home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- TELECOM Digest Sun, 30 Jan 94 09:33:00 CST Volume 14 : Issue 51
-
- Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
-
- Re: Modems to Merlins (Steven Warner)
- Re: Modems to Merlins (Walter Syrek)
- Re: Modems to Merlins (Charlie Mingo)
- Re: "Anonymous Call Rejection" - Could be Dangerous (Robert Endicott)
- Re: "Anonymous Call Rejection" - Could be Dangerous (Randy Gellens)
- Re: Are LATA Maps Available? (tah@cbosgd.att.com)
- Re: Are LATA Maps Available? (David Esan)
- Re: How to Phone US 0800 Numbers From the UK? (Laurence Chiu)
- Re: How to Phone US 0800 Numbers From the UK? (Linc Madison)
- Re: How to Phone US 0800 Numbers From the UK? (Arthur Rubin)
- Re: Unmetered Local Service (Charles Reichley)
- Re: Unmetered Local Service (Chaim Frenkel)
- Re: Unmetered Local Service (J. D. McDonald)
- Re: New York Telephone Issuing "New" Rotary Phones (Martin McCormick)
- Re: New York Telephone Issuing "New" Rotary Phones (Jerry Leichter)
- Re: Distinctive Ringing and Ring Detectors (Dan Lanciani)
- Re: Distinctive Ringing and Ring Detectors (Charles Roberson)
- Telephone Nunbers in France (Earle Robinson)
- GSM Radio Interface Security (vps@triton.dsto.gov.au)
- Nine Pin Jack Into Cellular Phone - Connect to Computer? (John Hardin)
- Problems With French Telephone in Canada (Michel Brunet)
-
- 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:
-
- * telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu *
-
- 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: ptownson@townson.com.
-
- ** Article submission address only: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu **
-
- 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.
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
-
- From: Steven Warner <sgw@boy.com>
- Subject: Re: Modems to Merlins
- Organization: RTFM / beachSystems, Sunnyvale, CA, USA
- Date: Sun, 30 Jan 1994 05:08:25 GMT
-
-
- (Cliff Sharp) writes:
-
- > 1. The primary reason I want the modem there is so that I can call
- > their machine and use some sort of remote-access software to figure
- > out what they're doing to their poor machine when they break it. The
- > Merlin "solution" sounds to me as though I would never be able to get
- > to their modem (or that the modem would answer any call that came in,
- > not just mine). Yes? No?
-
- Using a BTMI or a GPA (as you stated) will work. More below.
-
- > 2. For some incredibly silly reason I can't talk them out of, they
- > demand that the first line(s) of their hunt group remain open at all
- > times possible and unused by outbound calls. (Explaining hunting to
- > them is very like teaching the proverbial pig to sing.) From what I
- > understand, the adapter either seizes the first open line or has to be
- > manually routed. How does it really work?
-
- The GPA is plugged into a merlin set. It picks up whatever line the
- merlin phone would pick up, if you raised the handset. The GPA must
- plug into the expansion connector in the back of the phone. It will
- NOT plug directly into the switch.
-
- The BTMI (Basic telephone and modem interface) plugs directly between
- the switch and a modem, elimininating the need for a Merlin voice
- terminal. The BTMI can be programed to pick up any or all lines, and
- can be programed to select outgoing lines in a selection sequence much
- like that of a regular set.
-
- There are two versions of BTMI. The BTMI-1 has a problem that if the
- modem is using the line, and another line rings (that the BTMI would
- normally seize), camp-on tones are fed to the modem. This can cause a
- few problems. Modems plugged into a BTMI-1 also must dial '9' to get
- outside lines.
-
- The BTMI-2 has modes that disallow the camp-on tones, and even a mode
- that will present outside lines to the modem without dialing 9.
-
- > 3. This whole thing sounds as though they're going to have to plug
- > the adapter into a phone and route RJ-11 cable all over the office.
- > Friend likes the idea now, but he's gonna change his mind when he sees
- > it. Is there any other way to do it so we can run 4-pair to the modem
- > location?
-
- See BTMI above.
-
- > ANY ideas are welcome, including how to explain to a wall that a
- > dedicated line is his best solution.
-
- It may or may not be. a properly connected modem interface will allow
- quite functional sharing of the line. Be aware that 9600 baud is
- about as good as you will do thru this thing.
