TELECOM Digest Tue, 16 Nov 93 12:25:00 CST Volume 13 : Issue 765 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: NPA 905 Not Universally Recognized (Mark Brader) Re: NPA 905 Not Universally Recognized (Paul Robinson) Re: NPA 905 Not Universally Recognized (Rick Blaiklock) Re: NPA 905 Not Universally Recognized (James Renals) Re: TDMA vs CDMA = Betamax vs VHS? (Alex Cena) Re: Do You Monitor Cellular Channels? (Jack Decker) Re: Do You Monitor Cellular Channels? (Michael D. Sullivan) Re: Do You Monitor Cellular Channels? (Alex Cena) Re: In the Matter of: Connecting to Kremvax.demos.su (Petri Helenius) Re: Wiring a New Home - Suggestions? (Rich Greenberg) Re: Wiring a New Home - Suggestions? (John Powell) Re: Wiring a New Town (David G. Cantor) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: msb@sq.com (Mark Brader) Subject: Re: NPA 905 Not Universally Recognized Organization: SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, Canada References: Date: Tue, 16 Nov 93 10:36:36 GMT >> Digest readers who are interested in testing 905 out could try to get >> Toronto weather information at +1 905 676.3066 to see if 905 will work >> (pre-recorded message). For greater clarity: Toronto is in 416. 676, however, is a Mississauga (or as Bell says, Malton) prefix; presumably it's the meteorological office at the Toronto international airport, which is in Mississauga. So it's in 905. Digression: the following dialogue was reported by a returning traveler at Canadian customs/immigration *at the airport* some years back. "Where do you live?" "Mississauga." "I asked you where you live, not what your name is." > It works from Brooklyn, N.Y., though the recording said it was nine > degrees out. Can that be right? It was in the 70s today in NYC! SEVENTIES?!! The all-time world record is only 58 degrees! Oh, right. Fahrenheit. Chuckle. Mark Brader SoftQuad Inc., Toronto utzoo!sq!msb, msb@sq.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1993 09:32:09 EST Reply-To: 0005066432@MCIMAIL.COM Subject: Re: NPA 905 Not Universally Recognized From: Paul Robinson Organization: Tansin A. Darcos & Company, Silver Spring, MD USA From a 301-585 number, 10288 1 905 676 3066 (ATT) and 10222 1 905 676 3066 (MCI) go through without any trouble. I suspect Sprint doesn't have enough trunks; the first three times I dialed 10333 1 905 676 3066 I got a busy signal. All three of them went to the recording for Toronto Weather. ------------------------------ From: ag258@Freenet.carleton.ca (Rick Blaiklock) Subject: Re: NPA 905 Not Universally Recognized Reply-To: ag258@Freenet.carleton.ca (Rick Blaiklock) Organization: The National Capital Freenet Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1993 22:00:17 GMT In a previous article, taranto@panix.com (James Taranto) says: > djcl@grin.io.org wrote: >> Digest readers who are interested in testing 905 out could try to get >> Toronto weather information at +1 905 676.3066 to see if 905 will work >> (pre-recorded message). I work in (905) area as well, and could >> provide the work number(s) on request. > It works from Brooklyn, N.Y., though the recording said it was nine > degrees out. Can that be right? It was in the 70s today in NYC! 9 degrees C(elcius) is approx 50 degrees F. PS: Did you know that only two countries in the world don't use the metric system? I'm told the other one is Liberia. Just a comment, no flames please. Rick Blaiklock ag258@freenet.carleton.ca Ottawa, Ontario, Canada [Moderator's Note: Actually we use some metric notation. We have 9 mm bullets for our weapons. :) My thanks to Mark Brader for passing along that chuckle, which he got from Dave Berry. PAT] ------------------------------ From: jrenals@balham.demon.co.uk (James Renals) Subject: Re: NPA 905 Not Universally Recognized Reply-To: jrenals@balham.demon.co.uk Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1993 19:54:40 GMT In article djcl@grin.io.org writes: > Digest readers who are interested in testing 905 out could try to get > Toronto weather information at +1 905 676.3066 to see if 905 will work > (pre-recorded message). I work in (905) area as well, and could > provide the work number(s) on request. Tried to dial the above number from the U.K., using BT and Mercury, and success fully got through on both occaisons. Interesting to think that foreign telecos are more up-to date than local ones :) James Renals jrenals@balham.demon.co.uk ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Nov 93 08:28:47 EST From: Alex Cena Subject: Re: TDMA vs CDMA = Betamax vs VHS? In Telecom Digest #761 Ed Casas (edc@ee.ubc.ca) wrote: > A fair comparison would have been between a second-generation TDMA > system (which could make use of many of the above techniques) and a > CDMA system. I think you would then see the capacity advantage for > CDMA eliminated. You should understand that a CDMA receiver starts > off with a major handicap -- its correlator cannot separate signals > anywhere near as well as a TDMA receiver's IF filter. You have to use > a lot of tricks to overcome that initial disadvantage. I believe Ameritech, which has tried the most recent generation of TDMA systems available, publicly stated the results of its TDMA trials in Chicago. Ameritech held three trials: TDMA vs CDMA Fall of 1992; TDMA only Jan/Feb 1993; and TDMA only in May/June. The final May/June test was held in order to