TELECOM Digest     Mon, 6 Jun 94 12:41:00 CDT    Volume 14 : Issue 273

Inside This Issue:                          Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Introducing Incombank and ISKRA-2 (Ibankcom@ustar.msk.su)
    GSM Question: Power Controllers (Robert Jansen)
    Unix to Alpha-Numeric Pager (Lester Knutsen)
    Information Wanted on Satellite BBS (Gary E. Chidester)
    Re: 716 Now Split Between 7D and 1 + 716 +7D (Dave Niebuhr)
    Re: Personal 800 Number Availability (Glenn McComb)
    Re: Pac Bell's "ISDN Anywhere" (Kevin Martinez)
    Re: Pac Bell's "ISDN Anywhere" (Jeremie Kass)
    Re: Pac Bell's "ISDN Anywhere" (John R. Haggis)
    Re: How Can I Ring Up Myself? (Randy Gellens)
    Re: What's a 1A3B? (David Wuertele)
    Re: Annoying COCOT Problem (Mark E. Daniel) 
    Re: British Call Forwarding in 1960s (Steve McKinty)
    Re: British Call Forwarding in 1960s (Clive D.W. Feather)
    Re: British Call Forwarding in 1960s (Peter Campbell Smith)

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.
It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. 

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 edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax 
or phone at:
                    9457-D Niles Center Road
                     Skokie, IL USA   60076
                       Phone: 708-329-0571
                        Fax: 708-329-0572
  ** 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 partially funded by a grant from the              *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland    * 
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES)   * 
* project.  Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU.                                                 *
*************************************************************************

Additionally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such
as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help 
is important and appreciated.

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: InBankCom <IBANKCOM@ustar.msk.su>
Subject: Introducing Incombank and ISKRA-2 
Date: Mon,  6 Jun 94 14:14:36 +0400
Organization: USTAR Moscow
Reply-To: IBANKCOM@ustar.msk.su


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The following message was received today
in my mail but due to technical problems in the transmission it had to
be reconstructed somewhat. I hope I got it all correct.  PAT]

"InBankCom" (IBC):

InComBank (Bank Communications) is a commercial satellite telecommunica-
tion systems Company which services the whole territory of Russia, Europe 
and Asia.

International Bank Communications Moscow, is a telecommunications company
that services all banking needs of Russia, Europe and Asia.

"Inbankcom" System of operations is based on Central Satellite
Communications (HUB) Moscow and the system of remote terminal stations
(VSAT) distributed throughout the territory of Russia and Community of
Independent States.

"Inbankcom" offers their customers the following services: digital
data satellite communication, telephone, fax and  Teleconferencing
communication channels in all regions of Russia.

- Design, deliver build and operate all equipment in satellite
telecommunication service;

- "Inbankcom" system uses and operates very sophisticated, modern
technical equipment made in USA and Russia that, ensures high quality
of communication service and reliability with minimum costs, and rapid
connection to the system.

- "Inbankcom" offers to reserve capacities at the Moscow HUB Station.
Application for survey and service is available.

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

From: rjansen@rc1.vub.ac.be (Robert Jansen)
Subject: GSM Question: Power Controllers
Date: 5 Jun 1994 17:49:55 GMT
Organization: Brussels Free Universities (VUB/ULB), Belgium


After visiting several dealers of GSM phones, I finally found one with
the technical know-how about GSM.

He told me things like:
"Well, I don't recommend booster kits in a car."

Probably everyone now goes "HEY, WHAT ??$%#$$".

The story is quite simple:

He told me that when 8W phones are near a groundstation, the transmit
power is trottled by the groundstation, in order to allow the nearby
2W devices to "enter" the groundstation's receiver.

This is what he called "GSM phones with a build-in POWER CONTROLLER"
(8W phones have this feature, so don't panic :) )

The problem arises when a normal handheld with a car kit is fitted
(afterwards) with a normal antenna signal booster.  It's a
straightforward amplifier, which HAS NO way of being power controlled
by the groundstation, nor the 2W handheld.

