TELECOM Digest     Mon, 5 Dec 94 13:30:00 CST    Volume 14 : Issue 436

Inside This Issue:                          Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Cellular One Pulls the Plug on Visitors (Dave Levenson)
    Re: Cellular Roaming in New York Suspended (Paul Wallich)
    Re: Cellular Roaming in New York Suspended (Bill Spikes)
    Re: 1200 Bell Atlantic Workers Suspended in Labor Dispute 
(wizard@astor)
    Re: Looking for E1 Vendors (Prakash Thatte)
    Re: Looking for E1 Vendors (Russ Bryant)
    Re: Meaning of Line Build Out on CSU (Wally Ritchie)
    Re: 911 From Unactivated Cell Phone? (Shawn Gordhamer)
    Re: T3 or T1 Demux'd to RS-232 or TCP/IP? (John Lundgren)
    Re: Rochester Telephone's Open Market Plan (Robert Levandowski)
    Re: MCI's Announcement (Lynn Betts)
    Re: Exchange Voice-Mail (Prakash Thatte)

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 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: dave@westmark.com (Dave Levenson)
Subject: Re: Cellular One Pulls the Plug on Visitors
Organization: Westmark, Inc.
Date: Sun, 4 Dec 1994 22:06:28 GMT


Dave Niebuhr (NIEBUHR@BNLCL6.BNL.GOV) writes:

> {Newsday} on 11/30/94 had this article in its business section:

> "Cellular One customers who live in the Washington, D.C. area (one 
of
> those affected) will be unable to receive calls on their cellular
> phones while in New York City and parts of northern New Jersey.  
Calls
> will either be automatically forwarded to subscribers' voice mail, 
or
>  -- if they don't have voice mail -- a recording will tell the 
caller
> that the recipient no longer is in Cellular One's coverage area.

If I were a CellularOne subscriber in the Washington D.C. area and
were treated this way by the carrier, I would be strongly-tempted to
switch my service to the competing carrier -- in this case, Bell
Atlantic Mobile Systems.

Cellular fraud is rampant (I use CellularOne in Northern NJ, and one
my cell phones was compromised earlier this year) but this is not
the fault of the paying subscriber.  It is the fault of the system
designers who, apparently, believe in security through obscurity.
They apparently decided that it would be okay to transmit the
telephone's MIN and ESN (the user ID and Password, if you like) in
the clear, in the same message, on every access message.  They
apparently thought that nobody would be clever enough to figure out
how to demodulate their control channel messages, even if billions
of dollars worth of bandwidth were available to be stolen.  Really!

Now that there are nearly twenty million AMPS-compatible cellular
telephone sets in use nationwide, it's a little too late to
re-design the system and implement some kind of cryptography in the
control channel.

Do the next-generation digital cellular sets provide any better
security?


Dave Levenson  Internet: dave@westmark.com
Westmark, Inc.  UUCP: uunet!westmark!dave
Stirling, NJ, USA Voice: 908 647 0900  Fax: 908 647 6857


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I think you could cancel your contract
with them on the premises that they had violated the contract or 
changed
the terms without proper notice when they cut out roaming in the area.  
PAT]

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

From: pw@panix.com (Paul Wallich)
Subject: Re: Cellular Roaming in New York Suspended
Date: 5 Dec 1994 12:12:30 -0500
Organization: Trivializers R Us


In <telecom14.434.3@eecs.nwu.edu> Greg Monti <GMONTI@npr.org> writes:

> I am a Cellular One Washington-Baltimore customer (system owned by
> Southwestern Bell).  I just got an oversized yellow postcard in the
> mail.  Verbatim:

> New Roaming Procedures for New York City:

> What does this mean to you?  If you are roaming in the New York City
> area, incoming calls to your cellular number will not be delivered 
to
> your phone.  Instead, callers will be forwarded to your Message Plus
> voice mailbox or be advised by a recording that you are out of the
> coverage area.  Outgoing calls may still be made.  However, they 
will
> be intercepted by an operator who will request your credit card
> information for billing purposes.  Call set-up charges and per 
minute
> rates will be significantly higher than todays' standard roaming
> rates.  Emergency calls to 911 will continue to be free.

