TELECOM Digest     Mon, 16 Jan 95 09:19:00 CST    Volume 15 : Issue 32

Inside This Issue:                          Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Would You Believe More Rain on the Way? (Stephen P. Sorkin)
    Re: Would You Believe More Rain on the Way? (Aryeh M. Friedman)
    Re: Would You Believe More Rain on the Way? (Olcay Cirit)
    Re: Would You Believe More Rain on the Way? (Mark Nichols)
    Re: Would You Believe More Rain on the Way? (Clarence Dold)
    Re: Would You Believe More Rain on the Way? (Benjamin P. Carter)
    Re: Would You Believe More Rain on the Way? (Steven H. Lichter)
    Re: Would You Believe More Rain on the Way? (Rich Greenberg)
    Re: Chatter Heard on Scanner Leads to Criminal Charges (Peter 
Laws)
    Re: Chatter Heard on Scanner Leads to Criminal Charges (Bill Sohl)
    Re: Chatter Heard on Scanner Leads to Criminal Charges (Bruce 
Roberts)
    Re: Chatter Heard on Scanner Leads to Criminal Charges (Bill 
Mayhew)

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

Subscriptions are available 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. A suggested donation of twenty dollars 
per
year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.

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: mars!ssorkin@uunet.uu.net (Stephen P. Sorkin)
Subject: Re: Would You Believe More Rain on the Way?
Date: 16 Jan 1995 07:10:05 GMT
Organization: Cal State University, Los Angeles


> Have the floods in California affected telephone service to any 
extent?

A sink hole tore through an interoffice cable in Long Beach or 
Torrance 
(I can't remember which).  That cut off several thousand calls.

We had a problem with our old lead shielded drop cable (water shorted 
it out).


Stephen  ssorkin@calstatela.edu

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

Date: Mon, 16 Jan 1995 00:18:44 +0800
From: aryeh@cash.UCSC.EDU (Aryeh M. Friedman)
Subject: Re: Would You Believe More Rain on the Way?
Organization: UCSC Dept of Econ


 We have had spotty outages in Pac Bell and GTE land soem of
West LA was out earl last week and my calls to up north are getting
all circuit busy very often.


Aryeh

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

Date: Mon, 16 Jan 95 02:33:50 PST
From: olcay@libtech.com (olcay cirit)
Subject: Re: Would You Believe More Rain on the Way?


> Have the floods in California affected telephone service to any 
extent?

Not to my knowledge, although Libtech has experienced a four-day power
outage to the high winds and rain. But then again, we weren't flooded.
Sometimes I wish PG&E was as dependable as AT&T. ;)


olcay

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

From: Mark Nichols <Mark@BelServ.COM>
Organization:  Belmont Information Services
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 1995 03:26:02 PST
Subject: Re: Would You Believe More Rain on the Way?


In article <telecom15.31.10@eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Editor 
<telecom@
eecs.nwu.edu> writes:

> Have the floods in California affected telephone service to any 
extent?

I tried several times yesterday to place a service call to "611" and
after several no-answers of 20 rings or more, I called the operator.
She said they're taking names manually of people they need to call
back to log a problem report.  In other words, I can expect to wait
"several days" just to get the opportunity to log a service call,
which itself might take some time to address.  Yes, the service has
been affected.  I'm in Pac-Bell land, although on Tuesday I had
similar problems in Ventura County, GTE land.

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

From: Clarence Dold <dold@rahul.net>
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 95 05:05:48 PST
Subject: Re: Would You Believe More Rain on the Way?
Organization: a2i network


WHAT!!!  I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!  MY LINES ARE WET AND THERE'S A LOT OF
STATIC!!!  I TRIED 611 AND GET A SIT, all circuits are busy.

Actually, the static is _so_ bad, that I often can't draw dialtone,
although I can receive calls.  If I do get dialtone, I can't break
dialtone with DTMF, although I can dial.  On some incoming calls, I
would suddenly get stutter dialtone, as if i had hit flash-hook.
Incoming calls answer themselves midway through the first ring, as the
CO detects line current, due to the ring voltage conducting through
the swamp I call a pasture, even though we have overhead lines.

Wonderful thing, these error-correcting modems... ;-)

More in line with what I think you were asking:

Except for a lot of individual lines being out due to 
insulation/moisture 
problems, I don't know of any trouble.  There don't appear to be any
COs down in the Napa area.  I work for an IXC, and other than static
on lines, service has been good in the flood area.


Clarence A Dold - dold@rahul.net
                - Pope Valley & Napa CA.