Result: the groundstation kicks you of the net if you get to close to
the groundstation and are blasting the full 8W to it's antenna,
because you are surpressing the signals from the handheld 2W phones.

Many will now ask themselves: why are they selling such boosters?
Well, it works fine if the net operator doesn't have very intelligent
groundstations.

If for some reason or another a net operator implements Power Control
in their groundstations, you are out of luck with your antenna signal
booster.

Q: And what about a handheld with a booster from the same manufacturer?
A: well ... that's the point here,  I getting the idea that NOT ONE!!!
manufacturer of GSM phones (which have a booster kit for their phones)
implemented Power Control when you have your handheld in the car,
connected to it's booster. The handhelds don't have the control over the 
booster.

Questions arise:

1) Does anyone have more information on this matter?

2) Are there manufactures who have a "handheld booster" which is 
Power Controlled whenever you have your handheld in the car? (The handheld 
communicates with the booster.)

Thanks for any replies at all, I'm still puzzled on what I should buy.


Robert Jansen   Computer Center VUB/ULB
Brussels  Belgium (Europe)  VUBnet
email: rjansen@vnet3.vub.ac.be
Tel:  +32-2-650.37.29  Secr: +32-2-650.37.38
Fax:  +32-2-650.37.40

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

From: lester@access.digex.net (Lester Knutsen)
Subject: Unix to Alpha-Numeric Pager
Date: 6 Jun 1994 00:39:39 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA


Is there any Unix software that can send messages through a
modem to an alpha-numeric pager?  Does anyone have recommendations
on set-ups and paging services that work well?

Thanks for any information.


Lester

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

Date: Mon, 6 Jun 1994 10:49:48 -0700
From: GARYC@cc.snow.edu (Gary E. Chidester)
Subject: Information Wanted on Satellite BBS?


I read an article the other day about BBS via satellite and how it
would be cheaper because there would be no long distance charges
accrued.  How is this possible?  I can see how you could receive
information via satellite, but unless there is two-way communication
how can you request the information you want?  Is there somewhere that
I can get more information?


Gary Chidester    Instructor of Broadcasting   Snow College

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

Date: Mon, 6 Jun 94 06:56:20 EDT
From: dwn@dwn.ccd.bnl.gov (Dave Niebuhr)
Subject: Re: 716 Now Split Between 7D and 1 + 716 +7D


In TELECOM Digest V14 #269 Carl Moore <cmoore@ARL.MIL> writes:

> I have been assuming statewide uniformity in these dialing changes,
> and this is the first I have heard of a split of this nature.  

That is because area code 716 is split between NYNEX and Rochester
Telephone and each may (and probably does) have different tariffs for
the same thing as well as dialing plans.

I don't know how this will be affected in 1995 when the changeover
occurs in dialing local vs. long distance starts.

This could also affect another area code that is split between two
companies: NYNEX (516) and Fisher's Island Telco which gets its feed
from Connecticut (probably SNET).

Fisher's Island is strange: closer to CT than Long Island but part of
Long Island and therefore New York.

In TELECOM Digest V14 #271 jg2560@cesn4.cen.uiuc.edu (John Robert Grout)
wrote:

> If a state's PSC didn't enforce uniformity (probably forcing 1+AC+7D),
> setting a "de facto" standard within a LATA would usually fall to the
> "Baby Bell" providing service within it.

> I expect that New York's PSC will eventually bully Rochester Telephone
> into uniformity with NYNEX.

Nah.  It's more busy approving outlandish rate hikes for the Long
Island Lighting Company and it's exeutives ($41k+ bonus for the
Chairman in 1993) plus the defunct Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant (we,
the ratepayers had to pay for it to be built).

It never was put into use and now the fuel is being transported
to Pennsylvania.

The PSC allowed the plant to be sold to the state for $1.00 (US) and
the ratepayers have to pay to dismantle it in addition to bulding it.
For that we pay $.22 (US) for basic kilowatt usage up to a little over
800.

