TELECOM Digest Sun, 30 Jan 94 09:33:00 CST Volume 14 : Issue 51 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Modems to Merlins (Steven Warner) Re: Modems to Merlins (Walter Syrek) Re: Modems to Merlins (Charlie Mingo) Re: "Anonymous Call Rejection" - Could be Dangerous (Robert Endicott) Re: "Anonymous Call Rejection" - Could be Dangerous (Randy Gellens) Re: Are LATA Maps Available? (tah@cbosgd.att.com) Re: Are LATA Maps Available? (David Esan) Re: How to Phone US 0800 Numbers From the UK? (Laurence Chiu) Re: How to Phone US 0800 Numbers From the UK? (Linc Madison) Re: How to Phone US 0800 Numbers From the UK? (Arthur Rubin) Re: Unmetered Local Service (Charles Reichley) Re: Unmetered Local Service (Chaim Frenkel) Re: Unmetered Local Service (J. D. McDonald) Re: New York Telephone Issuing "New" Rotary Phones (Martin McCormick) Re: New York Telephone Issuing "New" Rotary Phones (Jerry Leichter) Re: Distinctive Ringing and Ring Detectors (Dan Lanciani) Re: Distinctive Ringing and Ring Detectors (Charles Roberson) Telephone Nunbers in France (Earle Robinson) GSM Radio Interface Security (vps@triton.dsto.gov.au) Nine Pin Jack Into Cellular Phone - Connect to Computer? (John Hardin) Problems With French Telephone in Canada (Michel Brunet) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and GEnie. 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 compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson Associates of Skokie, Illinois USA. We provide telecom consultation services and long distance resale services including calling cards and 800 numbers. To reach us: Post Office Box 1570, Chicago, IL 60690 or by phone at 708-329-0571 and fax at 708-329-0572. Email: ptownson@townson.com. ** 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 gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup comp.dcom.telecom. It has no connection with the unmoderated Usenet newsgroup comp.dcom.telecom.tech whose mailing list "Telecom-Tech Digest" shares archives resources at lcs.mit.edu for the convenience of users. Please *DO NOT* cross post articles between the groups. 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: Steven Warner Subject: Re: Modems to Merlins Organization: RTFM / beachSystems, Sunnyvale, CA, USA Date: Sun, 30 Jan 1994 05:08:25 GMT (Cliff Sharp) writes: > 1. The primary reason I want the modem there is so that I can call > their machine and use some sort of remote-access software to figure > out what they're doing to their poor machine when they break it. The > Merlin "solution" sounds to me as though I would never be able to get > to their modem (or that the modem would answer any call that came in, > not just mine). Yes? No? Using a BTMI or a GPA (as you stated) will work. More below. > 2. For some incredibly silly reason I can't talk them out of, they > demand that the first line(s) of their hunt group remain open at all > times possible and unused by outbound calls. (Explaining hunting to > them is very like teaching the proverbial pig to sing.) From what I > understand, the adapter either seizes the first open line or has to be > manually routed. How does it really work? The GPA is plugged into a merlin set. It picks up whatever line the merlin phone would pick up, if you raised the handset. The GPA must plug into the expansion connector in the back of the phone. It will NOT plug directly into the switch. The BTMI (Basic telephone and modem interface) plugs directly between the switch and a modem, elimininating the need for a Merlin voice terminal. The BTMI can be programed to pick up any or all lines, and can be programed to select outgoing lines in a selection sequence much like that of a regular set. There are two versions of BTMI. The BTMI-1 has a problem that if the modem is using the line, and another line rings (that the BTMI would normally seize), camp-on tones are fed to the modem. This can cause a few problems. Modems plugged into a BTMI-1 also must dial '9' to get outside lines. The BTMI-2 has modes that disallow the camp-on tones, and even a mode that will present outside lines to the modem without dialing 9. > 3. This whole thing sounds as though they're going to have to plug > the adapter into a phone and route RJ-11 cable all over the office. > Friend likes the idea now, but he's gonna change his mind when he sees > it. Is there any other way to do it so we can run 4-pair to the modem > location? See BTMI above. > ANY ideas are welcome, including how to explain to a wall that a > dedicated line is his best solution. It may or may not be. a properly connected modem interface will allow quite functional sharing of the line. Be aware that 9600 baud is about as good as you will do thru this thing. Steven Warner (34W 36L) sgw@boy.com ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Modems to Merlins From: walter.syrek@cld9.com (Walter Syrek) Date: Sun, 30 Jan 94 08:39:00 -0600 