennsylvania


I received a copy of Pennsylvania Act 83 of 1993.  This law permits
Caller-ID in Pennsylvania as long as both per-line and per-call
blocking are available.  There may be a charge for per-line blocking,
but not for per-call blocking.  There are a number of parties that are
excluded from charges for per-line blocking, including victims of
domestic violence, women's shelters, and health and counseling
centers.  People ordering phone service may get per-line blocking at
no charge within 60 days of ordering service.

It permits a service that will automatically block calls from lines
with blocking, and permits selective unblocking of lines with per-line
blocking.

There are a number of blocking exceptions for PBX's, 911 services and
800/900 services.

Telephone companies offering this service must notify their customers
sixty days in advance of the implementation to allow subscribers to
obtain per-line blocking.


jeff

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

Date: Mon, 3 Jan 94 14:45:44 EST
From: [e-mail]  (Aninda Dasgupta)
Subject: Wireless Transceiver Boards


I want to design a wireless data network for indoor (office space)
applications.  I want to use as many off-the-shelf products as
possible.  The first item I need is a wireless transceiver. The
requirements are:

 1) should work around corners and through walls (a range of say
    three to four rooms/offices),
 2) support a data rate anywhere from 10 to 64 Kbps,
 3) should use carrier frequencies that are not restricted by the FCC and
    are unlikely to be very crowded by other systems,
 4) should be priced around $10.

I would like to get off-the-shelf boards to which I can hook up my
micro-processor based systems to build wireless nodes on the network.
Can anyone point me to manufacturers of transceiver boards?

Requirement one means that I can't use infra-red.  I should probably
use RF.  How about the 900 MHz systems?  The FCC allows only a few
tens of watts of power in the 900 MHz range.  What frequencies do
other such systems (e.g. Echelon) use and what power levels do they
provide? Model airplanes and toy cars use RF remotes.  So does the
BOSE home audio remote controller. What freq. and power levels do
these use?

Any help or comments will be greatly appreciated.  I will summarize if
I get sufficient replies. Thanks in advance.


Regards,

Aninda DasGupta ([e-mail]) Ph:[phone] Fax:[phone]
Philips Labs\n 345 Scarborough Rd\n  Briarcliff Manor\n NY 10510

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

From: [e-mail] (Earl Vickers)
Subject: Post Cool Phone Numbers - Strange Recorded Info Services
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Mon, 3 Jan 1994 03:04:48 GMT


I'm putting together a list of phone numbers for bizarre recorded
information services. I used to have lots of numbers like this, but
they all seem to have disappeared. For example, there used to be one
where you could leave whatever strange sound effects or messages you
wanted, and they would periodically edit and splice them into their
new outgoing greeting. And there used to be a number in San Francisco
called the Earthquake Prevention Hotline, with a different oddball
comedy bit every couple days.

All I have to offer so far is They Might Be Giants's Dial-a-Song
number, [phone].

And dialing 1073214049889664 gets you a computer voice that reads you
your own phone number, in case you forgot or something. (This works
from San Jose, CA, and I'm told it's toll free but I couldn't swear to
it.)

Please post or email any interesting numbers you may know of.
(Obviously, please, no answering machines that might sometimes be
answered by a human.)  Thanks!


Earl Vickers  [e-mail]


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: A couple of numbers I'll add to this
list are 312-731-1100 and 312-731-1505. Both are operated by a fellow
named Sherman Skolnick in Chicago who is a 'conspiracy buff'; you know,
one of those people who believe that everyone but Oswald killed JFK.
Both are five minute recordings, and he changes the two messages two
or three times per week.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Jascha Franklin-Hodge)
Subject: Question About Ring Frequency
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Mon, 3 Jan 1994 05:45:09 GMT


Can someone tell me the ring frequecies and durations of the standard US
telephone ring?


Thanks,

[e-mail]    Jascha Franklin-Hodge

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

From: [e-mail] (Jeffrey L. Haynes)
Subject: Connecting Two Phone Lines to One Phone Jack
Date: Mon, 03 Jan 1994 21:13:38 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: AIX Defect Support


I am trying to figure out how to wire two phone lines into a regular
phone jack. Is this possible? I thought it was because only two wires
are used.

