A Beginner's Guide to the Internet/INTERNET.ISO/text/telediag/tc13-123.txt

Text File | 1996-05-06 | 18.4 KB | 428 lines

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 21 Feb 93 22:20:00 CST    Volume 13 : Issue 123

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: The War on Pagers (Marc Unangst)
    Re: The War on Pagers (Jim Graham)
    Re: The War on Pagers (Kyle J. Cordes)
    Re: California Versus CLID Versus Out-of-State (John Higdon)
    Re: Modems For LEGAL Use in Germany (Steve Pershing)
    Re: Scanners That Pick Up Cellular Phones (Michael Schuster)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Marc Unangst)
Subject: Re: The War on Pagers
Date: 21 Feb 1993 13:16:49 -0500
Organization: The Programmers' Pit Stop, Ann Arbor MI


In article <[e-mail]> mc/G=Brad/S=Hicks/OU=0205925@
mhs.attmail.com writes:

> I am at a total loss to imagine what legitimate need a high school
> student or younger has for to have a pager or cellular phone with him
> or her at school.

Well, I'm a high school senior here in Ann Arbor (Huron High School).
I also carry a pager, both when I'm at school and when I'm not.  A few
reasons why I find it convenient to have a pager:

1. It makes it much easier for people to get a hold of me when I'm not
at home, or when I'm not going to be near a single phone, or when I'm
going to be moving around a lot.

2. My parents don't like getting calls on their line after 11:00pm or
so.  So instead, I just have the person page me, and I call them back.

3. I work after school as a computer technician; sometimes my employer
has to get a hold of me.  Yes, even at school.

4. My computer at home (a 486 running SVR4 Unix) will soon have a
system set up whereby it automatically pages me with one of a special
set of codes if various things happen, such as running out of disk, an
improper shutdown and reboot, the INN server getting indigestion, or
something similar.  I might be able to take care of something like
that with one of the school's computers and their modem, but it's
rather difficult to teach my computer to leave a message with the
school office.

5. I do volunteer work with a local computer conferencing system;
sometimes other staff members need to get in touch with me to ask an
important question or something.  Again, paging me is a lot easier and
more efficient than having the school relay the message.

6. I do a bit of computer consulting/programming work in my spare
time.  It doesn't look very professional if your customers don't have
a way of getting in touch with you during school hours.

7. I don't have to give any reason at all.  If I'm not violating
anyone else's rights and not disturbing the learning process (see
below if you think pagers do this) through my actions, then I should
be allowed to carry out those actions.  The school should not be
allowed to make arbitrary and capricious rules that adversely affect
my ability to make a living and go about my (perfectly legal)
business, simply because they can't figure out any other way to
control the student body.

> if that cellular phone or pager rings during classroom hours, it is
> an impediment to learning -- and not just for the person who has it.

You obviously aren't familiar with recent pagers.  The ones being used
around here by most of the paging services (the Motorola Bravo and
Bravo Plus) both have vibrating-alert modes.  Obviously, I don't leave
my pager in "loud and annoying" mode when I'm at school.  Cellphones
might be a different problem; I'm not sure if the ringer can be turned
off independent of the phone.  Of course, you could also just leave
the phone turned off, and turn it on if you need to make a call.

> They know where the student is and can relay a message as
> quickly or as slowly as it requires.

Of course, that assumes that the school official is qualified to judge
how urgent the message is.  And it also assumes that the school is
able to relay the message; some of the people working in my high
school's office would have trouble blowing their nose without
assistance, let alone accurately taking a (sometimes technical) phone
message and relaying it to me.  Besides, the school isn't there to act
as my personal answering service and secretary; I should be
responsible for taking care of my own phone calls.

> If a student in school needs to make a telephone call, he or she can
> either wait until after school or ask the office for permission;

Well, the school I'm at doesn't let students use the office phones.
They have two banks of three payphones each, and students are expected
to use those for calls.  Unfortunately, those phones are frequently
out of order or all in use for an extended period of time (this is
especially true during lunch, which is one of the few times that I'd
have an opportunity to use them).  And, depending on what service plan
you have for your cellphone, making the call from the cellphone can be
cheaper than making the call from a payphone; this is almost certainly
true if you are making an intra-LATA zone call.


Marc Unangst, N8VRH    [e-mail]

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

Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1993 10:52:57 CST
From: Jim Graham <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: Jim Graham <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The War on Pagers


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Jeff Hibbard) writes:

>> [Moderator's Note: In the Chicago Public Schools, pagers are
>> considered verbotin and are confiscated from students.  This is part
>> of the War on Drugs.   PAT]

I wish I'd seen this thread from the start ... looks like it would have
been an interesting one.

This part makes sense most of the time. There are exceptions (a friend
of mine back when I was in high school was one of those exceptions ...
he was an EMT, and was on call a lot --- he had special permission to
get up and leave at anytime if required, and could make up tests, etc.
later), but they're probably rare.

> It's not just Chicago, it's state-wide.  Illinois state law allows
> pagers and cellular phones to be confiscated from anybody (not just
> students) who brings them onto school property.  If I visit my son's
> school wearing my (employer-supplied) pager, they can keep it.  If I
> drive through the school's parking lot to pick him up, they can
> confiscate the cellular phone in my car.