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: This reminds me of the tunnel flood 
here
in Chicago a couple years ago. For a few days after the flood had been
brought under control but before all the water had dissapated and the
underground cables dried out, the amount of cross-talk on the lines 
was
incredible. Dial tone of course was very slow as people made up for a
few days of being unable to use the phone at all, and in the typical
ten to twenty second wait for dial tone, you'd hear six different 
conver-
sations in the background all at one time; none of them very clearly,
just like a bunch of people in a room at a party everyone talking to
someone else. Once dial tone was delivered to your line, all the cross-
talk would go away, but during your connection itself, if you and your
party were silent for a few seconds and you listened closely, you 
would
hear a couple other people talking, way off in the background, not
loud enough or well enough to understand what they were saying most of
the time. 

The City Hall public information phone lines served as the center for
information during the flood week, and those lines themselves went out
of order on the first day when the water filled the basement of City
Hall and doused the phone cables there. But amazingly, when so much of
the downtown area was without phone service crews managed to keep the
City Hall information lines up and running all but for about three or
four hours. I remember calling to get an update early that afternoon
and the lady telling me the rest of City Hall had been evacuated 
'except
for the information phone lines and the centrex operators, we will 
stay
as long as our lines are up ...'. About 45 minutes later their lines 
went under also but in about three hours they were answering again 
from
another location, across the street in the Chicago Temple Building, 
giving
updates on the flood conditions to thousands of callers.

The cross-talk was not just confined to outgoing calls from the 
downtown
area, although that is where it was worst. When someone from outside 
the
area called downtown, mainly into the Wabash or Franklin COs, as soon
as your call left your CO and hit one of those, you'd get a click on 
the
line, static and cross-talk in the background as the phone rang at the
place you were calling. Once they answered -- if they did -- the cross-
talk
mostly went away.  

The rain on Saturday here was the cause of a lot of very wet demarcs 
and
such, because of strong winds blowing the rain sideways at you and 
getting
it into literally everything; cracks in the window of your house, etc.  
PAT]

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

From: bpc@netcom.com (Benjamin P. Carter)
Subject: Re: Would You Believe More Rain on the Way?
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 
guest)
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 1995 01:00:21 GMT


TELECOM Digest Editor <telecom@eecs.nwu.edu> writes:

> Well, good luck and my best regards, folks. It seems like the people
> in California spend all summer burning the place down, 

Actually, we have more fires in late autumn, when the vegetation is
dryest and most flammable.

> then spend all winter enduring mud slides and flooding.

Did you forget about our earthquakes?  And worst of all is our state
legislature in Sacramento.  It makes the U.S. Congress look 
responsible by 
comparison.

> We are getting a lot of rain here today also, but the only effect
> has been to melt all the snow which had accumulated and leave some
> *huge* puddles of water to navigate at curbs where the street sewers
> are plugged, etc.

> Have the floods in California affected telephone service to any 
extent?

Well, the prices just went up, but that is probably unrelated to the
floods.  (Pac Bell and GTE can expect a flood of complaints about the
bills they are sending out this month.)


Ben Carter                  internet address: bpc@netcom.com


[TELEOCM Digest Editor's Note: No, I did not forget about the 
earthquakes.
That one at Northridge (?) in particular was something else. Last year
was pretty tragic all over California, and apparently 1995 is starting
out badly for the folks there also. Your legislature may be bad, but 
wait until you see the Chicago City Council -- what a bunch of clowns
they are. Did you know in the election coming up (for City Council 
members)
we have six ex-felons running for office? Seriously ... and over a
dozen of the ones who have been in office in the past seven or eight
years have been found guilty of something and sent to the 
penitentiary. 
Real bunch of winners, all.   PAT]

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

From: co057@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Steven H. Lichter)
Subject: Re: Would You Believe More Rain on the Way?
Date: 16 Jan 1995 03:45:17 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)


Both PacBell and GTE have had spot outages. The Laguna Beach CO, which
was seen on the news, but nothing was said as what it was, had sand
bags and other blocks to prevent any more damage. I had heard that one
RSU way up north was running on its own since the Fiber cable got
washed out.  I would say it was either good planning or just plan luck
that more damage was not done. Though I'm sure that the people out
here that lost service were not happy. My computer kept going even
though we lost power since I have a UPS on it and the one I have could
run a Lan so it stayed up for almost an hour, running my BBS. but no
calls.


Sysop: Apple Elite II -=- an Ogg-Net Hub BBS      
           Home of GBBS/LLUCE support
(909) 359-5338 12/24/14.4 V32/V42bis          

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

From: richgr@netcom.com (Rich Greenberg)
Subject: Re: Would You Believe More Rain on the Way?
Date: Sat, 14 Jan 1995 23:33:14 GMT


The forcast on the local news station (KFWB) Saturday morning about
7am PST was predicting about an inch, 70% chance of rain Saturday 
night
and Sunday.  At the moment (3:30pm pst) its overcast and dry.  There 
were
some periods of sun yesterday and today.

