Hacker Chronicles 2 (Alt)/The_Hacker_Chronicles_Volume_II-CD2.iso/td2/td14_133.txt

Text File | 1995-01-03 | 28.2 KB | 664 lines

TELECOM Digest     Wed, 16 Mar 94 11:16:00 CST    Volume 14 : Issue 133

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Los Angeles Phone Fire (TELECOM Digest Editor)
    Re: No Monthly Fee Cell Phone (Rob Boudrie)
    Re: Modem Use With Rolm Phone 240 (Steve Brack)
    Re: New Area Code Change Question (Laurence Chiu)
    Meaning of the TELEX Answerback Code That Names Carrier (Sheldon Hoenig)
    Re: Questions About GMRS Radio (Danny Burstein)
    Re: Questions About GMRS Radio (Bill Nayhew)
    Re: Questions About GMRS Radio (Rich Greenberg)
    X.500 Directory Service (Go Simon Sunatori)
    Boca V-Mail Modem: Request For Tech-Specs (Ken Stillson)
    Motorola - Japan Press Release (Gregory A. Lucas)

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

                 * [e-mail] *

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

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

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

TELECOM Digest is gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup comp.dcom.telecom. It has no connection with the unmoderated
Usenet newsgroup comp.dcom.telecom.tech whose mailing list "Telecom-Tech
Digest" shares archives resources at lcs.mit.edu for the convenience
of users. Please *DO NOT* cross post articles between the groups. All
opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 16 Mar 94 10:35:11 CST
From: [e-mail] (TELECOM Digest Editor)
Subject: Los Angeles Phone Fire


Word is trickling in very slowly from California about the fire in the
Pac Bell switching center. Does anyone out there have any further details
on this? I am hearing that it was quite severe.

Is this another case like the major fire in Hinsdale, Illinois in 1988
and the fire in New York in the mid-1970's where a telco office and major
facility was left unattended for some period of time and alarms were
simply ignored? That's what happened here in the Hinsdale (Chicago) fire
almost six years ago. It started early on a Sunday afternoon and burned
for more than an hour before the people who were supposed to be watching
out for such things decided that maybe the alarms coming from Chicago
(they were in Springfield, Illinois, a couple hundred miles away as if
that made a lot of sense in the first place) were to be honored. Then
and only then, when the doofus in Springfield decided maybe the alarms
should be investigated, he called someone at home in the west suburban
area and asked them 'when they had a chance' to go over to the central
office in Hinsdale and see what it was about. 30-45 minutes later a
supervisor shows up, goes inside, sees the fire in progress and decides
to call the fire department. But by then it was too late since all the
phones in town were already dead, including those to the fire department.

Bottom line in Hinsdale? Service was out for two weeks in some cases and
a month in others. An entire switch had to be scrapped and a replacement
installed. Millions of dollars in lost business and hardships while the
phones were out. According to Mr. Eibel, a vice-president of Illinois Bell
at the time, staffing a phone office *with even just one clerk* at all
times to prevent situations like this was not cost effective. Maybe he
figured they could buy new switches on sale at Walmart or something, and
that customer goodwill was something easily obtained for less than the
few dollars an hour a responsible person at the CO would cost.

So what's the story in Los Angeles?


PAT

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

From: [e-mail] (Rob Boudrie)
Subject: Re: No Monthly Fee Cell Phone
Date: 15 Mar 1994 15:59:36 -0500
Organization: Center for High Performance Computing of WPI


Does the Lindsay service use the B (Nynex) or A (Cell One) carrier's
service for the actual communications, or has the FCC authorized a
third carrier in the market?

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

From: [e-mail] (Steve Brack)
Subject: Re: Modem Use With Rolm Phone 240
Organization: University of Toledo
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 1994 01:00:23 GMT


Jim McCormack ([e-mail]) wrote:

> At work I have a Rolm phone 240 model #62000. Since this is a digital
> phone I can't use an analog modem with it. Does anyone know of a device
> which would allow the use of an analog modem on this phone/network?

In the current Hello Direct catalog, there is a device called a DataDapter
that plugs into your phone on the handset side.  Of course, this cannot
operate on an unattended basis, but it will, according to the catslog,
work with almost any phone system.  Their address is:

  Hello Direct
  5884 Eden Park Place
  San Jose, CA   95138-1859

  TEL: +1 800 HI HELLO (444 3556)  English
       [phone] Spanish
       [phone] Technical Support

  FAX: [phone]

  HRS: 9AM - 8PM EST (6AM - 5PM PST) (1400-0100 UTC)

The DataDapter is Item # 2342N, and is listed on p. 42 of the catalog.