What makes anyone think that the PSC will be harsher on NYNEX than
it is with LILCO?


Dave Niebuhr      Internet: dwn@dwn.ccd.bnl.gov (preferred)
                            niebuhr@bnl.gov / Bitnet: niebuhr@bnl
Senior Technical Specialist, Scientific Computing Facility
Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, NY 11973  1+(516) 282-3093
                                          FAX   1+(516) 282-7688

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

From: gmccomb@netcom.com (Glenn McComb)
Subject: Re: Personal 800 Number Availability
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 1994 06:58:55 GMT


William Y. Lai (lai@seas.gwu.edu) wrote:

> A while back I remember that several LD companies were offering plans
> for personal 800 numbers.  Does anyone know of availaibility/details
> of these plans today?

I've been using AT&T's 800 Starter Line service, which recently
dropped from $6/mo + 0.31/min to $5/mo + 0.26/min, billed in six-second
increments.  Just the other day, I added 800 call forwarding, which
lets me point my 800 number to any other number from any phone in the
world.  Cost was $20 setup, plus $1.00 for every change.

I needed the portability primarily because AT&T wouldn't point my 800
number without me giving them the street address where the phone is
located.  Since I wanted my personal (800) number to point to my pager
company's voicemail number, I didn't know the street address, and
neither did the pager company!  So, I'll point the number myself and
give the goobers $20 for the privilege.  Since they charge $10 for any
service change anyway, it works out pretty good.


Glenn McComb  +1-408-725-1448 | McComb Research     
Fax           +1-408-725-0222 | 10440 Mann Drive    
Internet      gm @ mccomb.com | PO Box 220          
Compuserve    MHS:gm@mccomb   | Cupertino, CA 95015 

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

From: lps@rahul.net (Kevin Martinez)
Subject: Re: Pac Bell's "ISDN Anywhere"
Organization: a2i network
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 1994 08:06:29 GMT


judson%linex@uunet.UU.NET (Michael L Judson) writes:

> I saw in a news report about a new service from Pacific Bell called
> "ISDN Anywhere."  When I called up Pac Bell, they had no idea what I
> was talking about.  The news report didn't give much more information
> other than they would start offering it in about a month.

> Does anybody else have any ideas about what is so different about "ISDN
> Anywhere?"

Same Old Stuff: Marketing Hype.

When I finally found a Pac Bell representative that knew what ISDN was
and the procedures for having it installed, I was told it was not
available in my exchange (Milpitas, Ca., near the heart of Pac Bell).

It appears that whatever switching mechanism they have is not up to
the claims of their Marketing, Advertising and Sales force. Maybe next
year ...

Still waiting for the '90s,


Kevin Martinez    lps@rahul.net
Work: 1 800 50 SATAN   Home: 1 510 676 1111

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

From: kass@tacout.army.mil (Jeremie Kass)
Subject: Re: Pac Bell's "ISDN Anywhere"
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 94 7:25:27 EDT


What that service does is that Pac Bell will provide ISDN to any
customer whose switch doesn't provide ISDN itself via foreign
exchange, or FX.  This involves running a T1 type line to the nearest
switch that supports ISDN and can get quite pricey.  Ameritech, in the
metro Detroit area, will do all FX'ing for free as they will upgrading
all the switches in the near future.  But, for a client that I have
who is 25 miles from an ISDN capable switch, it will cost around $700
to install the FX, and a mileage charge of $25.75/month that will be
add to the regular $147 install and $35/month ISDN charges.

Hope this helps!


Jeremie Kass              Internet:   kass@tacout.army.mil
Information Systems                   jk914s2187@sycom.mi.org
 Consultant                           jkass@cati.CSUfresno.edu
JPK Computer Consulting               jkass@jpkcomp.detroit.mi.us         
Huntington Woods, MI,    U.S.A.