> Have the floods in California affected telephone service to any 
extent?

Not in my local area (Near LAX airport).  The two hardest hit areas
are Malibu and an area south of here (I forget the name).

(A later update) ....

The "70% chance of rain" is now 100% at my place.  Light so far.


Rich Greenberg            Work: TBA.  Know anybody needing a VM guru?
N6LRT   TinselTown, USA   Play: richgr@netcom.com               310-
649-0238
Pacific time.    I speak for myself & my dogs only.
Canines: Val(Chinook,CGC), Red(Husky,(RIP)), Shasta(Husky)

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

From: plaws@comp..uark.edu (Peter Laws)
Subject: Re: Chatter Heard on Scanner Leads to Criminal Charges
Date: 15 Jan 1995 18:30:09 GMT
Organization: University of Arkansas


Bob Keller <rjk@telcomlaw.com> writes:

>> Sorry, that is absolutely false.  The FCC part 15 rules are the
>> specifc requirements for which RF devices must be tested against by
>> the FCC to CERTIFY them for initial sale to the public.  That is 
all
>> that the rules govern ... initial certification.  The rules do not 
grant
>> any "authority to operate" the device, nor do the forbid operation 
of
>> any certified device that has been modified after the initial sale 
nor
>> do they forbid operation of any uncertified device that may have 
been
>> built from scratch.  Bottom line...Part 15 rules impose absolutely 
NO
>> duty on the consumer.

> I don't agree.  Rule 15.1(b) provides:

> "The operation of an intentional or unintentional radiator 
                                                    ^^^^^^^^

RADIATOR!!!  Not receiver!!  *Transmitters* are a "whole nother"  
thing. 

Radiator != receiver (I'll leave aside poorly shielded local 
oscillators:). 


Peter Laws<plaws@comp.uark.edu>|"Suppose you were a politician. Now 
suppose
you
n5uwy@ka5bml.#nwar.ar.usa.noam |were an idiot. Ah, but I repeat 
myself."-Twain

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

From: billsohl@earth.planet.net (Bill Sohl  Budd Lake)
Subject: Re: Chatter Heard on Scanner Leads to Criminal Charges
Date: 15 Jan 1995 07:51:02 GMT
Organization: Planet Access Networks - Stanhope, NJ


Bob Keller (rjk@telcomlaw.com) wrote:

>> Sorry, that is absolutely false.  The FCC part 15 rules are the
>> specifc requirements for which RF devices must be tested against by
>> the FCC to CERTIFY them for initial sale to the public.  That is 
all
>> that the rules govern ... initial certification.  The rules do not 
grant
>> any "authority to operate" the device, nor do the forbid operation 
of
>> any certified device that has been modified after the initial sale 
nor
>> do they forbid operation of any uncertified device that may have 
been
>> built from scratch.  Bottom line...Part 15 rules impose absolutely 
NO
>> duty on the consumer.

> I don't agree.  Rule 15.1(b) provides:

>  "The operation of an intentional or unintentional radiator 
>   that is not in accordance with the regulations in this part 
>    must be licensed pursuant to the provisions of Section 301 
>  of the Communications Act, as amended, unless otherwise 
>   exempted from the licensing requirements elsewhere in this 
>   chapter."

I have no problem with this statement and I'll state unequivocally 
that 
scanners and/or other types of radio receivers are not (if designed 
properly)
included in the catagory "intentional or unintential radiator" and 
they
are not, therefore, licensed.

> Note that this rule addresses _operation_ of the device.  In most, 
if
> not all, radio services, the modified device would not be properly
> type accepted in the applicable service which would, in turn, 
preclude
> licensing of its use pursuant to Section 301 except in special cases
> (e.g., an experimental or developmental authorization, or possibly
> certain amateur radio uses within ham bands and subject to ham 
rules).

Agreed, but again, radio receivers and scanners are not described 
anywhere 
as a radio service.

Bill Sohl previously said:

>> Anyone can buy any commercial receiver (or scanner, or TV, or


>> computer, etc.) and modify it in any way they want and not be in
>> violation (as you claim) of any law.  Additionally, hobbyists have
>> been building their own receivers and/or modifying commercial (as 
well
>> as military surplus) receivers for years.  Doing so is not a crime,
>> nor does it render the use of any such home built or modified 
RECEIVER
>> illegal.  Furthermore, there is NO license required to build, 
modify,
>> repair or otherwise tinker with any radio receiving equipment used 
by
>> the general population.

