TELECOM Digest     Tue, 17 Jan 95 13:24:00 CST    Volume 15 : Issue 35

Inside This Issue:                          Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Legal Problem Due to Modified Radio (Alan Boritz)
    Re: Legal Problem Due to Modified Radio (Michael P. Deignan)
    Re: Data Over CB? (John Lundgren)
    Re: Data Over CB? (Bill Mayhew)
    Re: Would You Believe More Rain on the Way? (John Lundgren)
    Re: Would You Believe More Rain on the Way? (Bruce Roberts)
    Long Distance Blocking, was Re: Old Rotary Service Question (D. 
Burstein)
    Payphones Rejecting AT&T LD (Chris Labatt-Simon)
    Privately Owned Cables on Public Utility Poles (Mark Fletcher)
    CallerID and ANI (John W. Barrus)
    How Many SONET/SDH Network Terminations? (Roger Atkinson)
    Need Info on Two-Line, Digital Answering Devices (Richard Jay 
Solomon)
    Is the Pentium Bug Really That Bugging? (Anthony D'Auria)
    ATM Based PBX (Alex Zacharov)

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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Legal Problem Due to Modified Radio
From: drharry!aboritz@uunet.uu.net (Alan Boritz)
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 95 07:56:30 EST
Organization: Harry's Place - Mahwah NJ - +1 201 934 0861


mudaw@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (David A. Webb) writes:

> An officer found my 2 meter amateur transceiver, turned it on, and
> discovered it could transmit on frequencies licensed to the local
> county police.  I was not in my room during the time of the search,
> so I had no control over its operation.  

> The radio was confiscated, and I had to defend myself in front of
> the school board.  The school did not find me in violation of any
> rules because I had a statement from a county officer who is also
> a Ham.  The officer wrote he knew my radio was legal for me to
> possess.  
 ...
> The States attorney had three witnesses.  

> Witness #1 was the university officer who stated under oath that he
> used the radio to transmit on county frequencies to verify the
> modifications.  He also stated in his professional capacity that my
> radio is illegally modified, and therefor illegal to possess.  He
> further stated that he called the FCC and was told my radio is 
illegal
> to possess.

The State's first witness lied.  It's not illegal to be in possession 
of a
radio transmitter, however it may be illegal to use it, depending upon 
the
frequency and location.

> Witness #2 was the county sheriff.  He indicated in his professional
> capacity that my radio was illegal to own.  He also voiced
> understandable concern for my capability to interfere with his
> frequencies.

The State's second witness has no "professional capacity" in Federal
radio regulation.  It takes no "professional capacity" to press a
push-to-talk switch.

> Witness #3 was a person who services amateur equipment.  He stated
> that my radio is type accepted, and therefor it is illegal to 
modify.
> Illegal modification therefor makes my radio illegal to possess.

The State's third witness is an incompetent.  Type acceptance is not
required for amateur radio equipment.  You can purchase any radio
equipment you like (type accepted or not), and modify it to your
heart's content, and operate it within the legal limits of amateur
radio service.  The only time such equipment becomes "illegal" is when
you exceed the legal operating parameter limits for your selected
frequency, or emit spurious emissions that affect other licensed
services, while OPERATING it.

And contrary to Pat Townson's claim, it is NOT illegal to operate 
(formerly) 
type accepted equipment, assuming you are properly licensed for it's
ultimate use.  This precise issue came up several times while I in
charge of radio for the City of New York, Dept. of General Services.

One time was when a fairly large NYC radio service organization (not
Motorola) who was low-bidder on a contract to change operating 
frequencies 
of a few hundred portable radios for a City agency, opened up the
sealed channel elements and replaced crystals, rather than supplying
new sealed channel elements.  The crystals were unreliable and the
channel elements were destroyed.  By modifying the channel elements,
the service shop voided the type acceptance on the radios.

Another time was when an incompetent servicer did extensive 
modifications 
to another Agency's base station, resulting in interference to several
nearby police departments.  The modifications voided the type 
acceptance, 
and the equipment had to be replaced.

I discussed the issue with an FCC inspector, who was inspecting the
base station.  While he agreed that the modifications voided the type
acceptance of the equipment, there was no regulation that forbade
their use, as long as their operating parameters were within the
rules, and that the equipment displayed their (former) type acceptance
in the form of a label on the outside of the equipment.  There was no
regulation that provided for penalties against the person who modifies
such equipment.  However, there were specific penalties against the
licensee who operated equipment without the required labels or with
operating parameters outside of the licensed parameters or
interference standards in the rules.