Now let me understand this: there's a problem with cellular fraud
because criminals are monitoring the frequencies and grabbing the
phone serial numbers and billing codes (which are transmitted in the
clear). The solution to this is to have people making outgoing calls
speak their credit card information on that same open channel. Huh?
(I suppose that for Cellular One, moving the potential fraud to a
different billing channel is a good idea, but I don't know what
customers would think.)

On the one hand, this may slow fraud briefly, since you have to
supplement the ESN-grabbing box with a personal and a cellular
scanner, but on the other hand, what could be more convenient to have
than the credit card number of someone who's roaming to New York (i.e.
probably affluent and quite possibly on business) while they're out of
their home town?


paul


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The idea is to pass the fraud problem
over to the wireline carriers. If you say your credit card number over
the cell phone, then the wirelines get all the fraud hassles as a
result instead of the cell phone outfits. Smart thinking, eh!  PAT]

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

From: spikes@hpscit.sc.hp.com (Bill Spikes)
Subject: Re: Cellular Roaming in New York Suspended
Date: 5 Dec 1994 15:44:26 GMT
Organization: Hewlett Packard


As a new cellee, I may be wrong here, but giving your credit card
number to ANYONE while you're on a cell phone, wireless phone, marine
operator call or ham radio is just asking to ripped off. If lowlifes
are hacking digital info from your phone or cell site xmitter, doesn't
that mean they just MIGHT be capable of listening to a voice 
conversation 
with your credit card info?

I might be missing something here.  Has Cell One thought this through?

And now ... anyone have any info on the Motorola "3-Watt Extender"?
Our "new" company car we just bought had all this stuff mounted in it.
It works with the little flip phone that was the wife'ss Xmas present.
But ... it might be nice to interface the Icom ham transceiver to it
when the wife isn't in the car.  I would be trying to use the hands
free mic/speaker/electro-guts, not the RF power amp, naturally.  I
don't even have a user or installers manual for the stuff. How about a
Motorola number to order manuals?


Thanks,

Bill    wb6rzg

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

From: Wizard@astor.com
Subject: Re: 1200 Bell Atlantic Workers Suspended in Labor Dispute
Date: Mon, 05 Dec 94 11:08:28 EST
Organization: The Toads


Pat, Larry, Dennis and All:

Rather than quote all three of the previous messages we'll just go on
from there. There were roughly 1500 workers suspended for two days,
the CWA has filed charges with the NLRB against the company for
ordering members to take off the T-shirts. The union had notified the
company in advance that this was a concerted activity protected under
Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act. Freedom of speech
either applies universally or not at all; the Constitution doesn't
have an off switch for employers. this is for your benefit, Larry and
Dennis.

As to Pat's statement about the company's draconian reaction to this
situation, this is NOT the first time in the very recent past that the
company has reacted this way. We'll go back to the 'shoe incident' of
Oct 5th this year, when we were only given 12 days notice previous to
that date to purchase a pair of steel-toed safety shoes, and we were
told that we must be wearing the shoes when we reported for work on
Oct 5th. So because of shortages at stores due to high demand, a small
number of employees reported to work without the shoes anyway, and
they were suspended without pay. Gee we don't see a pattern here do 
we?

Yes there are many unhappy employees here, probably three to five
times the number that were suspended. These two recent incidents only
demonstrate how draconian the company has become. I've never in my
quarter century of employment here been witness to such abuse; that is
all it is plain and simple.


W


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I think you are wrong about the 'off
and on switch for employers'. Everything I have been taught about the
US Constitution says that that document addresses the relationship 
between
the *goverment* and the persons being governed. It says nothing about
relationships between people, between people and their employers, etc. 
'Free Speech' means the government cannot prevent you from owning a
printing press or a pulpit and using it. It does not have to *give*
you a press or pulpit; your employer does not have to provide time or
resources for you to speak; your employer is not obliged to listen to
you. All the constitution says is the *government* cannot stop you in
these activities. Your employer is not your governor. We enter into
contracts with our employers; on the other hand we presumably obey
the government. You can change employers whenever you like -- or have
none at all if that's your desire -- we cannot very conveniently
change our governor; thus the protections in the constitution regards
the *governor's* behavior. 