Organization: C-9 Communications I have an AT&T Merlin set on my desk at the office. It has two plugs on the bottom, one for the line cord, one marked "other". Does anybody know if I can plug a modem into the "other" socket? It's a strange size, not the same as the standard modular phone jack. ------------------------------ From: mingo@panix.com (Charlie Mingo) Subject: Re: Modems to Merlins Date: 30 Jan 1994 01:41:21 -0500 Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC In article , Cliff Sharp wrote: > A friend is part owner of a small business using a Merlin Plus > system. He wants to add a modem to his coterie of computer equipment > (and I've been trying to get him to do it for the longest time!). > However, for some reason he feels that a dedicated line is too > expensive and wants to hook it into his Merlin system. > Now, a little research turned up a general-purpose adapter that > AT&T sells for just such use; it plugs into one of the telephones and > provides a POTS look-alike that somehow can use any line. While we're on that subject, my brother is trying to do exactly this with a Northern Telecom PBX dating from the mid-1980's. Does anyone know if Northern Telecom sells a similar POTS-line adaptor? Any idea how much it would be or where one would find it? ------------------------------ From: endicott@netcom.com (Robert Endicott) Subject: Re: "Anonymous Call Rejection" - Could be Dangerous Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest) Date: Sun, 30 Jan 1994 05:22:47 GMT Mark Crispin (MRC@CAC.Washington.EDU) wrote: > I just saw in an electronics toy catalog (Danmark or one of those) a > Caller ID box that implements something like Anonymous Call Rejection > as its own feature. If you enable it, it automatically answers the > call and plays a refusal message, than hangs up. > What I see as different between this box and the telco's feature: > 1) You don't have to beg the ACLU for this feature, after having begged them > for CNID. > 2) No monthly charge beyond the CNID. > 3) You need to wire the box in series with all your extensions, otherwise > you won't get the ring suppression on the other ones. > 4) I doubt that it interacts well with Call Waiting. > 5) The ability to set the refusal message (I don't know if this particular > box has it, but doubtless others will). Big win. I have solved the problem by putting a computer with a telephone interface board on the line. It answers the phone line and sounds just like an answering machine, and takes a message if the caller leaves one. HOWEVER, anyone I want to be able to get through. I tell them to touchtone a code during the outgoing message and it will interrupt the message and ring my phone. NOONE I don't know, ever knows that there is a way to get through. If the call is valid, I return the call. Since I've programmed it myself, I can have as many codes as I want. Robert Endicott ------------------------------ From: RANDY@MPA15AB.mv-oc.Unisys.COM Date: 30 JAN 1994 11:01 GMT Subject: Re: "Anonymous Call Rejection" - Could be Dangerous varney@ihlpe.att.com writes: > Also note that telco can elect to turn on supervision when > connecting to the ACR announcement, so the call will be considered >"completed" for billing purposes. Do any telcos do this? How appalling. It violates the basic assumption of intercepts. Randall Gellens randy@mv-oc.unisys.com| A Series System Software Unisys Corporation [Please forward bounce messages| Mission Viejo, CA. to: rgellens@mcimail.com]| [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Not really. Intercepts assume no useful information was passed to the caller, where with anonymous call rejection the information being passed tells the caller that the called party does not wish to speak with them since the caller is not known to them. It might be looked at as a way of saying 'I do not speak to strangers'. Unlike no such number, no circuit or out of order intercepts where the lack of communication is not the fault of the caller or called party, in this instance the called party is plainly saying that he refuses to communicate. Telco's posture seems to be they do not wish to be in the middle of a possible dispute between the parties, etc. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 30 Jan 94 09:52:21 EST From: tah@cbosgd.att.com Subject: Re: Are Lata Maps Available? Organization: AT&T I received a National Lata Map at a trade show two years ago (believe it was COMNET) Anyway the company name and address on the bottom of the map is: CCMI Suite 1100 11300 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852-3030 Phone 1-301-816-8950 ext 835. I don't know if they are still in business but it might be worth a try if you're still looking for a lata map. ------------------------------ From: de@moscom.com (David Esan) Subject: Re: Are LATA Maps Available? Date: 30 Jan 94 05:13:44 GMT Organization: Moscom Corporation, Pittsford NY In article wjhalv1@pacbell.com writes: > in most states there is only one LATA. Not true. Most states (and provinces) have more than one LATA. Attached are a list of states/provinces and the number of LATAs associated with them. AK 1 VT 1 NJ 4 MI 6 LA 8 OH 10 DC 1 CT 2 NM 4 MS 6 NE 8 TN 10 DE 1 NS 2 NV 4 PR 6 NY 8 FL 11 HI 1 ON 2 WA 4 UT 6 SC 8 IN 11 MB 1 AB 3 WV 4 KS 7 AL 9 NC 12 ME 1 BC 3 AZ 5 KY 7 IA 9 PA 12 NB 1 MA 3 ID 5 MT 7 SD 9 VA 12 NF 1 PQ 3 OR 5 OK 7 WI 9 CA 14 NH 1 MD 4 WY 5 CO 8 MN 10 IL 18 RI 1 ND 4 AR 6 GA 8 MO 10 TX 20 SK 1 The LATAs in NY, where I live, include: 132 - NYC 133 - Hudson Valley 134 - Albany 136 - Syracuse 138 - Binghamton 140 - Buffalo 921 - Fisher's Island (Independant) 974 - Rochester Telephone (Independant) The names associated with these places are just the large city in those LATAs. LATA 140 includes all of Western NY from Rochester (but not including Rochester) to the west, and three exchanges in Pennsylvania. David Esan de@moscom.com ------------------------------ From: lchiu@crl.com (Laurence Chiu) Subject: Re: How to Phone US 0800 Numbers From the UK? Date: 29 Jan 1994 23:10:42 -0800 Organization: CRL Dialup Internet Access, California Reply-To: lchiu@crl.com In article , John R. Grout wrote: > 1. How would 800 Directory Assistance (which, for the benefit of > readers outside North America, is 800-555-1212), handle calls coming > through USA Direct? I can imagine an AT&T operator asking such a > person "what area code are you calling from?", as they often do here, > and the conversation taking a turn for the worse. I don't know about 800 Directory assistance but on the few occasions I used USA Direct to make calls when I didn't know the number, I would hang on and wait for an operator. They knew what country I was calling from based on the line I guess. When I asked for directory assistance they would call that area's DA and identify themselves as AT&T and get the number for me and then connect me. Laurence Chiu Walnut Creek, California Tel: 510-215-3730(wk) Internet: lchiu@crl.com ------------------------------ From: lincmad@netcom.com (Linc Madison) Subject: Re: How to Phone US 0800 Numbers From the UK? Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest) Date: Sun, 30 Jan 1994 09:06:37 GMT Another point to mention is that (although every PTT in the world will deny it until they're blue in the face) the fact is, from many places you can simply dial +1-800-whatever, and the call *will* go through, at normal international rates. It isn't supposed to work, they don't want you to think it will work, but I have done it myself. I remember slugging Australian dollars into a callbox in the middle of the Outback. Linc Madison * Oakland, California * LincMad@Netcom.com ------------------------------ Subject: Re: How to Phone US 0800 Numbers From the UK? From: a_rubin@dsg4.dse.beckman.com (Arthur Rubin) Date: 30 Jan 94 03:12:56 GMT Organization: Beckman Instruments, Inc. In grout@sp17.csrd.uiuc.edu (John R. Grout) writes: > 1. How would 800 Directory Assistance (which, for the benefit of > readers outside North America, is 800-555-1212), handle calls coming > through USA Direct? I can imagine an AT&T operator asking such a > person "what area code are you calling from?", as they often do here, > and the conversation taking a turn for the worse. Correct answer (to what area code are you calling from?): How should I know? (I once called 800 information from a SkyPhone (TM).) Arthur L. Rubin: a_rubin@dsg4.dse.beckman.com (work) Beckman Instruments/Brea 216-5888@mcimail.com 70707.453@compuserve.com arthur@pnet01.cts.com (personal) ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 30 Jan 94 08:59:03 EST From: Charles Reichley Subject: Re: Unmetered Local Service Reply-To: CREICHLEY@vnet.IBM.COM Organization: IBM Federal Systems Company (for now)- Manassas, VA USA For MOST things in this world, we all pay the same price regardless of how much we use it. I will pay the same for a TV as you, even if you watch your TV eight hours a day and I only watch mine for an hour a day. The only things which we pay for use are things that are actually USED UP. We pay for each gallon of heating oil, for each gallon of water, for each kilowatt of electricity (Electricity is a grey area -- while I can't use the same kilowatt as someone else, it is also the case that for many generating stations, there is a minimum output that exists and is 'wasted' if nobody uses it. But even in this case, the power is put somewhere and is lost). SO the question is, is phone service something you 'use up' by the minute, or something that is a fixed item. Cable TV is a lot like phone service, and I don't pay per minute for cable (well I don't have cable, but if I did I wouldn't be paying per use). It does cost the cable company more if there are more people on the line, as they have to boost the signal. But once the signal boosters are in place, it makes no difference whether I watch the cable or not. In the same way, if more people make phone calls, the phone company has to install additional switches/lines/equipment. But once the equipment is in place, the cost for the phone company is the same whether I make a phone call or not. Maybe phone usage should be billed on a split-system, where people are charged by the minute during times when the usage is over 80%, but not charged when the usage is less than that. Charles W. Reichley, Loral/FSC???, Manassas, Va. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: How would people know which condition was in effect at the time? Many folks would gladly wait until overall usage dropped below a certain point in order to use the service 'for free' if they knew what the usage was. How would you convey that? PAT] ------------------------------ From: chaim@toxicavenger.fsrg.bear.com (Chaim Frenkel) Subject: Re: Unmetered Local Service Date: 30 Jan 94 05:40:22 GMT Organization: Nonlinear Knowledge, Inc. In article lars@Eskimo.CPH.CMC.COM (Lars Poulsen) writes: > Hahahaha hahaha ha ha ... he ho hummmm ... Here in Denmark, local > calls have been metered for many, many years -- by the pulse method. > Itemized billing is NOT available, and there would be an uproar from > office workers -- on privacy grounds -- if the telco were to start > itemizing bills. Itemized billing, like flat rate local calling -- is > a feature of the American telephone system; it has ended up that way > mostly by accident. Certainly there is no logic that says subscribers > have the right to an itemized bill. (There may, however, in many > jurisdictions be a PUC regulation saying so.) I would argue that the customer has every right to an itemized bill. Consider an order placed with a mail order outfit, (or as they do in my neighborhood, place large phone orders with the local grocery store for delivery): would you accept only a total? If I would have a meter at my end that would independently corrobrate the phone company's numbers/total, you might have an argument. But as it is you have only the phone company's word as to the correct amount. There is no easy way to determine if the phone company is being honest (ie design error / built-in bias :-) or whether your phone line is being hacked/abused. Chaim Frenkel On contract at: chaim@nlk.com chaim@fsrg.bear.com Nonlinear Knowledge, Inc. Bear Stearns & Co., Inc. ------------------------------ From: mcdonald@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (J. D. McDonald) Subject: Re: Unmetered Local Service Date: Sun, 30 Jan 1994 06:26:53 GMT Organization: UIUC SCS In article rrb@deja-vu.aiss.uiuc.edu (Bill Pfeiffer) writes: >> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The thing Jack Decker and other pro- >> ponents of flat rate billing seem to forget or ignore is that in most >> instances of measured billing, the majority of telephone subscribers >> actually pay LESS for service than with flat rate. A small minority >> of the users -- mainly people with telephone intensive lifestyles such >> as modem users -- pay more. > Please, Pat. That is not at all true. I live in downstate Ill., in Champaign. At one time we had the choice of measured or flat rates. The measured rate was clearly cheaper for me, in fact I seem to remember $6 monthly phone bills. Then they did away with the flat rate entirely ... everybody now has measured rates. At the same time they raised the minimum one paid for no calls at all, so as to be almost equal to what the previous flat rate was. So (almost) everybody lost. Doug McDonald ------------------------------ From: martin@datacomm.ucc.okstate.edu (Martin McCormick) Subject: Re: New York Telephone Issuing "New" Rotary Phones Organization: Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK Date: Sun, 30 Jan 1994 07:58:58 GMT The technology to remove the DTMF tones is definitely here. The amateur radio magazine "QST" had an introductory series of articles, last year, about digital signal processing. The series featured a Texas Instruments DSP chip programmed to remove steady tones from an audio channel. The program simulated a filter which was capable of removing complex, but repetitive wave forms so it could remove several tones occurring at once from an audio signal. The article described what it was like to use the filter and mentioned that it occasionally produced very strange effects when it would mistakenly eat part of a human voice, but it generally did the job in removing heterodynes from voice signals without effecting the voice. Such a filter would gobble up DTMF signals without leaving anything behind but a click. Martin McCormick WB5AGZ Stillwater, OK O.S.U. Computer Center Data Communications Group ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 30 Jan 94 08:19:36 EDT From: Jerry Leichter Subject: Re: New York Telephone