I have tried connecting the yellow and black to the red and green
on the second line, but that doesn't seem to work.

Anybody know anything about this stuff?


Thanks,

Jeff Haynes email: [e-mail]   AIX Defect Support


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, I guess we know a few things
about it Jeff. You do not want to connect the yellow and black wires
to the red and green; that causes both lines to get shorted out. R/G
is typically the first line (of two in a two pair cable) and Y/B is
the second line. (I'm talking like an American now; forget about
Europe or other countries for the purpose of this discussion.) You
bring Y/B to your phone in the same way the R/G are brought there, but
as *separate and distinct* things. You need a second phone instrument
or at least a phone with two distinct lines on it in order to use the
Y/B pair of wires, and that is presuming of course that telco has the
wires connected at their end and in service.

If you have two lines from telco, then what you do is at the modular
connection box depends on the kind of phone(s) you are using. If you
have a true two-line phone, then connect the four wires to the four
screw terminals as indicated by the color markings for each. In
addition you attach the four wires from the cover of the modular box
to the associated screw terminals in the same way. Plug in your two
line phone and it should work okay. If you are using two separate
phones, we do it a bit differently. Inside the modular box, have the
four wires connected as above, but from the Y/B terminals, run two
little jumper wires to a second modular box you bought from Radio
Shack or similar. Connect the jumper wires from the Y/B screws of
the first box to the R/G screws in the new, second modular box. Now
plug your second phone into your second box.

The reason we wire the jumpers from Y/B in the one to R/G in the other
is because R/G is traditionally known as the 'first line' and Y/B is
traditionally known as the 'second line'.  Most devices which handle
only one phone line (i.e. a single-line phone instrument, an answering
machine, a modem, etc) are wired internally to operate on the 'first
line'; that is, to respond to and connect with R/G. So if you plan to
use the 'second' (or Y/B) line for a modem or answering machine or fax
machine, etc you need to give it whatever phone service you are going
to have there on the 'first line' as far as it can tell, meaning see
to it that the R/G on the newly installed modular terminal box gets
the feed, ** but in a separate modular terminal box **. Never allow
any of the four wires to touch each other. If more questions arise in
this project, please write again.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Yang Yu-shuang)
Subject: Questions About VOXSON 899 Mobile Phone
Organization: Computer Science, University of Melbourne, Australia
Date: Tue, 4 Jan 1994 01:47:37 GMT


Hi Net Friends,

I bought a VOXSON CELLVOX 899 mobile phone recently. I have a few questions
about it:

(1) It comes with a 12 VDC 1000mA adaptor plug into the desktop charger. Is
    the adaptor just the ordinary AC-DC adaptor? Can I use the car cigarette
    lighter instead of the AC-DC adaptor?

(2) I am thinking of making a small charger to be used in the car. What are
    the points to note? Can the battery be treated as the ordinary NiCad
    battery?

(3) The battery has six metal pieces. Two of them are in contact with the
    phone which power the phone and four of them are in contact with
    the charger.  The four in contact with the charger are labeled as
    "-", "S", "T", "+". What does those labels mean?

(4) I noticed that the same type of phone in different shops carries
    different labels. For instance, the phones sold by Strathfield has a
    sticker saying "produced in Australia" while the ones in Myer has a
    sticker saying "made in Japan". The phone and the model number are the
    same otherwise. Are there any internal differences?

Thank you in advance for any suggestions.


YS (Sam) Yang

[e-mail]


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You can use any 'clean' (i.e. regulated)
DC power supply rated at 10-13 volts and at least one amp, although my
Micronta 13.8 VDC power supply is rated at three amps. Your car battery
via the cigarette lighter will work fine. You don't need a charger in
the car; just use a connector which fits the cigarette lighter on one
end and your cellular phone battery charge connection on the other. As
long as the motor is running your car battery will juice up the phone
battery and let you use the phone as well. The plus and minus signs are
for the positive and negative sides of the battery; most likely the S
and T have to do with whether or not your phone is (or can be) wired
into the circuitry of the car so that an incoming call will cause your
horn to sound or your lights to flash if your car is parked somewhere
and you are outside the car with the phone left in the vehicle turned
on. Are you *certain* there are only two connections between the
battery and the phone and not at least three or four of the six which
reach the charger?  It could also be that the S and T connections are
like thermal switches -- when the battery gets fully juiced up it gets
a little warm and some cellphone batteries use a thermal coupler to
shut off the charger when the battery says it is no longer needed.
There are probably no significant differences in the internals of your
phone and those from Japan or Korea or Hong Kong or China or the local
Radio Shack, etc.  PAT]