Despite our apparent disagreement on this -- whether or not your
employer is obliged to give you anything other than a day's pay for
a day's work -- it seems to me it would be prudent for B-A to sit down
and listen closely to what at least some of its workers are saying.
Before responding to your comments on the 'shoe incident' I would like
to hear more. I do not believe the company only gave twelve day's 
notice
in total. I suspect there were earlier requests and at the start of
October a final reminder to expire twelve days later. Am I wrong on
this?    PAT]

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

From: primeperf@aol.com (Prime perf)
Subject: Re: Looking for E1 Vendors
Date: 4 Dec 1994 22:05:14 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)


In article <telecom14.434.9@eecs.nwu.edu>, ebrouwer@netcom.com (Ernest
Brouwer) writes:

Try STA (I believe it is Systems Technology Associates) in Sterling,
VA.  Their entire product line (channel banks and signalling 
converters) 
is aimed at the export market.


Prakash Thatte
Prime Performance Technologies, Inc.

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

From: russb@xmission.com (russb)
Subject: Re: Looking for E1 Vendors
Date: 5 Dec 1994 03:41:06 -0700
Organization: XMission Public Access Internet (801-539-0900)


There are two companies out three companies that I'm aware of that 
have 
E1 CSU/DSUs....1) Larscom (405) 988-6600; Split T E1 Version  2) 
Digital 
Link (408) 745-6200; Encore DL200 E1 and 3) ADC Kentrox (503) 643-
1681; 
Datasmart E1 ICSU.

My company, Txport Inc., is one of those "next year" companies.  T1/EI 
framer-deframer chips are becoming widely available, therefore, you 
should have a broad choice of manufactures over the next 6 - 9 months.


Russ Bryant russb@xmission.com   Txport Inc.

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

From: writchie@gate.net
Subject: Re: Meaning of Line Build Out on CSU
Date: 5 Dec 1994 18:34:15 GMT
Reply-To: writchie@gate.net


In <telecom14.434.4@eecs.nwu.edu>, bioengr@taz.scs.ag.gov (Dennis E.
Miyoshi) writes:

> Hello.  I hate to ask such a simple question but, I am to the point 
of
> total confusion.  I am in the process of connecting two TyLink 
ONS150
> CSUs.  After several attempts at getting the CSUs to sync I was
> successful.  However, my routers seem to be confused.  The last
> setting that I have is the LBO.  The manuals state that this must be
> specified by the carrier.  

> My two questions are: 

> 1.  What is the meaning of the LBO?  
> 2.  What would the results be if the LBO is set to the wrong dB 
level?

LBO refers to Line Build Out. The original design of the T1 system
used repeaters at nominal 6000 foot intervals. The loss through the
cable is on the order of 31db at 772khz (the fundamental for T1).
Early repeaters were designed to work with signals with dynamic range
of only +-4db. If the interval was less than 6000 feet, it was
necessary to provide the effect of a cable section with a LBO. Modern
repeaters incorporate ALBO (Automatic Line Build Out) circuitry which
automatically provides the proper buildout over a typical 35db dynamic
range.

FCC Part 68 requires CPE to provide a selectable LBO on the Output (to
the network) side for 0db, 7.5db, or 15db, of equivalent cable loss.
The required LBO is specified by the telephone company at install. It
is normally labelled at the CPE/Network Demarcation where the RJ-48C
is provided.

Whether an incorrect setting will cause problems depends on the span
length and whether ALBO are used in the repeaters. This is strictly
the TELCO's concern. You provide the LBO that they specify.

It wasn't clear in your post whether you are connecting two CSU's back
to back or through a TELCO provided T1 span. If back to back use 15db
on both CSU's.  If through a TELCO span between two premises you
should go through the basic startup procedures to verify each span
CPE/TELCO and then end to end. Most telco have a channel unit at your
prem that they can loop back to test the span to each premise from the
CO. They can also loopback your CSU to verify the span to that point.
If both check out, there can be a problem with equipment for both
spans not being the same format (B8ZS/AMI). If the two spans are
connected by a DACS in the CO then you must loop time your routers
from the span. If your two prems are directly connected, then 1 or
both of your routers must clock the other. At most one can be loop
timed. Most likely you have a clocking or AMI/B8ZS problem since these
are the most common.

Hope the above helps. Describe your configuration in better detail and
you will probably get a more useful answer.