Steven S. Brack           [e-mail]
Toledo, OH  43613-1605    [e-mail]
MY OWN OPINIONS           [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Laurence Chiu)
Subject: Re: New Area Code Change Question
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 1994 09:33:27 -0900
Organization: CRL Dialup Internet Access


In article <[e-mail]>, Mike Quinlan wrote:

> In message <[e-mail]>, TELECOM Digest Editor Noted:

>> Since the general public has never probably understood the way area codes
>> were constructed in the past, the general public will probably not notice
>> the difference starting next year.

> The general public may notice that they will have to dial the area
> code when making long-distance calls within the same area code.

However currently with some places requiring this and others not, it
is very confusing for visitors. I had a friend visit Seattle recently
and asked him to look up a friend for me who lives in Tacoma but phone
number is 206-xxx-xxxx. Every time he called he got some message about
the number being out of service. He didn't think to dial 1-206-xxx-xxxx
to reach the number since 1-area code is not required in CA. A more
informative message from the local Telco (US West?)  would have been
nice.


Laurence Chiu             Walnut Creek, California
Tel: [phone] (work)  Internet: [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 15 Mar 1994 17:04:41 EST
From: Sheldon W. Hoenig <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Meaning of Part of the TELEX Answerback Code That Names the Carrier


The telex system uses an answerback code as a rudimentary authentification
technique.  The answerback is usually a mnemonic having some connection to
the called party.  In addition, there is a suffix attached to many
answerback codes in the form "Ux".  From what I understand, the letter
U signifies that the telex destination is in the U.S. and the letter
"x" tells which telex carrier supplies the telex number and service.

I am interested in determining telex carriers from answerback codes.
Does anyone have a list which correlates "x" to a telex carrier?


Sheldon W. Hoenig                 Internet:
Government Systems, INC (GSI)        [e-mail]
Suite 500                            [e-mail]
3040 Williams Drive               Telephone: [phone]
Fairfax, VA 22031-4612                       [phone] x420

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

Date: Wed, 16 Mar 1994 01:11:26 -0500
From: danny burstein <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Questions About GMRS Radio


GMRS is the "General Mobile Radio Servce", which is kind of like CB
but on the UHF band.

There are approximately eight channels on it, and repeater operation
is allowed using a second frequency for input to the repater.

There are also a couple of 'split' or 'intenerant' channels which are
authorized for lower power, direct unit-to-unit work.  Power output
ont he main channels is allowed at either four or five watts.

Prior to more or less 1990 anyone, including businesses, could get FCC
authorization for these freqs by filling out form ?475? and mailing in
the money. NOTE that you did *NOT* have exclusive use of the frequencies,
but since there are fewer people on UHF, and it was FM, and you could
use CCITT and other nifty stuff, it was -much- better than CB.

For the last few years new licensees had to be individuals or families,
not businesses.

Range will vary dramatically. A decent antenna on the unit (should be
about six inches) will give you perhaps a reliable half mile or so in a
low density city, a mile in suburbia, and twenty miles line-of-sight
from mountain top to mountain top.


[e-mail] (or [e-mail])
           (10288) 0-700-864-3242

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

Date: Wed, 16 Mar 94 11:42:45 EST
From: [e-mail] (Bill Mayhew)
Subject: Re: Questions About GMRS Radio
In-Reply-To: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Northeastern Ohio Universities College of Medicine


Pat,

You do indeed have a GMRS (general mobile radio service) radio.  Power
output is usally about one watt, but may vary depending on the exact
model of the radio.  Some are in the 100 mW range; some are as much as
five watts.  Recently, I've seen thousands of UHF handhelds at local
flea markets that put out about 100 mW.  These were used in some sort
of warehouse inventory control system that interfaced the radio with a
bar code scanner.  Those radios work as normal radios when the scanner
is not attached.  All GMRS radios have to licensed.

There are several "intenerant" channels for which you may apply for a
license.  The fee is about $20 for a five year license -- at least the
last time I checked.  You can get a license for other channels that
are assigned to you specifically, though shared with other users.

Many GMRS use tone coded CTCSS (continuous tone coded subaudible
signalling) that uses a "sub-audible" tone in the range of ~80-250 Hz.
The tone is sent along with your voice so that only your receivers
will open the squelch when one of your employees transmits.  The
street name for CTCSS is PL, which is a Motorola trademark, Private
Line.  There is an industry standard set of about 30 PL tones,
which interoperate on any manufacturer's radio.

PL is generally an option, so your radio may not be so equipped.
There is usally a setting on the squelch knob that has a graphic
showing a speaker with a line through it; that is the setting that
activates PL.