-
-
- Steven Warner (34W 36L) sgw@boy.com
-
- ------------------------------
-
- Subject: Re: Modems to Merlins
- From: walter.syrek@cld9.com (Walter Syrek)
- Date: Sun, 30 Jan 94 08:39:00 -0600
- Organization: C-9 Communications
-
-
- I have an AT&T Merlin set on my desk at the office. It has two plugs
- on the bottom, one for the line cord, one marked "other". Does anybody
- know if I can plug a modem into the "other" socket? It's a strange
- size, not the same as the standard modular phone jack.
-
- ------------------------------
-
- From: mingo@panix.com (Charlie Mingo)
- Subject: Re: Modems to Merlins
- Date: 30 Jan 1994 01:41:21 -0500
- Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC
-
-
- In article <telecom14.42.6@eecs.nwu.edu>, Cliff Sharp <clifto@indep1.
- uucp> wrote:
-
- > A friend is part owner of a small business using a Merlin Plus
- > system. He wants to add a modem to his coterie of computer equipment
- > (and I've been trying to get him to do it for the longest time!).
- > However, for some reason he feels that a dedicated line is too
- > expensive and wants to hook it into his Merlin system.
-
- > Now, a little research turned up a general-purpose adapter that
- > AT&T sells for just such use; it plugs into one of the telephones and
- > provides a POTS look-alike that somehow can use any line.
-
- While we're on that subject, my brother is trying to do exactly this
- with a Northern Telecom PBX dating from the mid-1980's.
-
- Does anyone know if Northern Telecom sells a similar POTS-line
- adaptor? Any idea how much it would be or where one would find it?
-
- ------------------------------
-
- From: endicott@netcom.com (Robert Endicott)
- Subject: Re: "Anonymous Call Rejection" - Could be Dangerous
- Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
- Date: Sun, 30 Jan 1994 05:22:47 GMT
-
-
- Mark Crispin (MRC@CAC.Washington.EDU) wrote:
-
- > I just saw in an electronics toy catalog (Danmark or one of those) a
- > Caller ID box that implements something like Anonymous Call Rejection
- > as its own feature. If you enable it, it automatically answers the
- > call and plays a refusal message, than hangs up.
-
- > What I see as different between this box and the telco's feature:
-
- > 1) You don't have to beg the ACLU for this feature, after having begged them
- > for CNID.
- > 2) No monthly charge beyond the CNID.
- > 3) You need to wire the box in series with all your extensions, otherwise
- > you won't get the ring suppression on the other ones.
- > 4) I doubt that it interacts well with Call Waiting.
- > 5) The ability to set the refusal message (I don't know if this particular
- > box has it, but doubtless others will). Big win.
-
- I have solved the problem by putting a computer with a telephone
- interface board on the line. It answers the phone line and sounds just
- like an answering machine, and takes a message if the caller leaves
- one.
-
- HOWEVER, anyone I want to be able to get through. I tell them to
- touchtone a code during the outgoing message and it will interrupt the
- message and ring my phone. NOONE I don't know, ever knows that there
- is a way to get through. If the call is valid, I return the call.
-
- Since I've programmed it myself, I can have as many codes as I want.
-
-
- Robert Endicott
-
- ------------------------------
-
- From: RANDY@MPA15AB.mv-oc.Unisys.COM
- Date: 30 JAN 1994 11:01 GMT
- Subject: Re: "Anonymous Call Rejection" - Could be Dangerous
-
-
- varney@ihlpe.att.com writes:
-
- > Also note that telco can elect to turn on supervision when
- > connecting to the ACR announcement, so the call will be considered
- >"completed" for billing purposes.
-
- Do any telcos do this? How appalling. It violates the basic assumption
- of intercepts.
-
-
- Randall Gellens randy@mv-oc.unisys.com|
- A Series System Software
- Unisys Corporation [Please forward bounce messages|
- Mission Viejo, CA. to: rgellens@mcimail.com]|
-
-
- [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Not really. Intercepts assume no useful
- information was passed to the caller, where with anonymous call rejection
- the information being passed tells the caller that the called party does
- not wish to speak with them since the caller is not known to them. It
- might be looked at as a way of saying 'I do not speak to strangers'.