Wally Ritchie   Ft. Lauderdale, Florida  

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

From: shawnlg@netcom.com (Shawn Gordhamer)
Subject: Re: 911 From Unactivated Cell Phone?
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 
guest)
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 1994 00:36:53 GMT


You can get used deactivated cellular phones for about $100.  Lots of
people upgrade their cellular phones and need to dump their old one.
It was cheaper for me to switch cellular companies and get a new phone
than to give my phone back to my old company and get a discounted new
one.  So I sold my old one for $150.  I've seen older ones for $100 in
pawn shops.


Shawn Gordhamer    shawnlg@netcom.com

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

From: jlundgre@kn.PacBell.COM (John Lundgren)
Subject: Re: T3 or T1 Demux'd to RS-232 or TCP/IP?


Date: 5 Dec 1994 01:45:05 GMT
Organization: Pacific Bell Knowledge Network


Mark Silbernagel (marks@pacifier.com) wrote:

> I am interested in your opinion on how to best manage a point-of-
sale
> card swipe application. The plan calls for ~4000 sites, each having
> ~10 devices. At any given moment in the day, they expect about 700
> calls to be 'in progress'. Each device is one of those small boxes 
you
> see at the store which calls and authorizes card transactions.

> The idea of being able to demux a T1 (or T3!) into serial ports ... 
or
> better still a TCP/IP stream, is appealing. The data will then be
> managed by a UNIX box or boxes.

I can't figure why you would want to divide the bitstream up into
RS-232 low speeds, because they would be separate and not a network.
If you want RS-232 ports, just buy the Unix box with a bunch of them.
Then they would plug into terminal adapters and these would be plugged
into the demuxed parts of the T-1 bitstream.  The phone company would
furnish the hunting feature so that the next available line would be
connected.

If this sounds a bit complicated, maybe it would be best to keep away
from connecting a bitstream directly to the phone company. Just have 
them
install 'pair gain' equipment to your site.  The T-1 line(s) are
broken down to individual regular phone lines, which then get
connected to regular modems.  This would be economical if the modems
are inexpensive.

The Unix boxes I've seen lately have an AUI port on them and just plug 
into an Ethernet network.  You then plug it into the gateway and that 
connects by V.35 cable to your T-1.  This T-1 is a single point-to-
point 
bitstream from another single location somewhere.  It's not a 24 phone 
line bitstream.

Our phone company reps gave us help and info on our T-1 lines.  Your 
installation seems to be big enough for them to be willing to bend 
over 
backwards and give you some advice.


    John Lundgren - Elec Tech - Info Tech Svcs
    Rancho Santiago Community College District
    17th St. at Bristol \ Santa Ana, CA 92706 
jlundgre@pop.rancho.cc.ca.us\jlundgr@eis.calstate.edu

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

From: rlvd_cif@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Robert Levandowski)
Subject: Re: Rochester Telephone's Open Market Plan
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 94 03:59:40 GMT


In <telecom14.430.8@eecs.nwu.edu> Eli.Mantel@launchpad.unc.edu (Eli
Mantel) writes:

> In article <telecom14.427.11@eecs.nwu.edu> Prakash Hariramani 
<ph2k+@andrew.
> cmu.edu> writes:

>> I am looking for an official copy of Rochester Telephone's Open 
Market
>> Plan, i.e. the one approved by the P.U.C.  I would appreciate it if
>> any one could tell me how to get one.

The pamphlet that came with my last RochTel bill offers the phone
number 1-800-477-9371 as an automated information number on the Open
Market Plan (hereafter OMP). The RochTel phone book lists 716-777-1000
as "General Information about Rochester Telephone."

> Isn't this the plan where Rochester Telephone proposed that 
everybody
> would still get their dial tone from them, but there would be 
resellers 
> (aggregators) competing to sell that product?

> I suppose under this plan, customers would be offered a greater
> variety of calling plans, some perhaps would be message unit plans
> with a low monthly fee, others would be flat rates, perhaps some 
would
> have extended calling areas, maybe even with special deals for
> selecting their preferred IXC.

Here's an overview of OMP as I understand it:

The current Rochester Telephone Corporation will be renamed Frontier 
Corp.