> The University officer must have called the field office in Chicago,
> because when I called there, I was also told my radio is illegal to
> possess.

Hopefully, Dave Popkin (formerly with FCC/NYFOB) doesn't have any 
relatives
working there. <g>

He must have spoken with a secretary or a clerk, since his statement 
just
isn't true.

> Witness #3 was wrong about the type acceptance.  Amateur equipment
> transmitters are not type accepted.  Its internal receiver it 
accepted
> to receive everything it was modified to receive.

It could also have been built to work on those frequencies.  I've got
amateur radio equipment that includes the 11 meter band (now known as
CB).  It hasn't been illegal to possess this particular equipment for
35 years, though it may be illegal to operate it on frequencies within
that band, depending upon operating parameters.  I also own a
synthesized radio that transmits and receives on Federal and amateur
frequencies, as well as Private Radio bureau UHF frequencies.  It's
never been illegal to purchase or own this particular radio, since
it's type accepted and never modified (however it may be illegal to
operate it, depending upon the frequency).  The only time possession
of a "receiver" becomes illegal is in narrowly-defined circumstances
having to do with moving vehicles (just about every state has them).

> I tried to submit the county officer/ham's statement, and the states
> attorney objected because the officer was not present for cross
> examination.

> Am I going to run into the same trouble when I try to submit the
> statement from the Private Radio Division of the FCC?

Absolutely you will.  You're dealing with anal-retentive law 
enforcement 
officials who appear to be using whatever means they can find to slam
your ass in jail, and for issues that are simply out of their 
jurisdiction.  
Keep in mind that none of these people have any reason to do ANYTHING
for you.  The State's got at least one "Wyatt Erp" who intends to nail
you for SOMETHING, if not for the only purpose of trying to save face.

> If so, how can I get around this obstacle?

Retain competent counsel, familiar with communications law, who can't 
be
"bought-off."  And have you contacted the ARRL?

> Although the university police violated FCC rules, it occurred over 
a
> year ago, and therefor time limits on me reporting them has expired.

There are no "time limits" on reporting such incidents, but, in 
general, 
anything that an FCC inspector can't verify by himself won't go very 
far.

However, don't be so sure that they are not now violating the rules in
some capacity.  Does the University possess a valid FCC license for 
their 
two-way radio system?  Are they licensed for all of the frequencies 
they use?
Do they own and operate any radar vehicular speed measuring devices? 
Have 
they notified the FCC of how many such devices they currently operate? 
If 
their license wasn't renewed on time, or if they're operating 
unlicensed base 
stations, this would be the perfect time to file a complaint with the 
FCC 
Field Office serving your area. <g>

> Neither the States Attorney, nor any of his witnesses, presented the
> judge with any law I *supposedly* violated.

> The judge ruled to NOT allow me to have my radio back UNLESS I paid
> to have it unmodified.  

> I filed a motion for the Judge to reconsider his ruling, which is
> scheduled for February 9.  

> The reason I have opted to do this on my own is that the radio isn't
> worth more than a few hundred bucks.  I am pursuing this on the
> principal.  My radio is legal for me to own, and I am tired of the
> harassment from university police.

Don't expect the judge to change his mind.  These arrogant morons seem
to feel that you'll give up trying to beat them at their own game.

You'll need to take this issue to Federal court to have the judge's, 
prose-
cutor's, and Sheriff's collective hands slapped.  All these issues 
deal with 
*Federal* law, not local or state law.

But before you do anything, get competent counsel, and don't agree to,
or sign, ANYTHING without advice.  When "Wyatt Erp" sees you getting
serious, expect harassment like you've never seen before.  They might
even try planting something on you, or in your room, to get you thrown
out of school, or thrown in jail.  You're going to embarass them, and
"Wyatt Erp" doesn't like to be embarassed.

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

From: md@pstc3.pstc.brown.edu (Michael P. Deignan)
Subject: Re: Legal Problem Due to Modified Radio
Date: 17 Jan 1995 15:05:06 GMT
Organization: Population Studies & Training Center


In article <telecom15.31.5@eecs.nwu.edu>, David A. Webb 
<mudaw@uxa.ecn.bgu.
edu> wrote:

[Story of police confiscating ham gear and not returning it.]