- Unlike no such number, no circuit or out of order intercepts where the
- lack of communication is not the fault of the caller or called party,
- in this instance the called party is plainly saying that he refuses to
- communicate. Telco's posture seems to be they do not wish to be in the
- middle of a possible dispute between the parties, etc. PAT]
-
- ------------------------------
-
- Date: Sun, 30 Jan 94 09:52:21 EST
- From: tah@cbosgd.att.com
- Subject: Re: Are Lata Maps Available?
- Organization: AT&T
-
-
- I received a National Lata Map at a trade show two years ago (believe
- it was COMNET)
-
- Anyway the company name and address on the bottom of the map is:
-
- CCMI
- Suite 1100
- 11300 Rockville Pike
- Rockville, MD 20852-3030
- Phone 1-301-816-8950 ext 835.
-
- I don't know if they are still in business but it might be worth a try
- if you're still looking for a lata map.
-
- ------------------------------
-
- From: de@moscom.com (David Esan)
- Subject: Re: Are LATA Maps Available?
- Date: 30 Jan 94 05:13:44 GMT
- Organization: Moscom Corporation, Pittsford NY
-
-
- In article <telecom14.37.8@eecs.nwu.edu> wjhalv1@pacbell.com writes:
-
- > in most states there is only one LATA.
-
- Not true. Most states (and provinces) have more than one LATA.
- Attached are a list of states/provinces and the number of LATAs
- associated with them.
-
- AK 1 VT 1 NJ 4 MI 6 LA 8 OH 10
- DC 1 CT 2 NM 4 MS 6 NE 8 TN 10
- DE 1 NS 2 NV 4 PR 6 NY 8 FL 11
- HI 1 ON 2 WA 4 UT 6 SC 8 IN 11
- MB 1 AB 3 WV 4 KS 7 AL 9 NC 12
- ME 1 BC 3 AZ 5 KY 7 IA 9 PA 12
- NB 1 MA 3 ID 5 MT 7 SD 9 VA 12
- NF 1 PQ 3 OR 5 OK 7 WI 9 CA 14
- NH 1 MD 4 WY 5 CO 8 MN 10 IL 18
- RI 1 ND 4 AR 6 GA 8 MO 10 TX 20
- SK 1
-
- The LATAs in NY, where I live, include:
-
- 132 - NYC
- 133 - Hudson Valley
- 134 - Albany
- 136 - Syracuse
- 138 - Binghamton
- 140 - Buffalo
- 921 - Fisher's Island (Independant)
- 974 - Rochester Telephone (Independant)
-
- The names associated with these places are just the large city in
- those LATAs. LATA 140 includes all of Western NY from Rochester (but
- not including Rochester) to the west, and three exchanges in Pennsylvania.
-
-
- David Esan de@moscom.com
-
- ------------------------------
-
- From: lchiu@crl.com (Laurence Chiu)
- Subject: Re: How to Phone US 0800 Numbers From the UK?
- Date: 29 Jan 1994 23:10:42 -0800
- Organization: CRL Dialup Internet Access, California
- Reply-To: lchiu@crl.com
-
-
- In article <telecom14.32.3@eecs.nwu.edu>, John R. Grout wrote:
-
- > 1. How would 800 Directory Assistance (which, for the benefit of
- > readers outside North America, is 800-555-1212), handle calls coming
- > through USA Direct? I can imagine an AT&T operator asking such a
- > person "what area code are you calling from?", as they often do here,
- > and the conversation taking a turn for the worse.
-
- I don't know about 800 Directory assistance but on the few occasions I
- used USA Direct to make calls when I didn't know the number, I would
- hang on and wait for an operator. They knew what country I was calling
- from based on the line I guess. When I asked for directory assistance
- they would call that area's DA and identify themselves as AT&T and get
- the number for me and then connect me.
-
-
- Laurence Chiu Walnut Creek, California
- Tel: 510-215-3730(wk) Internet: lchiu@crl.com
-
- ------------------------------
-
- From: lincmad@netcom.com (Linc Madison)
- Subject: Re: How to Phone US 0800 Numbers From the UK?
- Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
- Date: Sun, 30 Jan 1994 09:06:37 GMT
-
-
- Another point to mention is that (although every PTT in the world will
- deny it until they're blue in the face) the fact is, from many places
- you can simply dial +1-800-whatever, and the call *will* go through,
- at normal international rates. It isn't supposed to work, they don't
- want you to think it will work, but I have done it myself. I remember
- slugging Australian dollars into a callbox in the middle of the Outback.