The physical network will be owned and handled by Rotelcom Network
System, a division of Rochester Telephone, owned by Frontier Corp.
Rotelcom will sell access to its network to all comers.

State-regulated telephone service over the Rotelcom network will be
provided by "Rochester Telephone". RochTel will also provide directory
and 911 service.

"Competitive" local phone service over Rotelcom will be offered by
"Frontier Communications".  Frontier will provide the 'dialtone' as
well as services such as call waiting, call forwarding, Centrex, voice
mail, etc.

RochesterTel Mobile and RCI Long Distance will be owned by Frontier 
Corp.

The OMP brochure claims that the benefits include: a seven-year rate
freeze; rates decreasing due to competition for local service; a
phase-out of touch- tone charges; cheaper business rates; and a 27%
decrease in long-distance and cellular access charges.

I'd agree that it sounds like a swift way for RochTel to get a cut of
all the competition, except for one wildcard. As of this summer,
Greater Rochester Cablevision finished rewiring its entire
distribution network with fiber-optic cable.  GRC has announced its
intention to use its own fiber network to provide local phone service,
INDEPENDENT of the Rotelcom network.  The two networks will be linked
so that you won't notice a difference between networks -- just dial as
usual -- but GRC won't have to buy your physical connection to their
switch from Rotelcom.  Rochester will actually have two phone networks
in operation, or so the theory goes. This caused some consternation
for RochTel, from my understanding, but the OMP as it was approved
will let GRC go ahead with their plan.

Personally, I like RochTel's service as a whole.  It beats the hell
out of NYNEX.  They also seem to be a bit more on the ball than
SNET -- my parents live in Connecticut.  My only recent gripe with 
them
was their decision to force RochTel calling card users to use RCI Long
Distance to make LD calls. (RCI is a division of RochTel.)  However
since my post to this group about that announcement, I noticed a
roughly 4x4 advertisement buried in the local newspaper: RochTel is
suspending their plans to force the use of RCI (and incidentally
prevent use of 10xxx codes etc. with a RochTel card) indefinitely.  --


Rob Levandowski
Computer Interest Floor associate / University of Rochester
macwhiz@cif.rochester.edu

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

Date: Mon, 5 Dec 94 12:57 EST
From: Lynn Betts <0004574792@mcimail.com>
Subject: Re: MCI's Announcement


SethB777@aol.com wrote:

> Indeed, all IXCs must pay fairly substantial "local access" or the 
like
> charges; that is, I believe, one of the main reasons MCI for example
> is moving to offer it's own local services in major cities in the 
near
> future.

> But it raises the qeustion, how can a new phone company justify the
> infrastructure expense of trying to compete with embedded networks 
of
> LECs by installing their own network?  Or can they only "win" in
> metropolitan areas where fiber is cheaper to install and garner
> massive amounts of business customers?  Any thoughts?

A bit of info on MCI's situation:

In about 1988 or 89 MCI purchased the "downtown" cable facilities and
rights-of-way from Western Union that was used for its telegraph/telex
network (as well as long distance and packet-switched services).  This
included rights and facilities for a dozen or so of the largest cities
in the U.S., with wiring directly into all principal buildings.  Until
recently, however, neither the quality of the facilities nor the 
regula-
tory environment were conducive to their activation for competing 
local 
dialtone.

I am with MCI and formerly with Western Union.

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

From: primeperf@aol.com (Prime perf)
Subject: Re: Exchange Voice-Mail
Date: 4 Dec 1994 22:15:22 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)


In article <telecom14.434.15@eecs.nwu.edu>, Kristoff BONNE
<kbonne@nx.rtt.rtt.be> writes:

> There is an industry standard (not international as in CCITT) voice
> mail system interchange protocol (AMIS).

Voice mail to E-mail interchange has not been standardized although
several vendors including AVT and VMX provide a desktop connection
over a local area network that presents the list waiting messages in a
format similar to most E-Mail systems. AVT allows the subscriber to
hear a E-Mail message (you have to listen very carefully as the
text-to-speech is less than perfect). This is useful specially if you
are away from the office and are expecting an important E-Mail. You
can then have the E-Mail message FAXed to you.


Prakash Thatte    Prime Performance Technologies, Inc.  (703) 318-0800

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

End of TELECOM Digest V14 #436
******************************

                                                     
