Hacker Chronicles 2 (Alt)/The_Hacker_Chronicles_Volume_II-CD2.iso/td2/td14_142.txt

Text File | 1995-01-03 | 30.1 KB | 673 lines

TELECOM Digest     Wed, 23 Mar 94 10:03:00 CST    Volume 14 : Issue 142

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Sprint in China (John D. Gretzinger)
    Technical References and Suppliers (Gary Ross)
    FAX/Modem/Phone/Answering Machine Software (Peter Leif Rasmussen)
    BT Phone Numbering (Bill Buchan)
    Please Explain the Phrase 'Steaming Terminal' ([e-mail])
    Windows or DOS Caller ID Program (Steve Lindsay)
    Cellular Phone Hacking (Bob Zigon)
    Telecom Business Idea (Dale Van Voorst)
    New Area Code For Los Angeles (David Whiteman)
    MS-Kermit Keyboard Commands ([e-mail])
    Re: Belarus Yellow Pages (Garrett Wollman)
    Re: Hush-a-Phone (Pawel Dobrowolski)
    Re: Hush-a-Phone (Michael D. Sullivan)

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: Tue, 22 Mar 1994 19:27:42 -0500
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Sprint in China


Interesting press release I thought you might like.

    THIS RELEASE WAS DISTRIBUTED IN CHINA ONLY.

    Contacts: Janis Langley, (O) 202-828-7427


   SPRINT EXPANDS PRESENCE IN CHINA, INTRODUCES NEW SERVICES

  BEIJING, March 21, 1994 -- Sprint today announced a
significant expansion of its presence, and product and service
offerings, in China.  Sprint also announced the immediate availability
of three of those services -- a toll-free Sprint Express(R) number for
calling worldwide and for collect calling to the United States, a
prepaid calling card, and CLEARLINE(R) international private-line
service.

  Sprint made the announcements today at a press briefing and
two-day seminar to inform customers and leading Chinese organizations
of the company's expanded local capabilities.

      Sprint is one of the largest telecommunications carriers in
the United States, providing innovative calling services to nearly 8
million customers in that country alone.  Sprint offers voice, video
and data communications services worldwide via some of the world's
largest and most advanced networks.

      Sprint is a pioneer and innovator in technology.  It built
the first nationwide (40,000 kilometer) all-digital, fiber-optic
network in the United States.  It also is the first carrier to offer
such advanced services as Asynchronous Transfer Mode -- a broadband
service that simultaneously carries voice, data and image -- and a
voice-recognition calling card that automatically dials frequently
called numbers with a single-word command, such as "home" or "office."

      Sprint has operated locally in China since 1992 through an
office in Beijing that primarily offered data communications systems
support for the company's growing customer base.  Its Beijing office
now has expanded to 15 employees who represent the company's
increasingly diverse capabilities in consumer services, including the
Sprint Prepaid Calling Card and Sprint FONCARD(SM); international
network solutions for large-scale multinational users; data
communications systems and services; and international carrier
services to provide transit and capacity for telecommunications
carriers worldwide.

      Sprint China will immediately begin to offer several of
Sprint's versatile and cost-effective calling products: a toll-free
Sprint Express number for global calling and collect calls to the
United States; Sprint's Prepaid Calling Card; and its CLEARLINE
international private line service.

   o Sprint Express -- By dialing "108-13," callers in China can
place collect calls to family and colleagues in the United States,
and also charge calls to the United States and worldwide using
their major credit card or Sprint FONCARD.  Operator assistance is
available in English, with Mandarin support planned.

  o Sprint's Prepaid Calling Card, which initially will be
available only through a limited market test, lets consumers pre-
purchase calling credits that they can use from any telephone
without needing exact change.  The card carries attractive
designer graphics -- suitable for collectors -- and offers the
added convenience of operator assistance.