Issuing "New" Rotary Phones You know, some of the ancient Greeks would have loved this mailing list (and the net general). It's populated by people who, like them, believe that sheer logic is enough to understand the world -- you don't need any "dirty" observation. "Everyone knows" (by simple reasoning) that replacing touchtone phones with rotary phones won't help because "the bad guys" will just go to Radio Shack and buy tone dialers. "Everyone knows" (by simple reasoning) that this whole approach just won't do anything. Well, the {New York Times} article that reported on the change contained information explicitly addressing both of these points. I don't have the article in front of me so don't recall exactly who was quoted, but I think it was a Nynex spokesman who mentioned tone dialers but also said that *as a matter of observed fact* few drug dealers bother to buy or use them. Why? Go ask them; but they don't. Further, in neighborhoods where rotary phones have been installed -- and remember, we are no longer just applying "pure reason", there have been such neighborhoods for a couple of years now -- it's a matter of *observed fact* that those phones tend not to be used as "offices" for drug dealers. Why? Again, go ask the drug dealers. Sometimes little things can have a disproportionate impact. Explaining *why* may be very difficult, but doesn't change the result -- the world works the way it does despite our lack of understanding of it. I don't know about you, but while I'm very willing to listen to reason, I'm even more willing to look at facts. Jerry [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Jerry, what you say makes very good sense. We have known for years that drug dealers are not usually the smartest people in the world (I am speaking now of the street corner salepeople, not the wholesalers and importers). You are quite correct that time and again in Chicago at least, when payphones have been converted to (a) one way outgoing service; (b) calling card/collect/third party billing only -- no coin -- during overnight hours; and/or (c) rotary dial service the drug dealers have simply moved elsewhere -- to phones which DO still have unrestricted service -- to conduct business. And for most people in the neighborhood, that's all they want is for the drug dealers to *go somewhere else*. I think often times people on Usenet (and some of that may rub off on the people who participate in this group) assume all the people in the world are of the same level of sophistication as themselves. I've caught myself falling into that rut. From my recent observations at a local Radio Shack store, I've noticed how many people have no idea even how to hook a modular cord into the back of the phone on one end and into the wall jack on the other end without it being done for them or shown to them in detail. Smart Radio Shack salesmakers (as Tandy likes to call them) make extra money going to customer's homes outside of business hours as a separate thing and installing what the customer bought that day in the store. Drug dealers do not read the {New York Times} and they certainly do not participate in Usenet newsgroups. Drug dealers are not too bright. *That* is probably the reason the rotary dial/outgoing service only combo works so well in the 'war on drugs'. The neighbors don't care who sells drugs; they just don't want the traffic around their area. You are right ... it works! Of course the neighbors are not much smarter and they can't see why touch tone is needed either so they are not inconvenienced for the most part even if the rest of us are. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 30 Jan 94 00:10:02 EST From: ddl@das.harvard.edu (Dan Lanciani) Subject: Re: Distinctive Ringing and Ring Detectors kevray@MCS.COM wrote: > I also use AT&T's switch box (pressing #1 transfer to yet ANOTHER > 'fake' line -- good for modems, faxes, multi answering machines, etc) > and the multi-ring box with this little toy did not work together > nicely (ie: MAJOR voltage problems ON the phone line). > Just so you know the one I have is called "Ring Decipher" by Command > Communications, Inc (Aurora, CO). The main problem with CCI's product is that it puts out a piddling 18V to simulate an on-hook condition. If you connect anything that monitors line voltage to determine on/off hook status to the CCI box, that device will likely be confused. I talked to CCI about this and they claim that most devices are happy with 18V to indicate on-hook. However, every device that *I* tried (including an AT&T answering machine, switch box (for similar additional fake line effect), fax machine, and phone) interpreted 18V as off-hook. Beware that other ring decoders have similar problems. Beware further that several other brands are simply re-labeled CCI boxes (e.g., Black Box). The only unit that I could find which put out a respectable 48V is the one sold in AT&T phone centers. (I think it is made by Multilink or somesuch.) Even this device required modifications (additional capacitors in the voltage trippler) to put out reasonable current at 48V. Dan Lanciani ddl@harvard.