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

From: haggis@netcom.com (John R. Haggis)
Subject: Re: Pac Bell's "ISDN Anywhere"
Organization: Millennium Research
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 1994 11:28:21 GMT


In article <telecom14.271.11@eecs.nwu.edu> bluewtr!tom@orca.mbari.org
writes:

> ISDN Anywhere means that you can have ISDN anywhere in the Pacbell
> area for the price of local ISDN.  If your serving CO does not offer
> ISDN Pacbell will provide the FX for free.

Could've fooled me.  I've been trying to get straight talk out of
PacBell for months about ISDN.  Latest word is that they can't even
take it out to my house because it's greater than 15K (or 18K?)
network feet away from the CO (measured by a hand-meter).  They hinted
that if I twisted arms I might be able to get them to put in repeaters
and stuff but I would really have to stroke people to do this special
thing just for me ...

And what about the basic service?  I can't get anyone there to tell me
in plain English what I get.  It's all acronym-soup, and PB speaks one
language and all the Internet providers speak a totally different one!
Tower of Babel here we come (those who do not learn from history ...).

For you PacBell flame afficionados: I tried to call in last week and
find out what their BBS number was (hinted in a post about Scott Adams
of Dilbert fame).  I called 15 times, got rerouted 23 times, and got
absolutely nobody who even knew what a BBS was.

Sheesh ... this is the future?


JohnR (haggis@netcom.com)


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: What you describe is quite common. Telco
will run an advertisement on television or the radio, or maybe in the
newspaper for some new and advanced service, then when you call any of
the front line people for more information, none of them have the foggiest
idea what you are talking about or what you want, etc. Too bad their 
advertising people don't send memos to the Business Office people telling
them the kinds of things the public will be asking about.   PAT]

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

From: RANDY@MPA15AB.mv-oc.Unisys.COM
Date: 06 JUN 94 02:35:00 GMT   
Subject: Re: How Can I Ring Up Myself?


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: After dialing do you get a busy signal
or some special tone? If we here dial our own number, in some
exchanges we get a busy signal and in other exchanges get an intercept
that 'your call cannot be completed as dialed, please check the number
and dial again, etc ..." Even if we have call waiting installed,
dialing our own number produces a busy signal or the above recording. PAT]

In most GTE areas, when you dial your own number you hear a soft
beeping.  Hanging up causes the phone to ring.  Two people in a house
can talk to each other this way.  It is free.  I understand it is a
carry-over from the party line days.  PacBell offers a functionally
equivalent service as part of their home Centrex service (I think that
is the name.  I just checked the new phone books, and the several
pages that used to be there on these features have been replaced by
information on their automated information lines (which don't mention
this service) and the Message Center).


Randall Gellens      randy@mv-oc.unisys.com
(714) 380-6350       fax (714) 380-5912
Mail Stop MV 237     Net**2 656-6350

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

From: dave@sparc4-5.gctech.co.jp (Dave)
Subject: Re: What's a 1A3B?
Organization: Graphic Communications Laboratories (GCL)
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 1994 10:17:39 GMT


In article <telecom14.270.16@eecs.nwu.edu> jvz@pt.com (John Zambito)
writes:

 [question about an acronym]

And the TELECOM Digest Editor appends:

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: ESS = Electronic Switching System. So
> named because the telephone exchanges of the past were electro-mechanical 
> in operation. This acronym along with lots of others which puzzle
> readers from time to time can be looked up in our interative glossary
> program at the Telecom Archives. If you can use anonymous ftp, then
> access the archives and pull the glossary files to your site.

You did not mention where the Telecom Archives are.  I looked for the
glossary files on rtfm.mit.edu, but did not find them there.


David Wuertele


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well I nearly always do mention where to 
find the archives. Try anonymous ftp lcs.mit.edu.   PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 6 Jun 1994 00:30:52 EST
From: mark@legend.akron.oh.us (Mark E Daniel)
Subject: Re: Annoying COCOT Problem


In TELECOM Digest Volume 14 : Issue 260 Stu Jeffery <stu@shell.portal.
com> writes:

> do wonder, however, how they can get away with detecting DTMF generated 
> outside the instrument and disconnecting a call as a result.  Is this
> any different from disconnecting a call when vulgar words are spoken?