  Callers can use the prepaid calling card from nearly 30
countries for calls to virtually any other country worldwide --
including the United States.  Mandarin-language instructions are
available for calls from China (by dialing 108-16).  The card can also
be used in more than 28 countries worldwide to make calls back to
China or to virtually anywhere in the world.

  o CLEARLINE international private-line service lets
large-scale users consolidate their international calling to receive
volume discounts.  The service is provided via Sprint's worldwide
network, which extends from the United States through its
participation in virtually every major submarine fiber-optic cable
system project.

      "Sprint has been active in China for several years, and we
are delighted to be able to expand our commitment to users in this
important market by offering some of the other feature-rich, cost
effective products popular in the United States and worldwide," said
Herb Bradley, China country manager for Sprint International, Sprint's
global telecommunications subsidiary.

      "We believe that businesses and consumers will benefit from
these innovative services as much in China as they have in the United
States, and we look forward to building on strong relationships we
have formed with many Chinese organizations in delivering these new
services," he said.

      Elsewhere in the Pacific Rim, Sprint has data network points
of presence in Hong Kong, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Singapore,
Australia and New Zealand.  It also has an office in Hong Kong, which
provides sales and technical support for Sprint's business interests
in Hong Kong, Indochina, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan,
Thailand and Singapore.

      Sprint operates fiber-optic and value-added networks that are
 among the world's largest, offering voice services to over 290
 countries and locations, packet-switched data links to more than
 120 countries and international locations, and video services via
 one of the world's largest videoconferencing networks, serving
 nearly 40 countries. Sprint also has U.S. cellular operations that
 serve 42 metropolitan markets and more than 50 rural service
 areas.  The company has more than 50,000 employees and has
 operations in six continents through more than 50 subsidiaries,
 joint ventures and distributors.  Sprint's customers include 80
 percent of the 500 largest U.S. industrial corporations (the
 "Fortune 500"), and the U.S. federal government, which awarded
 Sprint a contract to provide 40 percent of the government's total
 long distance services, and data and video services, over a
 10-year period.

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

John D. Gretzinger


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Thanks for sending this along John. I'm
sure not that many folks realized the extent of Sprint's involvement
in telecom in China. I know I didn't.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Gary Ross)
Subject: Technical References and Suppliers
Organization: University of Vermont -- Division of EMBA Computer Facility
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 1994 00:40:52 GMT


Hi,

 I'm the MIS/Telecom Director for a $20 million dollar company.
I support a midframe host, a ROLM 9751 CBX, and an ethernet LAN with
about 40 nodes along with lots of other sundry devices.

I'm looking for:

 a) Several good *practical* reference books on general telecom
issues, especially, cable plant management (cable classification, how
to build a MDF, IDF, set up do cross wiring fields, merits of 66 vs
110 blocks, etc.)  Also, datacomm (stat vs TD muxing, voice/data
muxing, modem stuff, asynch vs synch, serial, parallel, packet
switching, frame relay, ATM, etc).

 b) The names/addresses/phone numbers of large, "world-class"
suppliers of telecom/datacomm materials (tools, blocks, cable, racks,
electronics, etc.).  I know of Anixter and Alltel, who else?  I am in
VT.

What I'm up to is -- I have a small grassroots department.  We prefer
to do most of the work ourselves.  Even when we don't do it, I need
the knowledge in order to design clever systems.

Thanks in advance for the help.

BTW, I need to purchase some additional test sets.  I have a TS-21
which is fine but I wondered if the TS-19 is adeqaute for in-plant
use, and is the TS-22 an overall better value that TS-21?  Most work
is indoors and lots of datacomm is involved.


Gary Ross    MIS Director
Gardener's Supply Company

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

Date: Wed, 23 Mar 94 11:17:34 JST
From: [e-mail] (Peter Leif Rasmussen)
Subject: FAX/Modem/Phone/Answering Machine Software


I wonder if there is anyone out there who knows about some software to
integrate the simultaneous use of both functions in a FAX/Modem card
with a telephone and answering machine?

My problem is that I have a PC with a FAX/Modem installed and with the
software I know of, there aren't any available that is able to
distinguish between a modem and a FAX call. What I want to do is, to
make my PC able to receive FAX and modem connections unatended. This
is because some of my friends have a PC with a modem whereas some just
have a FAX machine.