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

Subject: US West's India Project Delayed by Foreign-Investment Debate
Date: Mon, 03 Jan 1994 18:54:51 -0500
From: Atri Indiresan <[e-mail]>


This report is from the India-D listserv group. I do not have the
original citation for the article.

Atri
                              ------

US WEST'S PROJECT IN INDIA IS DELAYED BY DEBATE OF FOREIGN-INVESTMENT POLICY

    US West Inc.'s pioneering proposal to offer an alternative to India's
state-owned phone system has been put on hold.

    The regional project, which would amount to a revolution in
India's tightly controlled telecommunications industry, has run into
opposition from some members of India's parliament and from unions
representing workers in the state-owned network.

    US West proposes offering an alternative to the government-run
network in parts of India's southern state of Tamil Nadu. Also on hold
are 17 similar proposals lined up behind U S West's initiative, which
received approval last month from the Foreign Investment Promotion
Board.

    Technically, the project has been returned to the investment board
for certain evaluations. However, a senior official has said that no
clearance will be given until the government reaches a consensus on
the role of private and foreign investment in the telecommunications
industry.

    The unions say basic telecommunications services shouldn't be
opened to competition. They have the support of some left-wing
parliament members and are threatening to strike if there is a change
in policy.

    However, a policy change is just what is needed, says Nagarajan
Vittal, head of the Department of Telecommunications. He has been
pushing for one since assuming his post in October. Now, his proposals
are awaiting consideration by Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao and
his cabinet. If the review goes as expected, a new policy is likely to
be announced before the end of January.

    Mr. Vittal argues that there is no alternative to opening up basic
services to competition. He dismisses as inadequate a 400 billion
rupee ($12.85 billion) plan he inherited, which would increase the
country's phone lines to 20 million in 200 from the current seven
million. That plan would still leave a waiting list of two years,
compared with today's five or six, he estimates.

    "We should target 1.2 trillion rupees ($38.54 billion) to bridge
this perennial gap," Mr. Vittal says. India has less than one
telephone per 1000 people. The global average is 10.5.

    Mr. Vittal wants India to have 20 million lines by the end of
1995. But because India lacks the resources to finance such expansion
on its own, he wants to admit foreign investors.

    "I want India's telephone density to be at world levels and to
provide telephones on demand," Mr. Vittal says. "The quality of
services must go up, and that can only happen with competition."

    According to Boli Madappa, U S West's director of international
network projects, the first stage of U S West's plan would create
430,000 lines with an investment of $90 million in and around the
textile exporting town of Tirupur in Tamil Nadu. In the second stage,
to be completed by 2004, the total investment would rise to $176
million and the number of lines to 930,000.

    U S West would provide basic telephone service, as well as data
services, public call offices and cable television.

    Several companies seeking to enter the market are closely watching
the outcome of the U S West proposal. According to Mr. Vittal,
American Telephone & Telegraph Co. has offered to eliminate the
waiting list in 71 towns by providing competitive services, and
Motorola Inc. has offered a "waitlist-buster" proposal that, among
other things, would be designed to clear the waiting list in New
Delhi, India's capital, in six months.

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

From: [e-mail] (Linc Madison)
Subject: Dialing 1 First Prohibited in Dallas
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Mon, 03 Jan 1994 22:41:40 GMT


Several people have written recently about ten-digit dialing schemes
for local calls to adjacent area codes.  The idea is to preserve the
concept that any local call can be dialed without a '1' even if prefix
shortages make it no longer possible to dial just the seven-digit
number.