This problem should be very simple to solve. Call the American Radio 
Relay 
League in Newington, CT (1-203-666-1541). Ask for the name of the ARRL
Legal liason in your area. Many of these attornies, also hams, act pro-
bono 
(for free) in cases like these.

Unfortunately, the story you describe is becoming more and more the 
norm 
today. Local police officers, ignorant of anything except how to hand 
out 
traffic tickets at the local speed trap, take it upon themselves to be 
"experts" in federal law. They see ham radios or any scanner as a 
"burglar" 
tool (why would any normal citizen want to listen to police 
frequencies, 
after all?)  and confiscate it for the good of humanity. You Jeffrey 
Dahmer,
you.

Its not illegal to possess a radio capable of transmitting on any
frequency. It is illegal to use it on that frequency. And, not even to
mention the fact that, unless it was a federal judge, the judge who
ordered you to pay to have it modified back to its original state has
no jurisdiction over the matter, such a motion on the part of any
court is asinine. What next? Ordering you to only put 1/4 tank of gas
in your car because it "might" be used as a getaway car at a bank 
robbery?
Tell you to have all your steak knives dulled because you might stab
someone?

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

From: jlundgre@kn.PacBell.COM (John Lundgren)
Subject: Re: Data Over CB?
Date: 16 Jan 1995 23:21:19 GMT
Organization: Pacific Bell Knowledge Network


Sharpened Software (sharpen@chinook.halcyon.com) wrote:

> Are there any FCC regs concerning the type of information broadcast
> over the "Citizen's Band?"  In short, can I send data over CB?

TELECOM Digest Editor noted in reply:

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: First off, you may not 'broadcast' 
over
> CB. The Crazy Band is intended, by FCC regulations for *two-way*
> personal communications. 'Broadcast' by definition is a one-way
> transmission intended specifically in a non-personal way for a large
> number of listeners. Is another site going to be responding to you 
in
> kind, with data back to you?

> Anyway, I think all this is very academic. Good luck if you want to 
try
> it. I presume the place you are broadcasting -- ooops!, 
communicating
> with is not more than 75-100 yards away. More than that and some 
Good
> Buddy will walk all over you. Its bad enough when two persons in 
actual
> voice communication have to ask each other to repeat themselves over
> and over because some local yokels are running way over the legal 
power
> limit. (So then you run extra power in order to get past the 
interference
> and he cranks his up a little more, etc.) Here in the Chicago area 
there
> are times and places the CB/eleven meter airwaves are solid 
heterodyne
> as the guys try to shove each other off the air. In the Crazy Band, 
no
> matter how loud your radio is; no matter how much power you put out 
or
> how well you are modulated, there is always someone out there whose
> radio is louder and has more power. They'll be glad to demonstrate 
it,
> you don't have to take their word for it. Just ask; they'll turn on 
> their linear amplifiers and their reverberation units wired in 
series
> with their power microphones and Break rake rake rake rake for a 
> Radio Check heck heck heck heck heck heck, and tell two old ladies 
with
> little handheld units seventy five miles away to 'back it down out 
there
> and give someone else a crack at it ..."  :)  I'd love to see the 
data
> before you send it, and after the other end gets it ... if it gets 
there
> at all.  PAT]

I love that. It has so much truth to it, and we on the coasts can 
often hear 
the people in the south and midwest trying to get thru when the skip 
is good.

The nice thing about using CB for data is that the TNC or packet 
adapter never
gets frustrated and gives up trying to get through.  Not so for 
humans.  It 
would be a good way to go, because the heavy-fisted and long winded 
breakers 
out there can't keep talking forever, however implausible that may 
seem.  But 
it *is* illegal.


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\jlundgre@kn.pacbell.com


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Hey, don't you think we here in the 
Chicago
area don't hear the California guys working skip in the early morning 
hours
every day? At four or five o'clock in the morning on a summer day the 
guys
here are trying to talk to people in the UK. Around seven or so they 
start
screaming at California and the rest of the west coast.