The telephone/answering machine and FAX/Modem can be split with a
device made to do that (around USD 60), but if it was possible to put
all of it in the same software it would be very convenient.

I know I could just buy a separate modem for the modem connection, but
in the name of efficiency :-) and to save expansion slots in my notebook
PC I would like to try this out.

I therefore wonder if anyone knows about existing software or have any
pointers to information about such things?

Email me directly and I will summarize in case I get any response.


Peter Rasmussen

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

From: Bill Buchan <[e-mail]>
Subject: BT Phone Numbering
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Edinburgh
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 1994 17:46:42 GMT


A few years ago British Telecom added a prefix 7 to all the four-digit
phone numbers in my parents' area.  At the time we assumed this would
increase the scope of available numbers (ie. 0XXXX-6XXXX and
8XXXX-9XXXX) but no such numbers have ever been introduced.  This year
they have introduced a further prefix 4, so that now all the numbers
are in the form 47XXXX.  It doesn't make much difference to me (since
I call them with a memory button!) but I was just wondering why this
was done -- why add yet another prefix when the previous one has not
been needed? Is BT trying to standardize six-digit numbers outside the
cities, or is this something to do with the new area codes next year --
there are only 20000 people in my parent's town, so surely they don't
need the option of a million phone numbers!

Just wondering - thanks for any info.


Bill

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

From: steve <[e-mail]>
Subject: Please Explain the Term 'Steaming Terminal'
Organization: Syracuse University
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 1994 21:55:33 GMT


Could someone explain what this term means. Please email.

Thank you!

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

From: [e-mail] (Steve Lindsay)
Subject: Windows or DOS Caller ID Program
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 94 16:11:44 GMT


Does anyone know of a little DOS or Windows shareware program that
will act like the one of those caller ID boxes?

Or is there some AT commands I can type in to my communication program
to extract the phone number that is calling me?  I don't want my modem
to answer; just tell me what number is dialing me.


Thank for any help.

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

From: Bob Zigon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cellular Phone Hacking
Date: 23 Mar 1994 07:46:24 GMT
Organization: Truevision, Inc


Is this the right newsgroup to ask questions about Cellular Phone
Hacking?  If not, could you please suggest a newsgroup? If this is the
right group, are there any ftp sites that contain documents about how
cellular phones work? How to clone phones?


Bob Zigon     Sr. Software Engineer   Truevision, Inc.


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It is against the law to clone cellular
phones. Illegal activities are not condoned here, although you might
find a newsgroup here and there on Abusenet where they talk about such
things in lurid detail. There is an alt group for phreaks (or do you
pronounce it freaks?) but I forget its name. The Telecom Archives has
some stuff on cellular phones (use anonymous ftp lcs.mit.edu, then 'cd
telecom-archives') and some stuff on toll fraud but nothing specifically
on how to clone cellular phones. Probably someone reading this will know
the name of the alt group and tell you what it is.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Dale Van Voorst)
Subject: Telecom Business Idea
Date: 23 Mar 1994 04:52:53 GMT
Organization: Dordt College - Sioux Center, IA


I am looking for input on a telecommunications business idea that I
have.  I live in a relatively small town that does not have local
access numbers for any of the on-line services (Compuserve, Prodigy,
AOL, etc).  If you want to access these services, you must pay long
distance charges on top of your normal membership fees.  This is a
major obstacle to private (home) users.  Since many people are buying
computers with modems and software (and often trial Compuserve
memberships), I feel there may be a market for providing a local
access number that would give them a dial-tone in a neighboring city,
thus allowing them to dial the service of their choice.  The theory
then would be that I could offer them a significantly lower rate then
a normal long distance call.

Basically, I would purchase the equivalant of an FX line from the city
and then have a system that my subscribers could call into, that would
verify who is calling and check to see if they really are a
"subscriber" of my service.  If so, it would give them a dial-tone in
the city.