This part, on the other hand, seems pretty absurd. What about a doctor
who is on call (aren't doctors always on call?) and wants to go to
some type of performance his/her child is in, or some other type of
school activity on the school grounds?  Is this law trying to forbid
them from going?

But then again, we are talking about Illinois, right?  I guess that
makes the absurd a lot easier to believe.  Y'all wouldn't believe how
glad I was to get out of that miserable place (I lived in Chicago for
a while, and hated almost every minute of it).

> Although text in the actual bill passed makes it clear the intent was
> to forbid cellular phones and pagers, all of the above actually
> applies to "communication devices", which the law defines as anything
> designed to receive or transmit radio signals outside of the
> commercial broadcast band.

Ok, what about schools that have Amateur Radio clubs?  I know that
some high schools do have club stations setup where interested
students can learn about the hobby, radio, and related issues. What
about Amateur Radio activities such as SAREX (Shuttle Amateur Radio
EXperiment) that devote part of the time specifically to school kids?
Is the government in Illinois trying to say that these are to be
eliminated as part of the war on drugs?  Oh yes, I can certainly see
the logic in that ...

Seriously, while this law was probably written with nothing but the
best intents, it's yet another case of people writing laws with their
heads up their [backsides], and not considering the other, totally
innocent areas they impact.

Actually, I've got an even better idea than the ones these politicians
came up with. Going by their logic, the only people in the world who
use cellular phones and pagers are drug dealers, right? So let's just
make both of them completely illegal, no matter where you happen to be
at the time. After all, the drug problem isn't limited to schools.
While we're at it, drug dealers use regular phones too, right? Ok,
*ALL* telephones are now illegal.

And for anyone who believes that kind of reasoning, umm, I've got some
land I'd like to sell ... it's about 25 miles south of Ft Walton.
Anyone interested?  ;-} (Pretend this is in ultra-tiny print: {You
must be a certified diver or have your own submarine.})

Later ... gotta get some stuff done around here.


jim

#include <std_disclaimer.h>                             73 DE N5IAL (/4)
INTERNET: [e-mail]  |  [e-mail]  ICBM: 30.23N 86.32W
AMATEUR RADIO: n5ial@w4zbb (Ft. Walton Beach, FL)       AMTOR SELCAL: NIAL



[Moderator's Note: Well, you don't have to worry about Amateur Radio
clubs here being hurt by this law; I don't think there are any in the
Chicago schools. Most extracurricular activities here were dropped
years ago. A few schools still offer some, but mostly the schools here
function as holding-tanks for six hours daily. The school bus ride
takes an hour each way and having 2000 students go through the single
metal detector takes 60-90 minutes each morning. That doesn't leave
much time for amateur radio or computer clubs. So you disliked Chicago
when you were here? I hate it also. It is a terrible place.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Kyle J Cordes)
Subject: Re: The War on Pagers
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1993 20:20:06 GMT


[e-mail] (Kyle J Cordes) writes:

> car-phone.  Neatest toy in the world.  Yeah, it cost him $0 a month

Hmmm.  I'm still having trouble getting the key binding of this editor
down ... I meant $50 / month.  Everyone got the point, right?

Anyway, there is also the issue of freedom here ... does the school
have the right to completely control the communications of students
from the moment they enter campus?  My high school also attempted to
prevent people from bringing radios on campus, with little effect.


Kyle


[Moderator's Note: In most places, the law provides that during school
hours, school administrators have parental rights -- I forget the
exact Latin term -- and as such have complete authority over the minor
children in their custody.  I guess they can set the rules, just as
parents can set the rules at home.   PAT]

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

Date: Sun, 21 Feb 93 13:37 PST
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: California Versus CLID Versus Out-of-State


[e-mail] (Bob Longo) writes:

[ I wrote: ]

>> Perhaps you could site the surveys and studies that back this up?

> Sure.  Glad to.  I personally attended one of the CPUC's public
> hearings several months before the ruling where they were soliciting
> public opinion.

No, I mean reality. If you regularly attended these hearings and had
some understanding of the hearing process you would realize two
things:

1. The same old tired activists show up time and time again. These
people are against EVERYTHING that represents a technological change
in the way the telephone works. They were even out in force when the
telco wanted to replace the manual office on Santa Catalina Island!

2.  The hearing process is a formality that is required by rules
and statute, but has little to do with policy making.

> A large majority of the individuals that spoke at that
> hearing were in favor of no CNID at all!

Of course. Not unexpected at all. For various reasons, I still attend
these circuses, but the show is totally predictable. First, you have
the telcos stating their desires. Then you get a parade of meaning-
less, uninformed drivel, punctuated with the usual anti-technology
nonsense.  And wiping up the rear comes the so-called consumer-
activist groups such as TURN giving their tired old garbage about how
[you name the proposal] will hurt the Aunt Marthas of the state.
Occasionally the Administrative Law Judge or a staff member will ask a
stupid question, but the flow is relatively smooth.

Go to a couple more hearings and see if I am not correct in my
description.