-
-
- Linc Madison * Oakland, California * LincMad@Netcom.com
-
- ------------------------------
-
- Subject: Re: How to Phone US 0800 Numbers From the UK?
- From: a_rubin@dsg4.dse.beckman.com (Arthur Rubin)
- Date: 30 Jan 94 03:12:56 GMT
- Organization: Beckman Instruments, Inc.
-
-
- In <telecom14.32.3@eecs.nwu.edu> grout@sp17.csrd.uiuc.edu (John R.
- Grout) writes:
-
- > 1. How would 800 Directory Assistance (which, for the benefit of
- > readers outside North America, is 800-555-1212), handle calls coming
- > through USA Direct? I can imagine an AT&T operator asking such a
- > person "what area code are you calling from?", as they often do here,
- > and the conversation taking a turn for the worse.
-
- Correct answer (to what area code are you calling from?): How should I
- know? (I once called 800 information from a SkyPhone (TM).)
-
-
- Arthur L. Rubin: a_rubin@dsg4.dse.beckman.com (work) Beckman Instruments/Brea
- 216-5888@mcimail.com 70707.453@compuserve.com arthur@pnet01.cts.com (personal)
-
- ------------------------------
-
- Date: Sun, 30 Jan 94 08:59:03 EST
- From: Charles Reichley <creichley@vnet.IBM.COM>
- Subject: Re: Unmetered Local Service
- Reply-To: CREICHLEY@vnet.IBM.COM
- Organization: IBM Federal Systems Company (for now)- Manassas, VA USA
-
-
- For MOST things in this world, we all pay the same price regardless of
- how much we use it. I will pay the same for a TV as you, even if you
- watch your TV eight hours a day and I only watch mine for an hour a
- day. The only things which we pay for use are things that are
- actually USED UP. We pay for each gallon of heating oil, for each
- gallon of water, for each kilowatt of electricity (Electricity is a
- grey area -- while I can't use the same kilowatt as someone else, it
- is also the case that for many generating stations, there is a minimum
- output that exists and is 'wasted' if nobody uses it. But even in
- this case, the power is put somewhere and is lost).
-
- SO the question is, is phone service something you 'use up' by the
- minute, or something that is a fixed item. Cable TV is a lot like
- phone service, and I don't pay per minute for cable (well I don't have
- cable, but if I did I wouldn't be paying per use). It does cost the
- cable company more if there are more people on the line, as they have
- to boost the signal. But once the signal boosters are in place, it
- makes no difference whether I watch the cable or not. In the same
- way, if more people make phone calls, the phone company has to install
- additional switches/lines/equipment. But once the equipment is in
- place, the cost for the phone company is the same whether I make a
- phone call or not. Maybe phone usage should be billed on a split-system,
- where people are charged by the minute during times when the usage is
- over 80%, but not charged when the usage is less than that.
-
-
- Charles W. Reichley, Loral/FSC???, Manassas, Va.
-
-
- [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: How would people know which condition
- was in effect at the time? Many folks would gladly wait until overall
- usage dropped below a certain point in order to use the service 'for
- free' if they knew what the usage was. How would you convey that? PAT]
-
- ------------------------------
-
- From: chaim@toxicavenger.fsrg.bear.com (Chaim Frenkel)
- Subject: Re: Unmetered Local Service
- Date: 30 Jan 94 05:40:22 GMT
- Organization: Nonlinear Knowledge, Inc.
-
-
- In article <telecom14.28.6@eecs.nwu.edu> lars@Eskimo.CPH.CMC.COM (Lars
- Poulsen) writes:
-
- > Hahahaha hahaha ha ha ... he ho hummmm ... Here in Denmark, local
- > calls have been metered for many, many years -- by the pulse method.
- > Itemized billing is NOT available, and there would be an uproar from
- > office workers -- on privacy grounds -- if the telco were to start
- > itemizing bills. Itemized billing, like flat rate local calling -- is
- > a feature of the American telephone system; it has ended up that way
- > mostly by accident. Certainly there is no logic that says subscribers
- > have the right to an itemized bill. (There may, however, in many
- > jurisdictions be a PUC regulation saying so.)