As I see it, in order to really make it work, I would need a number of
lines available.  It would seem that getting a 56 KB line and multiplex-
ing out a bunch of phone lines at each end would be a reasonable idea.

Here's where my questions begin:

1) Is it as (relatively) simple as it seems to multiplex several voice
   grade lines onto a 56 KB line?

2) Any hardware suggestions to accomplish this?  Cost estimates?

3) Will high speed modems work properly over a line like that?

4) What kind of a system might exist that would allow me to do the
   caller verification (don't have caller id yet :-() and then pass
   the call through?  (I'm thinking of having something like a six digit
   customer identifier so that a dial string on a customer might look
   like:

   ATDT123-4567,837463,987-2342
   where "123-4567" is my local service number,
  "837463" is their customer code,
  "987-2342" is the on-line service number in the city.

5) Are there any governmental regulations regarding this type of
   activity?

To protect myself, I would only allow local dialing over the FX lines
so that even if someone get passed the subscriber check, they couldn't
ring up big long-distance bills.

I haven't penciled out if you could actually make money on this or
not; I figured I may as well find out if it's technically feasible first.

Any feedback, comments, ideas, input, or whatever, on this idea would
be much appreciated.


Dale Van Voorst     [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (David Whiteman)
Subject: New Area Code For Los Angeles
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 1994 09:58:09 GMT


Pacific Bell announced a new "overlay" area code for Los Angeles.  (Is
Overlay an official telephone term?)  The area code 562 will overlay
the areas covered by the 310, 818, 213 area codes for new pagers and
cellular phones.  This new area code will take effect 3/96 (One news
source said 3/95).  Also the 310 area code is rapidly filling up.
Pacific Bell is considering programs to entice new cellular phone
customers to request the 818 or 213 area codes instead of the 310
code.  New cellular phone customers who ask for the 818 or 213 codes
may be allowed to remain in that area code, but new 310 customers, and
maybe current 310 customers, may be forced to switch to 562.

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

From: Mark <[e-mail]>
Subject: MS-Kermit Keyboard Commands
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 1994 09:01:03 -0500
Organization: Delphi ([e-mail] email, 800-695-4005 voice)


I am running MS-Kermit on my 386 PC, connecting to a VAX 8550 cluster
running VMS.  The VAX is running All-In-One Office Automation Package
and WPSPLUS editor.  The WPSPlus requires the use of certain keys on
the PC-Keypad for some of its editing and curso n control features.
MS-Kermit doesn't seem to want to send those control sequences to the
VAX.  It just sends the numeric keypad characters.  I am running
MS-Kermit in the VT320 emulation mode.  Is this just something not
supported by MS-Kermit, am I miss ing a file, or have I set something
up wrong?

Any help would be greatly appreciated.  Please reply via E-Mail to
[e-mail].


Mark

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

From: [e-mail] (Garrett Wollman)
Subject: Re: Belarus Yellow Pages
Date: 22 Mar 1994 23:11:18 GMT
Organization: MIT Laboratory for Computer Science


In article <[e-mail]>, Dave Leibold <Dave.Leibold@
f730.n250.z1.fidonet.org> wrote:

> Belpak is the packet switching/e-mail company in that country. Their
> e-mail address is listed as [e-mail] (or
> S=helpdesk/O=rtte/A=belpak/C-by which is presumably their x.400).

Seeing this address led me to make a few probes into the Domain Name
Service to see which former Soviet republics have made it into the
top-level nameservers and which ones haven't ...

Currently, service in Russia is still performed under the `.su'
domain, and they have IP connectivity through three separate connect-
ions (one between DEMOS and AlterNet, one between EUNET and KIAE, and
one between NASA and ???).  The Ukraine uses its own domain, `.ua',
but I am unable to come up with any host addresses which would enable
me to tell if they have IP connectivity and if so through whom.  (The
nameserver records indicate that they come from Moscow.)  Belarus does
not have a registered domain.  Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia all have
registered domains, `.lt', `.lv', and `.ee', respectively; Estonia and
Latvia are IP connected through NORDUnet and Unisource Business
Networks, respectively.