allow vendors a chance to show off their latest generation of equipment. In fact, Ameritech issued a press release indicating TDMA was not ready for commercial deployment since its customers did not perceive any incremental value in the service over current analog. In a blind survey of 15 high-usage customers eight said TDMA was better than analog and six said it was worse. This compares to CDMA where most rated it as excellent or very good relative to analog. > To me (at least) the technical superiority of CDMA is far from proven. In my opinion, we still are in the second inning of this ball game. The score is 3 to 2 with US West New Vector, Pactel Cellular and Bell Atlantic Mobile Systems purchasing CDMA-based equipment, while Southwestern Bell Mobile Systems and McCaw opting for TDMA. It gets somewhat confusing in areas like Bay Area Cellular in San Francisco, which is equally owned by McCaw and Pactel. Since Bay Area Cellular is composed of Ericsson switches and radios, I'm counting it as a part of the McCaw vote. The ball game internationally is quite different since GSM seems to have quite a bit of momentum. Alex M. Cena acena@lehman.com ------------------------------ From: ao944@yfn.ysu.edu (Jack Decker) Subject: Re: Do You Monitor Cellular Channels? Date: 15 Nov 1993 18:37:20 GMT Organization: Youngstown State/Youngstown Free-Net On Sat Nov 13 23:45:32 1993, whs70@dancer.cc.bellcore.com (sohl,william h) wrote: >> [Moderator's Note: That's really something, to equate the laws >> pertaining to privacy in communications with the old (but still in >> force in about half the states in the USA) laws on sodomy. The latter >> are considered by many people to be an invasion of individual privacy, >> while the former are considered by many people to promote and protect >> individual privacy. In any event, they are all a bunch of worthless, >> unenforceable laws, eh? So what else is new in these United States? PAT] > Pat, when a law is unenforceable, it is both useless, and a waste of > time to even enact. Can you truly say that the ECPA has improved the > privacy of cellular? I doubt it. The ECPA is a "feel good" law with > no true impact. The politicos who passed can say ... "boy we feel good > about striking a blow for privacy" even though the blow has the impact > of a feather against a brick wall. Since listening to cellular isn't > something done in public (anymore than sodomy is) just how do you see > the ECPA helping communications privacy? Well, I have a fervent belief that unenforceable law is bad law, and that it causes people to lose respect for the law in general. The ECPA is particularly bad law precisely because it makes listening to cellular phone calls a felony, but it is virtually impossible to detect someone listening to a cellular phone call, so the law is generally unenforceable. However, think like a lawmaker for a moment. Assume that there are several undesirable outcomes that may occur when someone listens in on a cellular call. People's privacy may be violated. People may gain access to information they would otherwise not have had, that they can use to their financial (or other) advantage (for example, you might hear something about a famous person that could be sold to the press, or used to blackmail them, or to ruin a political career). The cellular telephone industry may lose money because potential users perceive that their calls are not private (which of course they aren't, but apparently many cellular users don't know that). If one considers these outcomes so undesirable that legislation is required, then it should legislate against these outcomes. In some cases, the necessary laws existed prior to the enactment of the ECPA (for example, laws making it illegal to reveal what you heard to a third party, or to use information you heard to your advantage). I think everything else that the ECPA might accomplish could have been achieved by banning the sale or importation of any receiver capable of receiving cellular frequencies, and making it illegal to advertise any device as having the capability to receive cellular calls. Those are things you can regulate, at least to a much greater extent than what a person does in the privacy of their home. You could make a similar argument about the sodomy laws ... they may not stop what goes on in the privacy of someone's home, but they do stop (at least to some extent) folks from openly soliciting for it (depending to some extent on whether local authorities are willing to actually prosecute offenders). But more to the point, they do give folks a bit of a handle on the situation when such practices are openly advocated. For example, if a public school teacher wishes to teach students that homosexuality is just another acceptable lifestyle choice, parents who disagree can point out that the teacher is really advocating commission of an illegal act (if sodomy is still a crime in that state). It might be better if the laws actually addressed the undesired behavior (making it illegal simply to solicit, and to teach about sexual preferences in the classroom) but when you get that specific you draw fire from groups like the ACLU, who claim that you are somehow restricting free speech or something. In some cases it is easier to just keep the existing laws on the books -- they may be overly broad but because of that, they're less likely to