-
- I would argue that the customer has every right to an itemized bill.
- Consider an order placed with a mail order outfit, (or as they do in
- my neighborhood, place large phone orders with the local grocery store
- for delivery): would you accept only a total?
-
- If I would have a meter at my end that would independently corrobrate
- the phone company's numbers/total, you might have an argument. But as
- it is you have only the phone company's word as to the correct amount.
- There is no easy way to determine if the phone company is being honest
- (ie design error / built-in bias :-) or whether your phone line is
- being hacked/abused.
-
-
- Chaim Frenkel On contract at:
- chaim@nlk.com chaim@fsrg.bear.com
- Nonlinear Knowledge, Inc. Bear Stearns & Co., Inc.
-
- ------------------------------
-
- From: mcdonald@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (J. D. McDonald)
- Subject: Re: Unmetered Local Service
- Date: Sun, 30 Jan 1994 06:26:53 GMT
- Organization: UIUC SCS
-
-
- In article <telecom14.33.5@eecs.nwu.edu> rrb@deja-vu.aiss.uiuc.edu
- (Bill Pfeiffer) writes:
-
- >> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The thing Jack Decker and other pro-
- >> ponents of flat rate billing seem to forget or ignore is that in most
- >> instances of measured billing, the majority of telephone subscribers
- >> actually pay LESS for service than with flat rate. A small minority
- >> of the users -- mainly people with telephone intensive lifestyles such
- >> as modem users -- pay more.
-
- > Please, Pat. That is not at all true.
-
- I live in downstate Ill., in Champaign. At one time we had the choice
- of measured or flat rates. The measured rate was clearly cheaper for
- me, in fact I seem to remember $6 monthly phone bills.
-
- Then they did away with the flat rate entirely ... everybody now has
- measured rates. At the same time they raised the minimum one paid for
- no calls at all, so as to be almost equal to what the previous flat
- rate was. So (almost) everybody lost.
-
-
- Doug McDonald
-
- ------------------------------
-
- From: martin@datacomm.ucc.okstate.edu (Martin McCormick)
- Subject: Re: New York Telephone Issuing "New" Rotary Phones
- Organization: Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK
- Date: Sun, 30 Jan 1994 07:58:58 GMT
-
-
- The technology to remove the DTMF tones is definitely here.
- The amateur radio magazine "QST" had an introductory series of
- articles, last year, about digital signal processing. The series
- featured a Texas Instruments DSP chip programmed to remove steady
- tones from an audio channel. The program simulated a filter which was
- capable of removing complex, but repetitive wave forms so it could
- remove several tones occurring at once from an audio signal. The
- article described what it was like to use the filter and mentioned
- that it occasionally produced very strange effects when it would
- mistakenly eat part of a human voice, but it generally did the job in
- removing heterodynes from voice signals without effecting the voice.
- Such a filter would gobble up DTMF signals without leaving anything
- behind but a click.
-
-
- Martin McCormick WB5AGZ Stillwater, OK
- O.S.U. Computer Center Data Communications Group
-
- ------------------------------
-
- Date: Sun, 30 Jan 94 08:19:36 EDT
- From: Jerry Leichter <leichter@lrw.com>
- Subject: Re: New York Telephone Issuing "New" Rotary Phones
-
-
- You know, some of the ancient Greeks would have loved this mailing
- list (and the net general). It's populated by people who, like them,
- believe that sheer logic is enough to understand the world -- you don't
- need any "dirty" observation.
-
- "Everyone knows" (by simple reasoning) that replacing touchtone phones
- with rotary phones won't help because "the bad guys" will just go to
- Radio Shack and buy tone dialers. "Everyone knows" (by simple
- reasoning) that this whole approach just won't do anything.
-
- Well, the {New York Times} article that reported on the change
- contained information explicitly addressing both of these points. I
- don't have the article in front of me so don't recall exactly who was
- quoted, but I think it was a Nynex spokesman who mentioned tone
- dialers but also said that *as a matter of observed fact* few drug
- dealers bother to buy or use them. Why? Go ask them; but they don't.
-
- Further, in neighborhoods where rotary phones have been installed --
- and remember, we are no longer just applying "pure reason", there have
- been such neighborhoods for a couple of years now -- it's a matter of
- *observed fact* that those phones tend not to be used as "offices" for
- drug dealers. Why? Again, go ask the drug dealers.