> The comments made by the individuals speaking at that (and other
> hearings conducted throughout the state) are available for review at
> the CPUC.

Snore!!

> By trying to force the CPUC to disallow per-line blocking, they
> expect they can reap more profits because they believe more
> subscribers will purchase the service.

To do any less would be a disservice to stockholders and other
customers.

> The restrictions passed were based upon popular public opinion.

You have not demonstrated this.

> Everyone had the option of expressing their opinion prior to the CPUC
> ruling at the public hearings or in writing.  I don't feel too sorry
> for those who want unrestricted CNID who didn't bother to express
> their opinion prior to the ruling.

Given the nature and actual effect of the hearings, what is the point?
The decision had been made before any of those roadshows were
presented. You obviously were taken in, but in some of those hearings
it is exceedingly obvious that the Administrative Law Judge and the
staff members are going through the motions. At least you were
reinforced in your own beliefs and can feel comfortable.

> I'm curious -- for those who believe CNID should be forced on everyone
> to make this technology useful, do you also believe that unlisted
> numbers should be unavailable?

I have no problem with per-call blocking. Never have. If someone feels
that he MUST keep his number private and he MUST bother me on the
telephone (remember, I cannot see his number if he never calls me),
then he can take the responsibility to remember to dial *67. Then I
have the option to ignore his call. In that way, everyone is served.

> After all, what use is the phone book if everyone isn't in there?
> To be consistent in their logic, the phone company should stop
> printing the phone book until the CPUC forces everyone to have listed
> numbers, right?

That is nonsense, and what makes arguments against CNID seem so
pointless. You cannot make a case on the actual reality of the matter,
so you come up with silly and ridiculous faulty analogies. Stick to
the issue. It is not about published or unpublished numbers, women's
shelters, or anything else. It involves the instantaneous ability for
a person to transmit (or not) his number to the called party before
the call is answered. If you feel that you must call someone
anonymously, then dial *67. Is that such a big deal?

I already know the answers: 1. The stupid and lazy must be protected;
and 2. You should not have to lift a finger to continue to make
anonymous calls. Got it. No more need be said.


John Higdon  |   P. O. Box 7648   |   [phone]     |       FAX:
[e-mail] | San Jose, CA 95150 | 10288 0 700 FOR-A-MOO | [phone]

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

Subject: Re: Modems For LEGAL Use in Germany
From: [e-mail] (Steve Pershing)
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 93 00:44:13 PST
Organization: Questor|Free Usenet News|Vancouver, BC: [phone]


A while ago, [e-mail] (Steve Pershing - that's me) wrote:

> ZyXEL modems are approved for use in Germany, and are sold there.  We
> will also sell them to almost anyone anywhere in the world, at about a
> 10% profit. (The profit goes to support the free aspects of the
> Questor site.)

> For information on how to use the mail-server (and for a directory of
> available files), send e-mail to:

>      [e-mail]

> and enter the following at the left margin of an otherwise blank
> message body:

> help
> dir
> end

I was mistaken about the fact that they were approved.  They are NOT

There are at least three distributors selling them quite successfully
in Germany, however.

The latest news I have from ZyXEL is that they are *pending approval*.
Also, ZyXEL is apparently in process of translating the operating
manual into the German language.

My apologies for the mis-information and any inconvenience it may have
caused anyone.


  Steve Pershing, SysAdmin  <[e-mail]>    The QUESTOR Project

FREE access to Environ, Sci, Med, & AIDS news, and more.  [also UUCP]
  on a ZyXEL-U1496S+  =>  v.42bis, v.32bis, v.33, up to 16,800bps.
 Fones: (+1 604)  Data: 681-0670  Telefax: 682-6160  Voice: 682-6659

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

From: [e-mail] (Michael Schuster)
Subject: Re: Scanners That Pick Up Cellular Phones
Organization: Panix Public Access Internet & Unix, NYC
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1993 19:26:41 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Hans
C. Klinger) writes:

> I was told by a Radio Shack salesman that they sell scanners that
> can intercept cellular phone transmissions.  Then I learned from a
> reliable source that the scanner does not come out of the box ready to
> scan cellular frequencies, but rather it has to be modified (clip a
> diode or something).  Can anyone verify this?  Can any scanner be
> modified and what is the procedure for doing so?

Many scanners sold in the US are also sold abroad, where there is no
ECPA and reception of cellular phone frequencies is a selling point.
Uniden and GRE, two of the manufacturers of Radio Shack scanners,
often take short cuts by enabling full 800 MHz coverage and
specifically disabling it for sets sold in the US. This is done using
a matrix of diodes which select various features. On the older
scanners these diodes were large and had leads which could be clipped.
The newer ones (PRO-39 and PRO-43) use surface mount components which
are a lot more difficult to handle; but not for the experienced
hacker.

Even without doing this, most RS scanners can receive cellular
frequencies at the base frequency plus two times the second IF. This
"image" technique is a legal way of cheating, since it is an
undesireable side effect of the design rather than a feature.


Mike Schuster   [e-mail] | [e-mail]
[e-mail] | MCI Mail,GEnie: MSCHUSTER

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

End of TELECOM Digest V13 #123
******************************