There are GMRS repaters that you may be able to access. Point-to-point,
a one watt GMRS hand-held will probably transmit about one mile.
Though a repeater system, I've seen ranges of up to 16 miles radius
from the repeater.  Our university rents time on a local GMRS repeater
for our courier drivers; we bought the radios, but I believe that we
use them under the authority of the repeater owner.  We pay a pretty
reasonable fee for the repeater access -- about $20/month.

We also have two UHF GMRS repeaters here in the building for which we
hold FCC licenses.  The repeaters put out about one watt to a ground
plane antenna on the top of the building.  Our groundskeepers, maintainence
people and security officers use those two channels.  The range gives
us coverage about a mile or two around the perimeter of our campus
between the handheld radios.

I strongly recommend working though a local mobile radio dealer in
getting things set up.  You may be able to have the working frequency
of the radio reset (many radios can be set up using an umbilical cord
thing that dealers have to program frequency and PL).  The FCC requires
that the end user not have the ability to change the assigned frequency.
Some radios have a magic code that will unlock the programming if they
have a keypad.  Radio dealers can also provide information on GMRS
repeaters in your area.

GMRS is not CB and the users are very likely to get real upset with
any person who sets up an ad hoc operation without going though the
proper steps.  Unauthorized use is more likely to attract FCC notice
than goofing around with a Children's Band radio.  GMRS is basically
what CB was intended to be before it got out of control.  Fortunately,
GMRS UHF and VHF frequencies are relatively line-of-sight and FM.  FM
helps cut down on co-channel interference thanks to the FM capture
effect.  Being VHF/UHF FM cuts down on the appeal of DX operation that
got to be the fad on 27 MHz AM/SSB CB.


Bill Mayhew        NEOUCOM Computer Services Department
Rootstown, OH  44272-0095  USA      phone: [phone]
[e-mail]       amateur radio 146.58: N8WED


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: There is no keypad or touchtone pad on
this unit, and just a switch to go between channel one and channel two.
I've left it sitting on the desk here turned on for several hours with
the squelch open and the volume quite low just to hear what sort of
traffic there is on it, it anything. So far I've heard nothing. I assume
if there were a repeater around here one would need to key in something
on the pad in order to activate the repeater. I don't know if I really
need such a radio as this or not. I did conduct one very short test to
be sure of the frequencies by turning on my scanner to the two frequencies
in question and keying the transceiver for for a second or two to watch
the scanner lock in on it. I'm not going to use it otherwise without a
license (or at all unless I find some use for it.)   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Rich Greenberg)
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 1994 08:59:58 PST
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Questions About GMRS Radio


The units you have sound like business band or the old (Class A?)  CB
service.  1 watt is a reasonable power level for such a radio.  The
stubby antenna will cut down the range somewhat.  Quarter wave whips
at that frequency (around 6 inches) will work better if you can locate
them.  Ham unit whips (intended for 440-450 mHz) MAY work.

 From HT to HT with the stubby antennas, perhaps a mile or two in the
clear, less inside a building.  Double or triple that with properly
cut 1/4 wave antennas.  For the ham frequencies, 5/8 wave antennas are
also available which give a bit more of an edge.  Again, I don't know
if they are available for 462 mHz or if the ham ones will work.


Rich Greenberg            Work: ETi Solutions, Oceanside & L.A. CA 310-348-7677
N6LRT   TinselTown, USA   Play: [e-mail]                  310-649-0238


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Thanks for your input on this. So what is
the word on the fire out there? Can you and others in Los Angeles give
a more detailed report to Digest readers?   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Go Simon Sunatori)
Subject: X.500 Directory Service
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Go Simon Sunatori)
Organization: The National Capital FreeNet
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 1994 01:43:41 -0500


At least one government is going ahead with a full-scale implementation
of the X.500 directory service.  Given the tremendous potential of X.500
service in mail-enabled applications, I believe that some form of X.500
directory service will be available for the general public to use.
Now, the question is who would provide such a service?  Would it be
the telcos which may extend the white pages, or are there opportunities
for entrepreneurs to set up a pure directory business?


Go Simon Sunatori, P.Eng.
X.400:     C=CA; A=Telecom.Canada; O=HyperInfo.Canada; S=Sunatori; G=Go Simon
Internet:  [e-mail]  Telephone: [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Ken Stillson)
Subject: Boca V-Mail Modem: Request For Tech-Specs
Date: 16 Mar 94 13:19:17 GMT
Organization: The MITRE Corporation


The hardware manual casually mentions a few of the extended AT#
commands used for the voice-subsystem, but doesn't give anywhere near
enough details to actually use them.