One CB'er gets even:  This is a true story. A fellow using the handle-
name
'Doctor Witch' at times and 'Witch Doctor' at other times in Chicago, 
in a
neighborhood known for its large population of Appalachian Mountain 
folks
(I could say 'hillbillies' but that would be rude) was known to be a 
very
loud, very obnoxious guy on the radio. His antenna sat on top of a 
nine-
story apartment building, on a twenty foot mast which was mounted on 
the
roof. With a two-thousand watt linear amplifier ('only used when I 
need
it to get out', he would always claim), this guy could be heard all 
over
Chicago to say the least, and usually half of the United States as 
well.
If you did not use a CB radio, then you could hear him on Channel 2 on 
the television; that's how bad his harmonics could get sometimes.

He was prone to cussing a lot, but he was also very territorial, and 
since
he claimed Channel 16 (27.155 megs) as his private domain, generally 
no one 
else was bothered too much by him; they just stayed off Channel 16 
rather
than put up with his abuse. One day someone on Channel 16 got him 
riled up 
over something. Witch Doctor had Nazi sympathies (if he was not 
actually a
member of the bunch here known as the 'American Nazi Party') so it did 
not
take a lot to get him started; hearing a black person on 'his' channel 
was
a good reason for him to let loose. This day was no exception, and a 
black
guy going on that frequency to get a radio check brought a stream of
obscenities and racial slurs from the good Doctor Witch. 

But this time someone was waiting for him ... another CB'er had hooked 
up
a tape recorder with a mobious (endless) loop cassette; the kind you 
use
in telephone answering machines ... one of the long, 90 second tapes. 
When
Doctor Witch started, this guy hit that record button and started 
making a
nice, juicy 90 second recording of it all. Did he take it to the FCC? 
No ...
a lot of good that would have done ... instead, once he had that 
minute and
a half of tape, he *reversed* the process and started playing it back 
out
over the air on the same channel, knowing the Doctor was still 
listening.
Played back anonymously of course; just key up and play it.

 -- Turn on linear amp; plug tape player output into microphone jack; 
key
    up and start playing the recording back out over the air --

Third person: Hey Witch Doctor, you said all that already!

Doctor Witch: Why, #$$%@#m some &$$#@* tape recorded me!

The tape is allowed to just cycle over and over again, repeating for
everyone what the Witch Doctor had said about blacks and jews; all the
cursing and comments about your mother; you name it. Soon the 
frequency 


is in an uproar since the black guy who went there originally has now
returned with his buddies on their CB's. The endless loop tape has
repeated itself over the air for the umpteenth time while the original
speaker is trying to explain yes, he said it once but he did not say
it a dozen more times.

Leaving the folks to have a good time on their own, the CB'er with the
tape recording goes around to all the other channels and plays it at
least once on each of them. After playing the tape, he remains silent
and as to be expected, a typical response:

"Witch Doctor, take it back to your own channel! Don't come over here 
and
start that garbage while my wife and her friends are talking." But 
when Witch
Doctor -- or more correctly, the pre-recorded tape -- failed to 
respond, 
a few simply assumed he went back to 'his channel' so they went there 
also
to tell him off. Soon people from other channels are coming onto 
Channel 16
angrily telling him off; he tries to explain it was *not* him ... 

"What's the idea of coming over to channel 31 and talking that way to 
my 
wife?"

"It wasn't me!"

"Well who was it then?"

"It was a recording of me ... "

"In other words, it was you ..."

"Well no, it was not me, it was a recording of me ..."

"What do you mean, a recording of you? What is this, summertime and
re-runs of the best of Doctor Witch?"

 ... and on it went, all afternoon and into the evening. Black guys in 
other
parts of the city, on other channels, hear about the abuse a brother 
received
on channel 16 from 'one of those white trash hillbillies in Uptown' 
and they
tune in to give their responses. This would have been about 1979-80.   
PAT]

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

From: wtm@uhura.neoucom.edu (Bill Mayhew)
Subject: Re: Data Over CB?
Organization: Northeastern Ohio Universities College of Medicine
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 1995 00:40:08 GMT


If I recollect correctly, CB citizen's radio service is governed by
part 15 chapter J.  Three classes of serivce: A, B and C are defined.
Class A is intended as a commercial service.  UHF handie-talkies are
an example.  Class B is the familiar 40 channel good buddy trucker
radio in the ~27 MHz range.  Class C is for remote control with
allocations in the 27 and 72 MHz ranges.

Class C has to compete with interference in the 27 MHz band from
poorly maintained and illegal class B radios.  In the 72 MHz band,
class C has to put up with old fashioned garage door systems.  Newer
garage doors are on 390 MHz.