Since COCOT = Customer Owned perhaps the FCC and or has not set any
regula tions on what a Customer can do with the service they are
providing.  I've seen evverything.  Most COCOTs have fake everything.
The tones you dial are generated for the benifit of the user only.
For that matter a COCOT dial tone is even generated for the benifit of
the user.  I have the ability to identify touch tones based upon the
sounds I'm hearing.  I recently used a CO: COT which I have no idea
how it works unless it just mutes everything.  This COCOT used touch
tones but the tones did not equal what I dialed.  

In this case service calls had a code.  Repair (you were told to dial
211 by the card on the phone) produced "#21" when dialed.  That's
easy.  It just routes to a preprogrammed number when it hears. #21.
But for things like calling card calls it truly *was* one digit behind
me.  Ditto for local calls which produced # + phone number digit -1
yet still went through.  The only logical thing to conclude then is
that it just uses a contacting system to know which buttons (as in
electronic circuit or something; I don't know too much about this) are
being pressed and cares noting about what they are really supposed to
sound like, yet still produces "tone" sounds because pushbutton phones
are supposed to beep when you hit the button.  The tone patterns
likely have nothing to do with how this phone routes calls.  

Then it mutes the sound and dials it on the real line (another oddity
is that the phone number printed on the phone could not have been it's
real "line".  That CO serves the a much farther south part of town
that where this phone is located.  Plus the number on the phone rings
and rings when dialed.  Perhaps they paid big bucks or use some kind
of leased line to route outbound calls on that number.  And when you
make a 0 + call the phone "clicks" and instantly you get "Telecall
USA" and a non-standard bong.  Almost too instantly to be produced
externally.  His COCOT has my curiosity poised.  I wonder if I am
absolutely incorrect about the way it works ... :)


Mark E Daniel  (Loving SysOp of The Legend BBS)
Inet: mark@legend.akron.oh.us   

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

From: smckinty@sunicnc.France.Sun.COM (Steve McKinty - SunConnect ICNC)
Subject: Re: British Call Forwarding in 1960s
Date: 6 Jun 1994 11:08:05 GMT
Organization: SunConnect


In article <telecom14.269.15@eecs.nwu.edu>, Andrew C. Green <ACG@dlogics.
com> writes:

> Randall Gellens (RANDY@MPA15AB.mv-oc.Unisys.COM) writes:

>> He picks up his phone [...] and dials three digits.  He says
>> "Operator?  This is WHitehall xxxx.  My name is John Steed.  I will
>> be away for the next three weeks.  Please forward my calls to the
>> usual number."  

>> What sort of call-forwarding was offered by British Telecom in the
>> 1960s?

> At the risk of over-analyzing a fictional scene, I get the impression
> he wasn't speaking to the telephone company operator, but to some sort
> of government operator at the other end of a private line. I base this
> conclusion on the fact that he dialed only three digits (I would have
> expected contemporary numbers in the London area to be at least five),

Except the public operator, for whom you dial 100 in the UK

> and referred to his own number as "Whitehall", an inspired (if not
> fictitious) choice for a British government phone network prefix.

Could be a genuine one, the phone number for Scotland Yard was
WHItehall 1212, and I believe the present day New Scotland Yard still
has the equivalent all-numeric number.

It still doesn't, of course, explain how such call forwarding would have
worked. Prior to direct dialing asking the Operator to forward calls
manually would be the thing to do, but the mid-60s seems late for that.


Steve McKinty
Sun Microsystems ICNC
38240 Meylan, France
email: smckinty@france.sun.com

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

Subject: Re: British Call Forwarding in 1960s
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 1994 12:56:00 BST
From: Clive D.W. Feather <clive@sco.COM>


>> He picks up his phone [...] and dials three digits.  He says
>> "Operator?  This is WHitehall xxxx.  My name is John Steed.  I will
>> be away for the next three weeks.  Please forward my calls to the
>> usual number."  