Does anyone know (or know where to get) more information on how to
directly use the voice system, so one can write their own software?


Thanks!

Ken Stillson, [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Gregory A Lucas)
Subject: Motorola - Japan Press Release
Date: 16 Mar 94 16:31:12 GMT
Organization: Motorola Cellulsr Infrastructure Group


Response and Questions to: Tim Kellogg
                           [phone]
                           Jay Hyde
                           [phone]


WASHINGTON, D.C., March 12 -- An agreement reached today promising
U.S. access to Japan's largest cellular phone market was hailed by
Motorola as beneficial to both Japanese consumers and American
workers.

Motorola President and Chief Operating Officer Christopher B.  Galvin
said, "This is an agreement where everyone wins.  First, Japanese
consumers, because they will have greater choice in the marketplace.
Second, American workers, because more of the products they make will
be sold in Japan.  And, of course, Motorola benefits from resolution
of the problems that have restrained our entry into the Tokyo-Nagoya
market."

Galvin thanked U.S. Trade Representative Mickey Kantor and his team,
as well as Ambassador to Japan Walter Mondale, for helping to remove
the roadblocks that prevented a full build- out of the Motorola
cellular phone system in the Tokyo-Nagoya region.  "When the U.S.
government found that it had reached an impasse in its 10-year effort
to gain comparable access for telecommunications products in the
Japanese market, it took forceful action.  We commend the
administration for this step," he remarked.

Galvin stressed that his company was not looking for special treatment
in Japan.  "With this agreement, Motorola looks forward to serving our
customer in the Tokyo-Nagoya market with products that meet a standard
of excellence unsurpassed anywhere else in the world," he said.  "We
are confident we will be able to supply quality products, and
ultimately help to increase consumer opportunities, throughout the
region."

The agreement addresses the goal of comparable market access through
two interlocking features:

O  Installation of a cellular phone system that will reach 95
   percent of the Tokyo-Nagoya region's population by the end
   of 1995; and

O  A pledge by the government of Japan that terms of this new
   agreement will be met at every step.

The agreement removes the immediate threat of sanctions.  On February
15, Ambassador Kantor found Japan in violation of a 1989 agreement
assuring American telecommunications companies market access
comparable to that enjoyed by Japanese suppliers.  Kantor, acting
under U.S. trade law, determined that Motorola had been denied access
in the Tokyo/Nagoya region, as required under the 1985 Market-Oriented
Sector Selective (MOSS) Agreement on Telecommunications.

Reflecting on Motorola's decade-long effort to achieve success in the
Tokyo-Nagoya cellular market, Galvin said, "It is our belief that this
agreement offers an opportunity for a new beginning, and that Motorola
will become an even more highly valued contributor to the growth of
the cellular phone system in the Tokyo-Nagoya region."

Motorola is one of the world's leading providers of wireless
communications, semiconductors and advanced electronic systems and
services.  Major equipment businesses include cellular telephone,
two-way radio, paging and data communications, personal communications,
automotive, defense and space electronics and computers.  Communication
devices, computers and millions of consumer products are powered by
Motorola semiconductors.  Motorola's 1993 sales were $17 billion.

                            # # #

STATEMENT BY CHRIS GALVIN, president and chief operating officer,
Motorola, March 12, 1994, Washington, D.C.

Before taking your questions, I want to offer a single important
thought.

As you know, the governments of the United States and Japan announced
a settlement today in the long-running dispute over access to the
Tokyo-Nagoya market for American-made cellular telephone products.

We have been engaged for several weeks in intense negotiations leading
to this settlement.

As you prepare your stories and broadcasts on the settlement, most of
you will be asking, "Who wins, and who loses?"

The thought I want to leave with you is this: This is an agreement
where everyone wins.

International trade is not a zero-sum game.  It does not need to be a
contest where one side is the victor and the other side is vanquished.
It can be conducted so that everyone wins.

This is especially true in this situation, where both Japan and the
U.S. benefit.  The announcement today by the governments of the U.S.
and Japan is a classic example of the principle that the best solution
is one where no one loses.

So who wins?

First, Japanese consumers, because they will have greater choice in
the marketplace.

Second, American workers, because more of the products they make will
be sold in Japan.

And, of course, Motorola benefits from resolution of the problems that
have restrained our entry into the Tokyo-Nagoya market.

This spring, Japanese consumers will be able to buy, rather than
lease, cellular phones for the first time.  As a result, we expect a
virtual explosion in the use of cellular phones in Japan.  This makes
the timing of today's announcement particularly significant from a
business point of view.