* ------------------------------ From: roberson@aurxc7.aur.alcatel.com (Charles "Chip" Roberson) Subject: Re: Distinctive Ringing and Ring Detectors Date: 29 Jan 1994 16:42:39 GMT Organization: Alcatel Network Systems, Inc., Raleigh, NC > Just saw an ad for a gizmo that will decipher the unique ringing cadence > for up to four lines and route them to a specified telephone device. I borrowed a friend's Viking PDF-2 (Phone/Data/Fax switch with Distinctive Ringing) and it doesn't want to work with my AT&T Answering System 1332. According to Mike at Viking Electronic's tech. support, AT&T doesn't like their ring signal. (The PDF-2 answers the line on the first ring and then generates the 'ring' back to the user as it rings the appropriate port.) Mike said get a new answering machine or try their FastPath switch which provides a clear channel to the phone port (which is where the normal ring is directed) so the answering machine will receive the CO ring signal. I guess the FastPath answers the other cadences. This apparently runs about $100. (The PDF is about $150). Hello Direct has a simple, four-port Ring Decipher for $89 which I'm considering as an alternative. Does anybody know of any other `well behaved' devices that are reasonably (read "less expensively") priced? Is there a dinstinctive ringing switch that can pass the CO ringing straight through on any port? In other words, can they just switch the line without answering the call (going off hook) to the CO? What about one that gives a each port a ringing signal that is similar in quality to the CO's for a simple cadence? Any reviews out there? Thanks, Chip Alcatel Network Systems * 2912 Wake Forest Road * Raleigh, NC 27609 Phone: +1 (919) 850-5011 FAX: +1 (919) 850-5588 DoD #1161 Roberson@AUR.Alcatel.com o&>o ------------------------------ Date: 29 Jan 94 22:21:30 EST From: Earle Robinson <76004.1762@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Telephone Nunbers in France Richard D G Cox said that the change in French phone numbers is put off due to complaints from users. This I doubt, since almost no one in France is aware of any impending change. There is almost complete ignorance of such questions in France, in part due to the few people who have access to Internet. Anyway, France Telecom does what it wants. There's no competition and the French just bow and obey. -er ------------------------------ From: vps@triton.dsto.gov.au Subject: GSM Radio Interface Security Date: Sun, 30 Jan 1994 09:11:16 GMT Organization: Defence Science and Technology Organisation Can anyone direct me to any information that quantitatively analyses the risk of interception and spoofing on the GSM radio interface? I am interested in any work which anybody has done to somehow quantify how hard it would be and what resources it would take (time, computing, equipment etc) to reverse calculate the relevant inputs of the cryptographic algorithms (A3,A8,A5) in GSM from there outputs. Cheers. ------------------------------ From: snowbee@tyrell.net (John Hardin) Subject: Nine Pin Jack Into Cellular Phone - Connect to Computer? Organization: Tyrell Corp. Date: Sat, 29 Jan 1994 18:11:47 GMT Hi there - There's a port on my cellular phone that looks like a parallel port for a computer. Is it possible to connect my computer to this port and reprogram my phone or do some good hacks on it? Thanks, John ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 29 Jan 1994 22:23:19 -0500 From: aj783@freenet.carleton.ca (Michel Brunet) Subject: Problems With French Telephone in Canada Reply-To: aj783@freenet.carleton.ca Recently I returned from France and brought back an Alcatel telephone with me. The telephone has a built in answering machine. After connecting the telephone I tested some of the features. Everything that has to do with making a call with the telephone works just fine. However, to receive a call all I get from the telephone is a semi ring. I'm hoping someone could explain to me why it is doing this. If not, I would appreciate any information that anyone has on the ring voltage used here in Canada and the ring voltage used in France. Any help will be greatly appreciated. Merci! úÿ (continued next message) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Area # 700 EMAIL 01-30-94 10:33 Message # 21789 From : TELECOM Moderator To : ELIOT GELWAN PVT RCVD Subj : TELECOM Digest V14 #51 ÿ@FROM :TELECOM@DELTA.EECS.NWU.EDU úÿ(Continued from last message) Michel Brunet Ottawa (Canada) E-Mail aj783@freenet.carleton.ca ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V14 #51 ***************************** Downloaded From P-80 International Information Systems 304-744-2253