So, if your "data" is for remote controlling something, you might be
able to get away with a class C license.  You have to accept the
interference you get from the other services.  You can *not* transmit
text data with a class C license, i.e. forget using a class C
license to remotely read netnews on a terminal via a radio link.
There is some room for interpretation in terms of remote control: you
could concievably use PCM ASCII codes such as L and R to determine
whether a robot goes left or right.  Class C only permits RF
continusous carrier transmissions (of arbitrary duration).  Model
planes are typically controlled by pulse position modulation where a
series of short CW pulses are offset to various degrees in time
windows followin a long reference pulse.  AM and FM are *NOT*
permitted.

Class A and B permit only speech emissions.

There is a shared allocation in the 902-928 MHz region where the
gov't, RADAR, commercial serice, codless phones, hams, etc.  coexist.
Provided you maintain radiated power limits, you could legally
construct an experimental data device for this band, but you have to
tolerate interference from the priority users and have to generate no
interference of your own.  I don't have my regs here, so you'll have
to look up the section of part 15 governing this.


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

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

From: jlundgre@kn.PacBell.COM (John Lundgren)
Subject: Re: Would You Believe More Rain on the Way?
Date: 17 Jan 1995 13:08:13 GMT
Organization: Pacific Bell Knowledge Network


TELECOM Digest Editor (telecom@eecs.nwu.edu) wrote:

> Listening to WNIB on the radio this Saturday morning as I work on
> this issue ... the eight o'clock news says 'up to six more inches
> of rain due in California throughout the weekend ... more 
evacuations
> probably will be required ...'

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

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

Glub glub.

Actually, other than getting a little wet, I haven't seen much in the
way of damage.  I had to drive home in knee-deep water last week
because it came down too fast to run off.  It took me about an hour
and a half to go seven miles; usually it takes 25 to 30 minutes, even 
in
rush hour.  Stupid drivers don't know about hydroplaning, yet.

The only damage I've seen in our part of town is where the freeways
are being widened, and there is construction going on.  There's just a
lot of muddy runoff.  The nice thing is that there isn't much smog in
the air.  But that doesn't last long.

The funny thing is that of the 1500 plus lines from the CO that I end
up troubleshooting, I haven't had a single line called in because of
the rain.  We have had a complaint from one user on campus that might
be because of water in our interbuilding cabling, but I'm not sure.
This week the faculty comes back from semester break, so I expect to
hear complaints from some about their phones.


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\jlundgre@kn.pacbell.com

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

From: bruce.roberts@greatesc.com (Bruce Roberts)
Subject: Re: Would You Believe More Rain on the Way?
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 1995 07:31:00 GMT
Organization: The Great Escape - Gardena, CA - (310) 676-3534


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

Ya know, now that you mention it, that IS what we do here in "sunny"
California.  <g>

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

Oh yes.  I haven't heard of any flooded central offices but I'll bet
it happened up North.  Had a chat at breakfast with some GTE field
crews and they said there was more overtime than they knew what to do
with.  Just locally they had a 900 pair cable (not mine, thank
goodness) get real wet and had to pull and splice a section.  We
ordered a couple of new lines at work and Pac Bell called to say there
will be a delay.  All the installers are now on field crew duty and
they don't know when they'll be able to get out circuits turned up.
Some of this happens whenever we get rain but this time is a LOT
worse.  Stay dry!


TTFN 

Bruce Roberts, bruce.roberts@greatesc.com

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

From: dannyb@panix.com (danny burstein)
Subject: Long Distance Blocking, was Re: Old Rotary Service Question
Date: 17 Jan 1995 09:50:26 -0500


In <telecom15.31.6@eecs.nwu.edu> Bill Parrish 
<bparrish@bp700.rose.hp.com> 
writes:

> In the early 70s, I went to UCSB, and we were serviced by GTE in the
> dorms.  Occasionaly folks would decide to "share" a phone connection
> by making their own patches into terminal cabinets ....

> But there was a second funny thing about these "extensions" that was
> rather odd ... you sometimes could not make long distance calls  on
> them ...  If I recall right, there was some sort of a movable pin on 
the 
> back of the dial that could be put into one of several (three?) 
> positions, and if you moved the pin, it would enable the long-
distance 
> capability.  Could someone >explain how that worked?