attact a constitutional challenge. I think the ECPA may be like that, too ... there may be a fear that if you try to convict someone based on a law that says they can't reveal what they heard on the airwaves, they could plausibly claim that their constitutional right of free speech is bening violated. Since there is no constitutional right to listen to certain frequencies, you are on less shaky legal grounds to attack that. Thus we play legal games, where the law as it is written is known to be virtually unenforceable, but it allows the government to place sanctions against other types of behavior that it is difficult to legislate against directly. In my opinion, we need to first get rid of the liberal judges that don't seem to have a lick of common sense, but kowtow to the every whim of the ACLU, and then pass laws that actually sanction the behavior we really want to limit (that is, get rid of the "back door" approach to lawmaking). At present, it's just too easy for lawmakers to pass the overly-broad laws ... much less friction that way. Having said all of that, I still consider the ECPA a fine example of "special interest" legislation, passed at the behest of political lobbyists. The cellular companies should have been told to go develop an effective scrambling system, if they truly wanted privacy of communications. It is really sad that special interests with enough money and/or political clout can buy legislation favorable to themselves, no matter how nonsensical that legislation is. But of course, this is nothing new ... the telephone companies of America have honed this practice (of buying favorable legislation) to a fine art over the years! :-( Jack ------------------------------ From: mds@access.digex.net (Michael D. Sullivan) Subject: Re: Do You Monitor Cellular Channels? Date: 15 Nov 1993 04:07:13 -0500 Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA lps@rahul.net (Kevin Martinez) writes: > In regard to the above, I live right under a cell site antenna tower > and *every* radio and TV I own picks up these annoying conversations > on occasion. Even my telephone (noncordless) picks them up sometimes. > I keep thinking of the Gilligan's Island episode where his filling > becomes a rectifier and detects broadcast band radio. > Does the ECPA make it illegal to live in my neighborhood or only to > possess a receiving device (or a filling)? Would these cold evenings > be even colder without the comforting rays of this antenna? Perhaps > this is the cause for retries on zmodem transfers .... Of course it's illegal for you to live there, or to have fillings, you wiretapper, you! (Dano, book him for criminal possession of a filling with intent to eavesdrop!) Michael D. Sullivan mds@access.digex.net avogadro@well.sf.ca.us Washington, D.C. 74160.1134@compuserve.com mikesullivan@bix.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Nov 93 08:43:09 EST From: Alex Cena Subject: Re: Do You Monitor Cellular Channels? In Telecom Digest #761 Bill Fischer bill.fischer@t8000.cuc.ab.ca wrote: > Calls to and from all phones in a particular cell can be monitored, or > specific numbers can be entered into a log, and all other calls > ignored. The equipment monitors the data on the cell's control > channel and switches a radio scanner to the specified voice frequency > when the phone makes or receives a call in that cell. The equipment > will change to a new voice frequency each time the phone switches, > ensuring that the complete call is monitored from start to finish. > We have a Cellular Surveillance Interface that performs this function. > It doesn't cost $6000, and it will work on both the AMPS (USA, Canada, > Mexico, Australia) and TACS/ETACS (Europe, Middle East, Southeast > Asia) cellular systems. Can this equipment be used to monitor digital cellular networks? How do you know where your target may pop up since there may be hundreds of cell sites in a large city? Do you essentially have to set up monitoring stations in every cell site? Moreover, are you familiar with the equipment vendors used by many intelligence agencies besides E-Systems Melpar division? I am asking because of research I am conducting on a companwy called Comverse Technology that specializes in monitoring systems called AudioDisk. For obvious reasons, the company cannot reveal the name of its customers for me to survey so I am concentrating on identifying its competitors. If possible, could you send me a copy of your brochure by private e-mail. Alex M. Cena Lehman Brothers 200 Vesey Street, 14th Floor New York, NY 10285 Internet: acena@lehman.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1993 21:39:23 +0200 From: Petri Helenius Subject: Re: In the Matter of: Connecting to Kremvax.demos.su Paul Robinson wrote: > On the list Telecom Digest there is mention > that sites in the U.S. cannot connect (due to U.S. Government pressures) > with some sites behind the former Iron Curtain. One example of which is the > site kremvax.demos.su. Evidence from this message implies it is not the > government doing this, it is someone else. NSFNET/ ANS CORE. Name it anything you want. Our Russian friends have been connected to NSFNET occasionally, but every time this has been noticed, MERIT or ANS has cut them off, because they are not allowed to connect to NSFNET. They can connect to all non-ANS sites in the US, so this is not a government regulation. Pete ------------------------------ From: richgr@netcom.com (Rich Greenberg) Subject: Re: Wiring a New Home - Suggestions? Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest) Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1993 18:48:31 GMT Pat, isn't this in the FAQ yet? If not ... In article bobt@zeus.net.com (Bob Tykulsker) writes: > I am having a new home built and would like to install the wiring now > that I might need for future technologies. What would you recommend? > Cable, fiber, copper, etc. Any suggestions welcome. Nobody knows what YOU will need or want in the future. Not even yourself. Anybody else will be just guessing, and who knows what new technology is just around the corner? Anyway, since you are not certain now, possibly the best approach is to lay conduit. Run plastic conduit as large as practical (at least an inch ID, bigger==better, from a central point (basement, closet, ???) to EVERYWHERE that you MIGHT possibly need access in the future. Keep in mind cable TV, and "smart" appliances as well as any home computer(s) and related equipment. At each location, terminate in at least a 4x4 deep box which can be papered over or just put on a blank plate. Inside each pipe run a strand of heavy cord, preferably a synthetic that won't rot or be eaten by bugs/rodents that can later be used to pull wires (and another length of cord!) as needed. Leave several feet of slack at each end. Make sure each conduit is marked. Make sure you have a map that says where each conduit comes out. Rich Greenberg Work: ETi Solutions, Oceanside & L.A. CA 310-348-7677 N6LRT TinselTown, USA Play: richgr@netcom.com 310-649-0238 I speak for myself only. Canines: Chinook & Husky ------------------------------ From: John Powell Subject: Re: Wiring a New Home - Suggestions? Date: Tue, 16 Nov 93 01:30:15 -0600 Organization: Valcom/PCC > Unless fiber is available in your area now, go with a large amount of > copper wire. Put your demarc in the basement, and run at least twisted > six-pair to each room, in star format, e.g. each room's wiring is > separate. This allows you to have two phone lines and still have room > for two four-line circuits. The difference in price between four pair > and six pair is probably negligible (less than 5c per foot, maybe even > the same price); I know the last time I checked the price of 25 pair I agree, but I personally like to run two (or more) four-pairs to each location. This will allow for more isolation and multiple signal types/services to be sent to each room. It is standard practice to separate such things as voice lines, digital data, etc. as they can interfere with each other (ie. ringing voltage can affect LAN data). You will also be able to connect each cable to an RJ45 (ie. two RJ45's in each location) and maintain a standard that can accomodate many things from standard analog (one or two line) phone lines, ISDN, 10bT, Token Ring, etc. without any modification to the connectors, just change the connections in the basement. The REAL cost of wiring is pulling the cable, not the wire itself, and pulling two cables shouldn't cost much more than one. Also, there is no universal standard for six pair that everyone can follow; four pair is as universal as they get and any decent electrician or phone tech can manipulate it as needed without the designer being there to explain the kluge that would result from using six pair. John ------------------------------ Reply-To: dgc@math.ucla.edu Subject: Re: Wiring a New Town Date: Tue, 16 Nov 93 12:01:45 -0800 From: David G. Cantor In Telecom-Digest: Volume 13, Issue 759, Tony Harminc states: > And one personal crusade: consider the nature of street lighting. If > at all possible, use incandescant lights, preferably halogens. If > energy efficiency concerns won't allow this, use metal halides. Avoid > like the plague sodium and mercury lighting. Light the sidewalks > first, and worry about the streets later, if at all. You want a > community where people *want* to be out and about on the streets and > public places at all hours - not locked behind bolted doors and alarm > systems. Obviously street layout and lighting are not the only > determinants of this, but they are a base. This is a major political issue in the City of San Diego. Mt. Palomar Observatory is nearby. Low-pressure sodium lighting only minimally interferes with the observatory because it's mono-frequency and can be easily filtered out. All of the other lights mentioned fog the astronmer's films. There is strong evidence that the kind of lighting is not the important factor. It's the brilliance. Low-pressure sodium is MUCH MORE efficient than the other choices and so the "green" position is to use low-pressure sodium. After prohibiting them for many years, the City of San Diego, over the strong opposition of the Palomar astronomers, has just allowed white-lights in certain high-crime areas. We shall see if this deters crime and we shall also see how much longer Mt. Palomar remains a useful observatory. David G. Cantor Center for Communications Research 4320 Westerra Court San Diego, CA 92121 dgc@ccrwest.org ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V13 #765 ****************************** ****************************************************************************** Downloaded From P-80 International Information Systems 304-744-2253