> I am not sure that this statement can be squared with Section 15.21 
of 
> the FCC Rules which provides:

>  "The users manual or instruction manual for an intentional 
>   or unintentional radiator shall caution the user that 
>   changes or modifications not expressly approved by the 
>   party responsible for compliance could void the user's 
>   authority to operate the equipment."

I have seen this warning in various part 15 "radiating" devices such
as my daughter's remote control dancing Barbie, baby monitors, and
other devices which are use some type of transmitting capability.  I
have seen no such warning in any receiving only equipment.

> While I would not necessarily go so far as to label scanner and 
other
> receiver adjustments and/or modifications as necessarily or even
> likely "criminal," it is nonetheless important to keep in mind two
> important factors:

>  (1) A device or a circuit within a device that is 
>      "receive-only" may still be (and in the case of 
>      radio receivers usually is) either an intentional 
>      or unintentional radiator within the meaning of 
>      Part 15 of the Rules; and

If it is then where is the case law?  Who has EVER been prosecuted.
How would this "square" with one's ability to build their own radio
receiving equipment?  Are all those "do-it-yourself" hobbyists
breaking the law?  A receive-only device should certainly never fall
into the catagory of an "intentional radiator."  If a receive only
device, after being modified, becomes an unintential radiator (that
is, it is emitting RF beyond a certain allowed limit) then its
operation would be illegal, BUT modifying the frequency coverage of a
receive-only device without changing the amount of incidental RF
emitted beyond an allowed limit, would not make it an unintential
radiator.

>  (2) Without even getting into the debate over the special 
>      statutory and regulatory provisions applicable to 
>      cellular-capable scanners, there is a _big_ 
>      difference between opening up a device to repair, allign, 
>      or adjust it and modifying the manufacturer's design 
>      features of the device.

Bob's comments above really focus on the "potential" RF radiating
associated with any electronic device.  That is not the issue with all
modifications, and would not, I contend, even likely be a problem for
the frequency coverage type modification that is accomplished by
"diode clipping" on many CELLULAR blocked scaners manufactured in the
past.

Note also that all of the above talks about the possibility of losing
the authority to operate ... it does not say that you can't clip 
diodes
or make modifications ... it just indicates that for SOME services,
modifications MAY render the device as "unusable" because it no longer
complies with part 15.  The act of making the modification is not,
howver, defined or identified as being illegal, nor does it say that
the device, once modified is illegal to own or subject to forfeiture
by the FCC, nor does it say that the person making the modification is
breaking the law.

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Thank you, Bob. Section 15.21 is all
> I was trying to get across to readers here. No, one does not have to
> have a 'license', ie. written document or whatever to operate a
> receiving only radio; authority is automatically given when you buy
> it from a licensed source.

So where does authority come from when you "build it yourself?"  As
above, are you claiming it is illegal or a violation of part 15 to
build electroonic equipment as an individual ... be it receivers,
computers, etc ... all of which, when produced commercially, must be
part 15 certified?  You can't have it both ways. If it is illegal to
modify it must, therefore, by logical extension be illegal to build
your own.  If it is not illegal to build your own, then modifying an
existing device (a commercially certified device) just turns it into a
do-it-yourself project with most of the work already completed which
is, therefore, legal!

> But as soon as you tamper with the innards and make changes in how
> or what the radio receives, and how it processes what it receives 
*and
> you are an unlicensed person* -- that is, you lack a tech ticket --
> then according the FCC and 15.21 you lose your authority (albiet
> granted originally by default) to 'operate' the radio, which may
> amount to nothing more than twisting the off/on switch and the 
tuning
> dial.

Pat, the FCC doesn't even require a second class radio license to do
repair work on most commercial transmitting gear anymore, I don't need
any license to build my own radio receiver OR modify an existing 
receiver, 
nor do I need any license (real or implied) to operate receive only
equipment.  It just ain't so!

> May I suggest to readers the next time you decide to purchase some 
sort of
> radio, or television perhaps, *look at the user manual*.

You'll find the warning in radio control devices, baby monitors, and
other devices intended to radiate; you won't find it in TV manuals,
stereo receiver manuals, and other receive only device manuals.  And,
even if such a warning was included ... it has no impact ... it ranks
up there with the "Do Not Remove This Label" warning found on 
furniture.

> Read the manual. Note the legal verbiage in there somewhere about
> *losing your 'authority' to operate the darn thing if you make
> unlicensed repairs or modifications*. Why do you think General
> Electric, Best Buy, K-Mart, Wal-Mart, etc and oh yeah!  Radio Shack
> put that admonition in there?  The FCC *requires* them to do so.