In most cases, you are permitted, but not required, to dial the 1
anyway, and all telcos are recommended to allow 1 + NPA + number for
all calls within the NANP, including local calls within the same NPA.

I was recently in Dallas, where you *must* dial:
          7-digit number     local, same area code
    NPA + 7-digit number     local, different area code
1 + NPA + 7-digit number     all non-local calls

If you dial, for example, 1-817-265-xxxx instead of 817-265-xxxx, you
get an intercept recording telling you to dial again without the 1.
If you dial 1-214-nxx-xxxx instead of nxx-xxxx for a local call, you
get a similar intercept.  There is some logic, at least, in saying
that any call that incurs a toll must be dialed with the 1, and thus
that any call that does not incur a toll *may* be dialed without the
1, but there is just no excuse whatsoever for *prohibiting* the 1 for
local calls.

I only tried this from GTE Southwest, not from Southwestern Bell,
since my parents had to accept exile to be within commute distance of
my father's new office location.  It is possible that SWB does better
on this point, as well as in every single other facet of telephone
service.


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

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

Date: Mon, 3 Jan 1994 15:20:00 +0000
From: charles (c.a.) hoequist <[e-mail]>
Subject: Operator, Where Are my Car Keys?


Esteemed Editor,

This is a followup to my posting concerning the new 411 service in
Atlanta. In response to an e-mail request to post more details to the
Digest about subscriber requests which don't exactly fit the telco's
DA template, here is a selection.

Bear in mind that the operator doesn't dare just brush off the
subscriber. That may bring a complaint. But if the call takes too
long, the operator's AWT (average work time -- the average duration of
the calls at the operator's position) will go up, which is also evil.
So everything has to be either solved or at least properly redirected,
preferably in 20 seconds or less.

First, there are some frequent errors, such as subscribers asking for
DA in another area code. A subclass of of these are the telephony-
challenged. The operators usually read out the entire sequence for the
call to the subscriber ("Dial one, then <area code>, then ..") and in
one case the subscriber obediently hit DTMF 1 ("ma'am?" "Yes?" "You
have to hang up first.")

Second, there are ambiguous or poorly-stated listing requests. These
can be mildly humorous:

"I'd like the number of X in Jefferson"
"Which one, ma'am? I have two Jefferson listings for that name."
"Well, it's the one on the main street."
"Neither is listed as having Main Street as an address."
"No, it's the main street, it runs right through the center of
town."
(pause)
"Ma'am, I don't know the name of that street."
"Hmm. Well, it's the one that turns into the state road a little
out of town ..."
This can go on and on.

Others would get me fired for talking back to customers if I had to
put up with them: "Well, that's what _I_ always call my bank, and
_they_ always know what I'm talking about!"

Then there are some which are telephony-related, but not DA calls,
like the bozo who badgered the operator endlessly about whether he'd
get charged for a DA call made from his cellular phone. Or requests
for beeper numbers.

Finally, there are the miscellaneous requests:

  - what time is it? Not, what is the number to get the time recording?
    The subscriber was very explicit.
  - when do the buses run?
  - what zipcode is <X>?
  - and the winner: "Could you tell me what research is going on
    at Emory University?"


Charles Hoequist, Jr.   | Internet: [e-mail]
BNR, Inc.               |  voice: 919-991-8642
PO Box 13478            |  fax:   [phone]
Research Triangle Park NC 27709-3478
USA

The number you have dialed is imaginary. Please rotate your telephone
ninety degrees and try again.


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Indeed, directory assistance operators
(in fact, all telco operators) get a tremendous amount of abuse in a
day's time. As Ms. Murphy, my former next-door neighbor and retired
IBT operator once told me, "I thought something was wrong if I hadn't
been cussed out by at least two or three subscribers before noon each
day ...". Murphy was the very first union steward for the operators in
Chicago over a half century ago; back in the days when 'everyone knew'
no one would ever organize "the Bell" ... too big, too large, it just
can't be done <grin> ... Murphy helped do it and after some forty years
in the service of Ma Bell she retired in the early 1960's. She said to
me she often missed the subscribers cursing at her all day long. :)  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V14 #2
****************************

Downloaded From P-80 International Information Systems 304-744-2253