It also means that Japanese companies selling cellular telephones in
their own domestic market will benefit from the opportunity to sell
hundreds of thousands of new units, to be used by customers in the
Tokyo-Nagoya region.

Throughout this process, our goal has been to achieve comparable
market access for a North American-type cellular system in Japan's
most heavily populated region.

The agreement announced today addresses the goal of comparable market
access through two interlocking features:

First, through installation of a cellular phone system that will reach
95 percent of the Tokyo-Nagoya region's population by the end of 1995;
and;

Second, through a pledge by the government of Japan that terms of this
new agreement will be met at every step.

Achieving agreement in both these areas was not easy.  But with the
help of our customer, IDO, and the governments of the U.S. and Japan,
we found ways to meet requirements in both of these critical areas.

It is our belief that this agreement offers an opportunity for a new
beginning, and that Motorola will become an even more highly valued
contributor to the growth of the cellular phone system in the
Tokyo-Nagoya region.

We are happy that this very narrow issue did not escalate to the point
where sanctions were applied.  Although we believe in the necessity of
sanctions as a tool for government negotiators, we would much rather
solve our differences and solidify our trade partnerships in a
positive, constructive way.  It would seem that we have achieved this
goal with today's announcement.

Finally, I want to applaud both governments.

Special thanks go to the government of Japan for its efforts to find a
satisfactory resolution of this difficult situation.

In the U.S., we want to thank the U.S. Trade Representative,
Ambassador Kantor, and his team, as well as Ambassador Mondale in
Japan, for helping to remove the roadblocks that prevented a full
build-out of the Motorola cellular phone system in the Tokyo-Nagoya
region.

We also want to recognize that today's announcement would not be
possible without the support of President Clinton. When the U.S.
government found that it had reached an impasse in its ten-year effort
to gain comparable access for telecommunications products in the
Japanese market, it took forceful action.  We commend the
administration for this step.

With this agreement, Motorola looks forward to serving our customer in
the Tokyo-Nagoya market with products that meet a standard of excellence
unsurpassed anywhere else in the world.  We are confident that we will
be able to supply quality products, and ultimately help to increase
consumer opportunities, throughout the region.

Thank you.

                             ###

ELEMENTS OF THE U.S. - JAPAN CELLULAR TELEPHONE ARRANGEMENT, Motorola,
March 12, 1994, Tokyo, Japan

      CONSTRUCTION AND DEPLOYMENT OF THE TACS SYSTEM

o A plan containing a schedule of quarterly commitments on the numbers
of base stations and voice channels and the ratios of population
coverage.

o A deployment plan, to be completed within 30 days, setting out the
precise geographic location of each base station in the Tokyo-Nagoya
area.

o These commitments will result in 159 new base stations, containing
an additional 9,900 voice channels.  The installation will begin in
April 1994; installation and deployment of the base stations will be
completed by September 1995; installation and deployment of the voice
channels will be completed by December 1995.

o Coverage of 95 percent of the population in the Tokyo-Nagoya region
by September 1995.

o An immediate letter of intent containing commitments with respect to
the specific equipment to be purchased and all associated terms and
conditions.

               PROMOTION OF THE TACS SYSTEM

o Establishment of sales organization dedicated to the promotion of
the TACS system.

o Sales promotion of the TACS system, including devotion of two-thirds
of IDO's total advertising budget to TACS promotion.

o An agreement to add no further capacity to the HI-CAP system beyond
that which is currently underway.

o Implementation of a specially-designed campaign to encourage the
movement of subscribers onto the TACS system.

o Transfers within 18 months, i.e., by September 1995, of 1.5 MHz of
spectrum from IDO's HI-CAP system to its TACS system which will be
accomplished without inconvenience to HI-CAP customers as a result of
the campaign mentioned above.


            IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMITMENTS

o IDO will provide quarterly reports to Japan's Ministry of Posts and
Telecommunications.


             GOVERNMENT OF JAPAN COMMITMENTS

o Monitor and oversee completion of the IDO commitments, including
those in the letter and all associated documents.

o Ensure compliance with the letter and associated documents on a
quarterly basis.

o Meet quarterly with the U.S. Government to assess implementation of
the actions described in the letter and associated documents.

o  Approve reallocation of 1.5 MHz to the TACS system.

o Expeditiously grant all necessary permits and licenses to IDO and
approvals required by IDO to complete the TACS system.

o  Give full and prompt consideration to any request from IDO
for new tariff rates and conditions.


Greg Lucas
Motorola Cellular Infrastructure Group - Arlington Heights, IL

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

End of TELECOM Digest V14 #133
******************************


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

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