It appears that these are the only former-Soviet domains registered.
All of the former-Yugoslav republics which have been widely recognized
have had domains registered, including Slovenia (`.si'), Croatia
(`.hr'), and most recently Macedonia (`.mk'), which caused much
whining from the Greek contingent (but to no avail, thank God and Jon
Postel).

Slovenia appears to be connected to the Internet through an X.25
gateway at the Dutch PTT; Croatia through the Austrian Ebone member
network.


Garrett A. Wollman   [e-mail]
formerly known as    [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Pawel Dobrowolski)
Subject: Re: Hush-a-Phone
Date: 21 Mar 1994 18:04:28 GMT
Organization: Harvard University Science Center


 Hush-A-Phone was a small plastic cup to be fitted on the
mouthpiece of a telephone to facilitate a phone conversation in a
noisy office. I  think that it was marketed around 1948/9?.  At the
time there was a tariff which prohibited the connection of any
non-Bell device to the network.

 Upon learning about this device AT&T threatened to disconnect
the phones of anyone using this device (mind you the device didn't
have an actual connection to the network it was just a piece of
plastic one would slide onto the mouthpiece of the telephone).  The
manufacturer appealed to the FCC, but the FCC ruled in AT&T's favor.
In 1956 the manufacturer appealed to the US circuit court of appeals
for the District of Columbia (that's where all appeals against FCC
decisions are made, because the FCC is located in DC).

 The court ruled against AT&T.  This was a very important
decision (although people didn't think so at the time) because it
paved the way for other manufacturers to be allowed to connect their
devices to the network thus demonopolizing the telephone equipment
market.


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The final message in this issue will
discuss this case in more detail. Did you know there was a case in
which AT&T sued the publisher of the plastic covers which go on phone
books (with local advertising, etc) claiming that these also -- the
phone book covers) were unauthorized 'attachments to the network'?
I am being serious; AT&T really made a case out of that also.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Michael D. Sullivan)
Subject: Re: Hush-a-Phone
Date: 22 Mar 1994 00:51:31 -0500
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA


[e-mail] (Steve Brack) writes:

> A few days ago, someone mentioned the Hush-a-Phone case. I was wondering
> what that case was about.

Hush-a-Phone Corp. v. United States was a 1956 decision of the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.  AT&T's tariff
on file with the FCC prohibited "foreign attachments" -- that is
attachments to AT&T's (and its subsidiaries' and connecting carriers')
equipment and facilities.  The tariff made it unlawful to attach
anything to your phone, among other things.  The Hush-A-Phone Corp.
dreamed up a doodad they could sell in the ads in comic books, Popular
Mechanix, etc., that supposedly allowed you to talk on the phone with
greater privacy.  It was a little box (originally metal, later
plastic) that strapped onto the handset over the mouthpiece; it had a
hole to allow sound to pass to the telephone's transmitter
(microphone) and a bigger hole on the opposite side that you could
stick your mouth in.  You would put your mouth in this hole and talk,
and baffles in the box would prevent folks near you from overhearing
you tell your bookie which race you were betting on.  Kind of like
cupping your hands over your mouth and the handset.  So goes the
theory.  In fact, it really muffled the sound going over the phone
almost as much.

AT&T found out about this device (they probably read Popular Mechanix)
and asked the FCC to rule that it was a foreign attachment, and
therefore illegal to put on your phone.  AT&T argued that it caused a
degradation in the quality of transmission carefully engineered into
the phone, and that the parties to a call might complain to AT&T about
the quality, thinking it was AT&T's fault, or refuse to pay the bill.
The FCC ruled for AT&T.  Hush-a-Phone Corp. appealed.