-
- Sometimes little things can have a disproportionate impact. Explaining
- *why* may be very difficult, but doesn't change the result -- the world
- works the way it does despite our lack of understanding of it. I
- don't know about you, but while I'm very willing to listen to reason,
- I'm even more willing to look at facts.
-
-
- Jerry
-
-
- [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Jerry, what you say makes very good sense.
- We have known for years that drug dealers are not usually the smartest
- people in the world (I am speaking now of the street corner salepeople,
- not the wholesalers and importers). You are quite correct that time and
- again in Chicago at least, when payphones have been converted to (a) one
- way outgoing service; (b) calling card/collect/third party billing only
- -- no coin -- during overnight hours; and/or (c) rotary dial service the
- drug dealers have simply moved elsewhere -- to phones which DO still
- have unrestricted service -- to conduct business. And for most people
- in the neighborhood, that's all they want is for the drug dealers to
- *go somewhere else*.
-
- I think often times people on Usenet (and some of that may rub off on
- the people who participate in this group) assume all the people in the
- world are of the same level of sophistication as themselves. I've
- caught myself falling into that rut. From my recent observations at a
- local Radio Shack store, I've noticed how many people have no idea
- even how to hook a modular cord into the back of the phone on one end
- and into the wall jack on the other end without it being done for them
- or shown to them in detail. Smart Radio Shack salesmakers (as Tandy
- likes to call them) make extra money going to customer's homes outside
- of business hours as a separate thing and installing what the customer
- bought that day in the store. Drug dealers do not read the {New York
- Times} and they certainly do not participate in Usenet newsgroups. Drug
- dealers are not too bright. *That* is probably the reason the rotary
- dial/outgoing service only combo works so well in the 'war on drugs'.
- The neighbors don't care who sells drugs; they just don't want the
- traffic around their area. You are right ... it works! Of course the
- neighbors are not much smarter and they can't see why touch tone is
- needed either so they are not inconvenienced for the most part even
- if the rest of us are. PAT]
-
- ------------------------------
-
- Date: Sun, 30 Jan 94 00:10:02 EST
- From: ddl@das.harvard.edu (Dan Lanciani)
- Subject: Re: Distinctive Ringing and Ring Detectors
-
-
- kevray@MCS.COM wrote:
-
- > I also use AT&T's switch box (pressing #1 transfer to yet ANOTHER
- > 'fake' line -- good for modems, faxes, multi answering machines, etc)
- > and the multi-ring box with this little toy did not work together
- > nicely (ie: MAJOR voltage problems ON the phone line).
-
- > Just so you know the one I have is called "Ring Decipher" by Command
- > Communications, Inc (Aurora, CO).
-
- The main problem with CCI's product is that it puts out a piddling 18V
- to simulate an on-hook condition. If you connect anything that
- monitors line voltage to determine on/off hook status to the CCI box,
- that device will likely be confused. I talked to CCI about this and
- they claim that most devices are happy with 18V to indicate on-hook.
- However, every device that *I* tried (including an AT&T answering
- machine, switch box (for similar additional fake line effect), fax
- machine, and phone) interpreted 18V as off-hook.
-
- Beware that other ring decoders have similar problems. Beware further
- that several other brands are simply re-labeled CCI boxes (e.g., Black
- Box). The only unit that I could find which put out a respectable 48V
- is the one sold in AT&T phone centers. (I think it is made by
- Multilink or somesuch.) Even this device required modifications
- (additional capacitors in the voltage trippler) to put out reasonable
- current at 48V.
-
-
- Dan Lanciani ddl@harvard.*
-
- ------------------------------
-
- From: roberson@aurxc7.aur.alcatel.com (Charles "Chip" Roberson)
- Subject: Re: Distinctive Ringing and Ring Detectors
- Date: 29 Jan 1994 16:42:39 GMT
- Organization: Alcatel Network Systems, Inc., Raleigh, NC
-
-
- > Just saw an ad for a gizmo that will decipher the unique ringing cadence
- > for up to four lines and route them to a specified telephone device.
-
- I borrowed a friend's Viking PDF-2 (Phone/Data/Fax switch with
- Distinctive Ringing) and it doesn't want to work with my AT&T
- Answering System 1332. According to Mike at Viking Electronic's tech.