There are lots of tricks used (or which were used) by Telcos to 
restrict 
long distance call access. The simplest involved putting a diode in 
line 
with the phone line.

In many central offices, there would be a current reversal as a toll
call would go through the connection process. Sometimes this was only
for a fraction of a second, othertimes for the remaining duration of
the call.  Putting a diode in the line would break the current as this
occurred, thus putting the phone back "on hook" and killing the 
connection.

I personally did this to my phone line when I was in dormitory type
situation and other people had occassional (legit) access to my phone
(i.e. Danny, could I use your phone, here's a dime ...).

You still see this current reversal on many poorly designed coin 
phones.  
Far too often, when you call a number, you'll find the touch tone pad
has gone dead on you. (Has to do with very ancient history when touch
tone pads required the phones to be wired in one direction).

BTW, some additional "features" abotu using the diode trick:

a) Volume of the phone ringer would be cut by about a third. Remember 
that it is AC and you're blocking one direction of current.

b) There was often also a current reversal when calling the operator
or some other telco numbers. But local calls would go through ok.

c) of course I would never have done this, but if you put the diode on
a "friend's" phone line it would have been perhaps weeks before they
noticed anything was wrong (remember local calls went through ok). And
a cursory telco check of their phone linewould find nothing wrong (at
least the way they'd do these things "back then"), and they would go
crazy complaining back and forth and not getting anywhere.


dannyb@panix.com (or dburstein@mcimail.com)

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

From: labatt@vbh.com (Chris Labatt-Simon)
Subject: Payphones Rejecting AT&T LD
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 95 03:08:16 EST
Organization: D&D Consulting


Howdy all -

I was driving down 22 in New York the other day towards Millerton, NY
and stopped to make a phone call at a payphone.  When I tried to dial
using my AT&T calling card the phone service wouldn't take it.  Then I
tried 10ATT0 and it still wouldn't go through.  Finally, I tried
1-800-CALL-ATT and the call didn't go through.  Drove down another
five miles to another payphone.  Same company, same problem.  I tried
calling the 800 number for the company who owns the phone, and had to
pay $0.25 for the 800 call.  Their offices were closed.

I thought this was illegal?  If it is, does anyone have a number I can
call to stop this, as I often drive through this area ...


Thank,

Chris Labatt-Simon                       Internet: labatt@disaster.com 
Design & Disaster Recovery Consulting              pribik@rpi.edu
Albany, New York                              CIS: 73542,2601 
PHONE: (518) 495-5474                              FAX: (518) 786-6539 
Subscribe to the Lotus Notes Mailing List - e-mail me for info.... 
For info on D&D Consulting, send e-mail to info@disaster.com....


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: What you need is a supply of our COCOT
'out of compliance' stickers. Review this file in the Telecom Archives
at lcs.mit.edu.  The idea is, when you find a phone which is not 
working
correctly (we assume the owner intended for it to operate in a legal 
way
but somehow the programming got messed up <grin>) then it is courteous 
to
place an 'out of order' sticker across the coin slot so no one else 
will
accidentally lose money in it ... <grin> .... and if someone removes 
the
out of order sticker without actually repairing the phone, then put a 
new
sticker on it, and just keep doing so. See the 'cocot' sub-directory 
in
the archives.   PAT]

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

Date: Tue, 17 Jan 1995 07:18:37 -0800
From: mfletch@ix.netcom.com (Mark Fletcher)
Subject: Privately Owned Cables on Public Utility Poles


I am the Communications Manager at a large Northeastern resort where
my department maintains a Northern Telcom Meridian Option 71 with two
Meridian Option 11's in remote sites. Here is my dilemma:

Currently we lease about 100 pairs from the local RBOC at a cost of
$15.50 each per month. These lines service locations about two miles
apart down a State Highway, all in one municipality, and are used to
connect the remote sitches.

I have been told that we can apply to the local municipality for a
utility franchise, and then place our own cables on existing poles. At
our current cost of $18,000.00 annually for special circuits, this
possibility is very attractive to us.

If anyone has information about the process, or could point me to any
pertinant legal documents on the subject, I would be very greatful.

Please reply via direct e-mail to mfletch@ix.netcom.com. I will post 
my 
findings and a summary for all interested.


Thanks folks!