> At the risk of over-analyzing a fictional scene, I get the impression
> he wasn't speaking to the telephone company operator, but to some sort
> of government operator at the other end of a private line. I base this
> conclusion on the fact that he dialed only three digits (I would have
> expected contemporary numbers in the London area to be at least five),
> and referred to his own number as "Whitehall", an inspired (if not
> fictitious) choice for a British government phone network prefix.

WHItehall (note the capitalization) was indeed the exchange for much
of the Civil Service, and many government offices still have
071-944-XXXX numbers. At the time in question, local dialing would
have been seven digits.  On the other hand, to reach the Post Office
(this pre-dates BT by a long way) operator would only be three digits:
100.

On the other other hand, I can't quite see this being real either way.
If it was a PBX operator, then they would have had no control over the
routing of directly dialed calls (this was before the days of DDI; a
person's phone was either a direct line or via a switchboard, and if
necessary you had two phones on your desk). If it was the GPO operator, 
then she would have had a major effort to organise a redirection (WHItehall 
was almost certainly a Strowger exchange).


Clive D.W. Feather      Santa Cruz Operation  
clive@sco.com           Croxley Centre        
Phone: +44 923 816 344  Hatters Lane, Watford 
Fax:   +44 923 210 352  WD1 8YN, United Kingdom

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

From: campbellsm@lish.logica.com (Peter Campbell Smith)
Subject: Re: British Call Forwarding in 1960s
Organization: Logica, London
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 1994 13:59:46 GMT


In article <telecom14.269.15@eecs.nwu.edu>, Andrew C. Green
<ACG@dlogics.com> wrote:

> Randall Gellens (RANDY@MPA15AB.mv-oc.Unisys.COM) writes:

>> He picks up his phone [...] and dials three digits.  He says
>> "Operator?  This is WHitehall xxxx.  My name is John Steed.  I will
>> be away for the next three weeks.  Please forward my calls to the
>> usual number."  

> At the risk of over-analyzing a fictional scene, I get the impression
> he wasn't speaking to the telephone company operator, but to some sort
> of government operator at the other end of a private line. I base this
> conclusion on the fact that he dialed only three digits (I would have
> expected contemporary numbers in the London area to be at least five),
> and referred to his own number as "Whitehall", an inspired (if not
> fictitious) choice for a British government phone network prefix. Had
> he called whatever the local equivalent of 611 was (for repair or some
> other service), I don't think he would have addressed the other party
> as "Operator".

A sort of call forwarding was offered by BT - or rather Post Office
Telecommunications - in the 1960s.  You had to set it up in advance,
ie tell them what 'the usual number' was, and then you called the
operator (by dialing 100 or maybe 151, which was and is the repairs
number) to have it turned on or off.  Or, you could have it turned on
and off at fixed times of the day.  The number you forwarded to had to
be in the same exchange.  The service was mainly used by doctors and
was not cheap, and I imagine it was implemented by plugging and
unplugging a hardwired connection between the two outgoing subscriber
loops.

Whitehall was indeed a real exchange.  Most of us over the age of 40
remember that Scotland Yard's number was Whitehall 1212 (dialed as
WHI 1212), much more memorable than the current 230 1212.  But judging
by the scenery around Steed's pad I'd say he was in BELgravia or
KENsington rather than WHItehall.


Peter Campbell Smith, Logica plc, London.  Voice: +44 71 637 9111
Fax: +44 71 344 3638  Internet: campbellsm@lish.logica.com


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: A curious coincidence discussed in the
Digest in the past involved a demented fellow here in the United
States about thirty years ago who was fond of making lewd and threatening 
telephone calls to Queen Elizabeth. After authorities in the UK traced
the calls back to overseas circuits to the USA and asked AT&T to help
with the investigation, the calls were found to originate here in Chicago
on a north side phone exchange then known as WHItehall. As Mr. Smith
points out, the investigators in the UK were using WHItehall 1212 and
the offender here in the States was calling from WHItehall 6211, then
and now (944-6211) the switchboard at the Lawson YMCA.  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V14 #273
******************************