The court reversed the FCC's decision.  In essence, the court reasoned
that nobody in their right mind would blame AT&T for the lousy sound,
and that some idiots might actually consider this widget desirable,
for whatever reason.  (Actually, I think the court held that AT&T had
not provided evidentiary support for its position that it would
actually degrade service in a way that could be attributed to AT&T.)
The court therefore ruled the tariff restriction on foreign
attachments to be unreasonable, in this case, because it interfered
with the subscriber's right to use telephone service in a way that was
"privately beneficial" but not "publicly injurious."  (I don't have
the case in front of me, but I think this is essentially accurate.)

So the Hush-a-Phone device was allowed to be sold, and the company
eventually went out of business because not too many people wanted
muffled telephone calls (or at least didn't want to pay for a device
that muffled their calls when cupping one's hands worked the same).

The significance of this case is that the opinion formed the
foundation for later decisions striking tariff restrictions that
interfered with the public's right to attach equipment that was
privately beneficial yet not publicly injurious.  The first of these
was the FCC's Carterfone decision, which allowed (get this) an
acoustic coupler -- yes, the earmuff-type things -- to be placed over
a phone handset, permitting a private radio system to be manually
acoustically interconnected with the telephone network.  The FCC held
that even if a long-distance patron experienced some static when
talking to a mobile radio user connected by the Carterfone, there was
a private benefit and no real public detriment.

The next step, of course, was to eliminate the earmuffs and try direct
electrical interconnection.  At first, AT&T allowed electrical
interconnection only through its "protective coupling arrangements" or
PCAs, which would protect the telephone network from melting down if
your connected equipment (a phone, PBX, broadcast console, answering
machine, or computer modem) shorted to the power line.  Of course, the
PCA cost almost as much each month as AT&T's alternative to your
equipment.  So some manufacturers decided to build PCA-like devices
right into their equipment.  AT&T, of course, insisted on connecting
your brand X PCA to their PCA, just to be sure the network was
protected.  Guess how many $40 phones anybody could sell that required
a $40 PCA from AT&T, when an AT&T phone cost the same or less, but
didn't require a PCA?

The FCC decided it couldn't protect AT&T from equipment competition
any longer.  First, it allowed an equipment manufacturer to incorporate
an AT&T-manufactured PCA.  Then it allowed the manufacturer to
incorporate its own PCA and prove it was good enough to protect AT&T
from perdition.  Finally, it decided to adopt its own standards (based
on AT&T's own standards) and started a certification program that
tested and certified equipment meeting the specs, which are in Part 68
of the FCC rules.  Each certified piece of equipment would be given a
number, and a telephone company could not refuse to provide service to
registered, certified equipment.

AT&T tried to buy the FCC off at this point with the need for a standard
reference point for testing, i.e., each customer could connect any
registered equipment they wanted, as long as the first thing hooked up
was suppled by AT&T (this was the "Primary Instrument Concept"), but
the FCC said no.  AT&T also didn't like it when the FCC said that even
AT&T's own equipment had to meet the AT&T spec the feds had adopted
(turns out some didn't).  The registration/certification program was
upheld in the early '70s by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth
Circuit in North Carolina Utilities Commission v. FCC II, on the
grounds that unrestricted interconnection of terminal equipment was
privately beneficial yet not publicly injurious, as long as it was
certified as meeting the spec.  And so the CPE industry was spawned.

Now you can buy a phone at the grocery, drug, or hardware store for
about what you used to pay each month for rental under the AT&T
tariff.  Of course, the phone isn't designed to last for 30 years,
either.

The next step where Hush-a-Phone came in for a major role was in MCI's
attempt to get into the switched long-distance market, but that's
another story entirely.


Michael D. Sullivan | [e-mail]        [e-mail]
Washington, D.C.    | [e-mail]     [e-mail]


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Over the years, AT&T really brought on a lot
of their own problems that they are having today didn't they. Imagine how
much different things would be today had AT&T taken much less miltant
stance with the Carterphone/Hush-a-Phone cases and with MCI in its early
days. It is likely the whole industry would be entirely different. And
yes, AT&T did once sue the publisher of the plastic directory covers with
a claim that such 'unauthorized attachments' might cause people to complain
to the phone company about the quality of the directory. They lost that
case also.    PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V14 #142
******************************


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

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