<switch hook>

By the way if any one is interested in discussing our database used to 
maintain our on property cable pairs, just leave me a note at the 
above 
e-mail address.

<click>

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

From: barrus@merl.com (John W. Barrus)
Subject: CallerID and ANI
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 1995 09:01:08 -0500
Organization: Mitsubishi Electric Research Labs
Reply-To: barrus@merl.com


My wife sometimes returns calls to mental health patients when they
phone an emergency number.  When CallerID was started in our area, we
called and specifically asked to have line blocking put on our line
(we have to press something like *67 to turn on CallerID on outgoing
calls.)  We don't want anyone calling my wife back after she helps
them ou.  She has been harrassed before, but only indirectly through
the paging number, not to our home phone.

Two evenings ago, I called PC Connection from our phone and casually
asked if our number had come through when the customer assistant
answered our phone.  He then proceeded to recite our phone number to
me.  I did not (and never have) dialed the code to turn on CallerID.

Does this mean that our phone number is being transmitted, even when
the phone company says that it isn't?  Or do commercial enterprises
have a different system that always gets our phone number?  I assumed
that ANI and CallerID were both blocked with line blocking.

Is there an easy way to test whether or not line blocking is working
(I don't have any friends with CallerID boxes).

Any ideas?


John Barrus    Research Scientist    barrus@merl.com
Mitsubishi Electric Research Laboratories, Inc.  voice 1.617.621.7535
201 Broadway   Cambridge, MA 02139               fax 1.617.621.7550


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: If you dial an 800 number then the 
called
party gets your ID whether you like it or not. There is no way for you 
to
block this. Regards Caller-ID, it *should* be blocked as you requested
except I think on long distance calls you now need to do the *67 
whether
or not you have per-line blocking for local calls. I am not even 
certain
if you can block CID on interstate long distance any longer after the 
most
recent FCC rulings.   PAT]

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

From: rogera@cts.com (Roger Atkinson)
Subject: How Many SONET/SDH Network Terminations?
Organization: R. F. Atkinson & Co.
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 1995 01:34:29 GMT


Does anybody have some notion of how many SONET network terminations
are presently in service in the US and Canada?  SONET/SDH worldwide?
By 'network termination' I mean a connection to a public SONET/SDH
network at a customer premise, or a connection between networks,
public or private.

More important question(s): How many such connections will be in use
in the next three to five years, or how many will be installed each
year, three to five years from now?

We are trying to decide whether to jump on the bandwagon.  Educated
guesses will be greatly appreciated.


Thanks for your help,  

Roger Atkinson

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

Date: Tue, 17 Jan 1995 12:22:23 -0500
From: rjs@farnsworth.mit.edu (Richard Jay Solomon)
Subject: Need Info on Two-Line, Digital Answering Devices With ANI


Has anyone tested or reviewed the Friday machine by Bogen or AT&T's
new two-line digital answering machine? Will they respond to ANI like
the NTI device mentioned in TELECOM Digest?


Richard Solomon   MIT Research Program on Communications Policy

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

Date: Tue, 17 Jan 1995 11:37:35 EST
From: Anthony D'Auria <dauriaa@voyager.bxscience.edu>


Subject: Is the Pentium Bug Really That Bugging?


Hi! My name is Anthony D'Auria and I own a P90 super loaded desktop. I
use it practically every day for the net and business. I haven't
experienced any trouble with the floating point calculations (not that
I use them). I think that IBM is making a big deal of a little thing.
People with Pentiums start panicking, thinking that their system is
all messed up.  For an average user, it doesn't seem to fearsome, but
if you have some heavy duty stuff to do, it can really do some damage.

Question: Does this floating point calculation bug affect system
performance? Is that why some Pentiums bottleneck? What and where
should a person contact to get the messed up chip replaced? Is it
actually worth it?

If you have any ideas, respond: dauriaa@voyager.bxscience.edu.


With regards,

Anthony D'Auria

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

From: alexz@tmx100.elex.co.il (Alex Zacharov)
Subject: ATM Based PBX
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 1995 15:33:21 GMT
Organization: Telrad Ltd.


    Has anybody heard about ATM-based SX-2000 Light PBX from Mitel,
that has been advertised in Telecommunications, November 1993? How can
I get more information about this product?

Please, send answer to: alexz@tmx100.elex.co.il.

Thanks.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #35
*****************************