- support, AT&T doesn't like their ring signal. (The PDF-2 answers the
- line on the first ring and then generates the 'ring' back to the user
- as it rings the appropriate port.) Mike said get a new answering
- machine or try their FastPath switch which provides a clear channel to
- the phone port (which is where the normal ring is directed) so the
- answering machine will receive the CO ring signal. I guess the
- FastPath answers the other cadences. This apparently runs about $100.
- (The PDF is about $150).
-
- Hello Direct has a simple, four-port Ring Decipher for $89 which I'm
- considering as an alternative. Does anybody know of any other `well
- behaved' devices that are reasonably (read "less expensively") priced?
-
- Is there a dinstinctive ringing switch that can pass the CO ringing
- straight through on any port? In other words, can they just switch
- the line without answering the call (going off hook) to the CO?
-
- What about one that gives a each port a ringing signal that is similar
- in quality to the CO's for a simple cadence?
-
- Any reviews out there?
-
-
- Thanks,
-
- Chip
- Alcatel Network Systems * 2912 Wake Forest Road * Raleigh, NC 27609
- Phone: +1 (919) 850-5011 FAX: +1 (919) 850-5588
- DoD #1161 Roberson@AUR.Alcatel.com o&>o
-
- ------------------------------
-
- Date: 29 Jan 94 22:21:30 EST
- From: Earle Robinson <76004.1762@CompuServe.COM>
- Subject: Telephone Nunbers in France
-
-
- Richard D G Cox said that the change in French phone numbers is put
- off due to complaints from users. This I doubt, since almost no one
- in France is aware of any impending change. There is almost complete
- ignorance of such questions in France, in part due to the few people
- who have access to Internet. Anyway, France Telecom does what it
- wants. There's no competition and the French just bow and obey.
-
-
- -er
-
- ------------------------------
-
- From: vps@triton.dsto.gov.au
- Subject: GSM Radio Interface Security
- Date: Sun, 30 Jan 1994 09:11:16 GMT
- Organization: Defence Science and Technology Organisation
-
-
- Can anyone direct me to any information that quantitatively analyses
- the risk of interception and spoofing on the GSM radio interface?
-
- I am interested in any work which anybody has done to somehow quantify
- how hard it would be and what resources it would take (time,
- computing, equipment etc) to reverse calculate the relevant inputs of
- the cryptographic algorithms (A3,A8,A5) in GSM from there outputs.
-
- Cheers.
-
- ------------------------------
-
- From: snowbee@tyrell.net (John Hardin)
- Subject: Nine Pin Jack Into Cellular Phone - Connect to Computer?
- Organization: Tyrell Corp.
- Date: Sat, 29 Jan 1994 18:11:47 GMT
-
-
- Hi there -
-
- There's a port on my cellular phone that looks like a parallel port
- for a computer. Is it possible to connect my computer to this port and
- reprogram my phone or do some good hacks on it?
-
-
- Thanks,
-
- John
-
- ------------------------------
-
- Date: Sat, 29 Jan 1994 22:23:19 -0500
- From: aj783@freenet.carleton.ca (Michel Brunet)
- Subject: Problems With French Telephone in Canada
- Reply-To: aj783@freenet.carleton.ca
-
-
- Recently I returned from France and brought back an Alcatel telephone
- with me. The telephone has a built in answering machine. After
- connecting the telephone I tested some of the features. Everything
- that has to do with making a call with the telephone works just fine.
- However, to receive a call all I get from the telephone is a semi
- ring. I'm hoping someone could explain to me why it is doing this. If
- not, I would appreciate any information that anyone has on the ring
- voltage used here in Canada and the ring voltage used in France.
-
- Any help will be greatly appreciated. Merci!
-
-
- ·
- (continued next message)
-
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Area # 700 EMAIL 01-30-94 10:33 Message # 21789
- From : TELECOM Moderator
- To : ELIOT GELWAN PVT RCVD
- Subj : TELECOM Digest V14 #51
-
- @FROM :TELECOM@DELTA.EECS.NWU.EDU
- · (Continued from last message)
-
- Michel Brunet Ottawa (Canada) E-Mail aj783@freenet.carleton.ca
-
- ------------------------------
-
- End of TELECOM Digest V14 #51
- *****************************
-
-
- Downloaded From P-80 International Information Systems 304-744-2253
-