No one needs any authority from the FCC to operate a receiver ... 
that's
one of the fundamental differences between the USA and many other 
countries.  
Yes, commercial radio receivers must be certified to be sold, but
subsequent modification or repair by anyone has not now nor has it
ever in the past led to an individual "losing the authority" to
operate the receiver (or scanner).  Likewise, anyone can build a radio
receiver from indiviual parts they buy at Radio Shack.  The resulting
radio has NO certification, nor does it require any ... the builder is
in violation of nothing.  Indeed, Radio Shack sells such "do-it-
yourself" 
radio kits all the time.

Let me state catagorically here ... I have built my own receivers, I
have modified commercial receivers, I will continue to do so in the
future, I have done nothing illegal, I have defied no law, I am not in
any way afraid of the FCC "revoking" my authority to operate any of
the receiving equipment I own because they don't have the authority to
prohibit me from using that equipment as long as it isn't acting as a
radiator beyond certin defined limits.

Please if anyone can bring any example to this discussion of where any
individual has been prosecuted for modification of any type of receive
only equipment I'd welcome the information.  Until then saying it is
illegal to modify receivers is not going to make it so.

On a final note, nothing here is intended to condone listening to
CORDLESS or CELLULAR phone conversations which is illegal.  However,
owning the receiving equipment capable of listening, is NOT illegal.
Indeed, receiving equipment capable of receiving CORDLESS is
absolutely legal to be manufactured and imported today.  Receiving
equipment capable of receiving CELLULAR became illegal to manufacture
or import after 4/26/94 (but was absolutely legal to manufacture and
import before that).  Owning such equipment is absolutely legal.


Cheers,

Bill Sohl  K2UNK     (Budd lake, New Jersey)      
(billsohl@planet.net)

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

From: bruce.roberts@greatesc.com (Bruce Roberts)
Subject: Re: Chatter Heard on Scanner Leads to Criminal Charges
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 1995 12:46:00 GMT
Organization: The Great Escape - Gardena, CA - (310) 676-3534


Tony_Pelliccio@brown.edu (Tony Pelliccio) wrote:

> Actually the AOR-2500 comes through with the cell band intact. Or at
> least it did until the FCC attempted to clamp down on it. The nice
> thing is the AOR-2500 is considered a communications receiver and 
not
> a scanner and last I heard the whole thing was still tied up in
> hearings.

And the AOR-1000 hand held scanner with continuous coverage can still
be purchased.  These are "refurbished" units that look like new, come
with all the accessories and the same warranty as the "new" model.
The price, coincidentally, is the same as the "new" model which has
the cellular bands blocked.


TTFN -br-

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

From: wtm@uhura.neoucom.edu (Bill Mayhew)
Subject: Re: Chatter Heard on Scanner Leads to Criminal Charges
Organization: Northeastern Ohio Universities College of Medicine
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 1995 20:17:39 GMT


Section [15.21] covers intentional and unintentional radiators.  I
don't interpret that as specifically germaine to receiving eqipment,
unless the equipment uses a local oscillator or some other detection
process that produces RF emission.  A passive TRF receiver should be
exempt from part 15.  Any manufacturer producing a TRF unit would
still probably find itself under the thumb of the FCC anyway, having
to prove such claims.

John Q. Public is free do anything as long as it doesn't violate part
15.  This means that any hacks done have to be in compliance with
emission regualtions as set forth in various subparts.

Part 15 doesn't prohibit modifications.  Of course you might need a
good lawyer to prove that, and a lot of money too.  There is 
relatively 
little chance John Q. Public is going to have the time and financial
resources to outlast the FCC's limitless patience and funding.

The ECPA is what attempts to regulate what your permission to receive.
Ins't it great when our government tries to function as our proxy to
protect us from ourselves?  Grrrr.


Bill Mayhew        NEOUCOM Computer Services Department
Rootstown, OH  44272-0095  USA      phone: 216-325-2511
wtm@uhura.neoucom.edu       amateur radio 146.58: N8WED


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: My point exactly. It is very hard if 
not
impossible to win anything from those people. And to Bill Sohl, yes of
course you can make those kits from Radio Shack yourself, *as long as
you made them exactly as described in the kit instructions*. Add a few
pieces, or change a few values from those given or furnished in the
kit, and you have broken the law, IMO.  Also please note the warning
in the instructions of so many devices which say in essence, 'you must
tolerate any interference which comes as a result of someone else
operating a licensed radiator, and you yourself are forbidden to cause
any interference. If you cause interference, you must disconnect this
device, etc ...'      PAT] 

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #32
*****************************

                                                                               
