TELECOM Digest Wed, 9 Feb 94 09:29:00 CST Volume 14 : Issue 70 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Increasing Cordless Range (Bill Pfeiffer) Re: Increasing Cordless Range (John Zentveld) Re: 20GHz Wireless is the Future? (Maria Christensen) Re: A Small Town in Wyoming (Garrett Wollman) Re: Phone Number History (William Bauserman) Re: Phone Number History (David A. Cantor) Re: Calling 911 on a Cellphone When Out of Area (Gerald Serviss) Re: V&H Report - 15 January 1994 (Al Varney) EFF Wants You (to Add Your Voice to the Crypto Fight!) (Monty Solomon) 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: rrb@deja-vu.aiss.uiuc.edu (Bill Pfeiffer) Subject: Re: Increasing Cordless Range Date: Tue, 8 Feb 1994 17:15:01 CST In a recent issue, Our Omniponent Moderator graced the ether thusly. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Ever get in the outer fringes of where > your cordless phone will operate and have an incoming call arrive? > Your handset chirps as it should, you press the appropriate key to > answer but the handset keeps on chirping. Why? It hears the base > calling it, but the base hears nothing back in return and keeps on > sending a ringing signal. That has not been the case since the old 1.7mhz base frequencies were abandoned for the 46/49 channels. Used to be that the portable received the base through a ferrite core loopstick, just like your pocket AM radio. The base transmitted through the power lines. However the portable used the whip antennas for its link. Needless to say the loopsicks were more efficient than the whips, given the frequencies involved, and the use of power lines made the base's signal stretch farther. Now, though, the inequity is not there. The problems now encountered are more the use of baby monitors, which transmit on the same channels as the portables. Given a clear channel, base and protable ranges are about equal. No more loopsticks, the whip is used for both paths. I give the 900 band about a year or so before it becomes as crowded and unusable as the 46/49's are today. William Pfeiffer - Moderator/Editor rec.radio.broadcasting - Airwaves Radio Journal - Internet email - Article Submission: articles@airwaves.chi.il.us Subscription Desk: subscribe@airwaves.chi.il.us ------------------------------ From: jzentvel@alsvid.scu.edu.au (John Zentveld) Subject: Re: Increasing Cordless Range Date: Tue, 8 Feb 1994 21:42:26 GMT In article , by johng@ecs.comm.mot.com (John Gilbert): > An external antenna could be put on the base of a 46/49 phone, but > this would violate the FCC part 15 type acceptance of the phone. > Additionally, your base would receive more interference from other > handsets so you would have fewer clear channels available for your > use. You would also have a much higher probability of causing > interference to your neighbors phones and baby monitors. In an area > with very light use of the 46/49 band, an external antenna might help. I live out on a farm (ie no other houses for sevel hundred meters) and would like to increase the range of a Panasonic KXT300 cordless phone running on 30 - 39MHz, by putting an external antenna on the roof. Does anyone have any ideas on the type and size of the antenna, what type of cable I should use etc. It currently has one of those telescopic type on the base unit. Thanks in advance, John Zentveld Internet: jzentvel@scu.edu.au Southern Cross University Phone (066) 20 3219 Lismore NSW Australia [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Is 30/39 the frequency range used in Australia for cordless phones? That's interesting. PAT] ------------------------------ From: maria@lulea.trab.se (Maria Christensen) Subject: Re: 20GHz Wireless is the Future? Organization: Telia Research AB Date: Mon, 7 Feb 1994 16:59:46 GMT S. L. Lee (sllee@bronze.coil.com) wrote: > I heard that a technology is available (or becoming available) that > can transmit voice, data, fax, video, two-way and simultaneous and > automatically routed. I posted a msg but might have misposted. > I would like to see professional evaluation of its feasibility. I > have the following questions: > 1. Would there be any health hazard? > 2. Can the technology be implemented internationally, if not, what are the > barriers? > 3. How long has this idea been around? Why didn't anybody look at it? > I would like to see discussion on various aspects of this technology. I'm working with cost efficient network soloutions in the the rural area. The scope is around 2000. Typically questions are: * Will the access network only consist of fiber * Will radio soloutions take over * What kind of services will be provided to the subscribers * How will a common family use multimedia * Video the the home * ADSL/HDLS on current cu-net. I'm interested in a discussion. Maria Christensen, Telia Research Lule} ------------------------------ From: wollman@bajoran.emba.uvm.edu (Garrett Wollman) Subject: Re: A Small Town in Wyoming Organization: University of Vermont, EMBA Computer Facility Date: Tue, 8 Feb 1994 23:19:34 GMT In article , PAT wrote: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Although four digit dialing might still > be possible, it is unlikely. Probably everyone in town gives their number > out that way, with the exchange assumed. Not only is everyone in town on > the same exchange, but if the place is really small, all the numbers may > possibly begin with '5' as well! I've seen that in a few cases; all the > listings fit on two or three pages as a supplement to some other (larger) > phone book, with the first *four* (or sometimes five!) digits all the > same and only the last three digits varying. Small town, America! Very > small town ... PAT] I'm presently writing from Reno, Nevada, where the phone book (which includes for all Pac Tel areas in Nevada) lists about thirty hamlets which still have manual exchanges. For example, here is a sample listing from the back of the phone book: Warm Springs Station (Call Operator For) Warm Springs Bar Agent .Warm Springs No 2 -- and that's the whole section! Looking at last year's phone book, about the first third is the white pages for populated areas (Reno, Sparks, Carson City, and Incline), two thirds is the yellow pages, and there's about a fifty-page annex on the back which gives numbers for the rest of Nevada Bell territory. According to a technician I talked to, there are some indies in eastern Nevada who have even more obsolete equipment in unpopulated areas. Pac Tel is also the B-side cellular carrier for this part of the world. I don't know who has either land-line or cellular in the southern part of the state. Garrett A. Wollman wollman@emba.uvm.edu NB: Address soon to be changed. ------------------------------ Date: 8 Feb 94 14:07:44-0800 From: Bauserman, William Subject: Re: Phone Number History Al Varney (varney@ihlpe.att.com) writes: [Interesting stuff on the history of phone numbers deleted] > The oft-referenced BSTJ article from September, 1952, "Nationwide > Numbering Plan", indicates there were then about 20,000 COs in the USA > and Canada. Eleven different numbering plans were in use within the > Bell System. By then, the three-letter exchange names had "officially" > been eliminated; for example, PENnsylvania in New York was changed to > PEnnsylvania-6 (of course, the customer still dialed the same 636 > code). > These 11 plans were (page 854 of above BSTJ volume): > Referred to as Listed as Dialed as Place > ---------------- ----------------- ---------- ----- > Two-five LOcust 4-5678 LO 4-5678 Philadelphia, PA > Two-four MArket 6789 MA 6789 Indianapolis, IN > 1 letter, 4 or Franklin 9-2345 F 9-2345 San Diego, CA > 5 digit Franklin 6789 F 6789 > Five digit 2-5678 2-5678 Binghamton, NY > Four digit 3456 3456 Winchester, VA > Three digit 325 325 Jamesport, NY > Combined 5 & 4-1234 4-1234 Des Moines, IA > 6 digit 62-2345 62-2345 [More phone number talk deleted] It's always nice to see my little home town of Winchester, VA make the Net. Unfortunately, I can't remember four digit dialing. I do remember, in the mid-late 60's, the NNX was "662" and all numbers were written as MOhawk 2-???? (As a kid I thought that MOhawk was the "coolest" exchange name -- don't know what it has to do with Winchester, though). I remember seeing this printed on our family doctor's prescription pad. Back then, when you took the prescription to the local pharmacy, they gave you a coupon good for a free Coke at the soda fountain while you waited for the prescription to be filled. Now you just wander up and down the aisles till they call your name :( If your interested, the same pharmacy, still delivers prescriptions to your home. I guess the "good old days" aren't completely gone yet. Bill Bauserman william.d.bauserman@gte.sprint.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: My goodness, drugstores haven't had fountains for twenty years or more, nor do any of them have First Aid Stations any longer. (It used to be not only could you get a beverage and/or sandwhich in the drugstore, if you had some minor cut or bruise you could go to the drug store directly rather than the doctor and the pharmacist would 'prescribe' something and apply the medication there.) Regards MOHawk, we had it here also. The longest term occupant of the exchange is the Chicago Transit Authority which has had MOHawk (now 664) 7200 since the beginning of time. They inherited that phone number from their predecessor, "Chicago Rapid Transit Company" in 1947 who had it for forty or more years before that. PAT] ------------------------------ From: cantor@mv.mv.com (David A. Cantor) Subject: Re: Phone Number History Organization: MV Communications, Inc. Date: Wed, 9 Feb 1994 06:18:51 GMT In article , Jay Hennigan wrote: > This is a fascinating thread on the evolution of numbering plans. > Does anyone remember phone numbers with a letter suffix? In > Riverside, CA (Pacific Telephone) the manual numbers for party-line > service had a letter at the end of the number. My parents' house was > 4699J. The letter was the Morse Code symbol for the ringing cadence. > "J" was one short and three longs. They cut to crossbar (one of the > first crossbar exchanges, I believe) around 1955 or 56. The numbering > plan was 2-5, but could just as easily have been 3-4, as the only > exchange was OVerland 3-xxxx which equates to OVErland-xxxx. And the Moderator wrote: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I think the party line suffixes in most > places were -J, -M -R and -W. I never had a party line, but a friend of > mine did. Do party lines still exist anywhere or are they all discontinued > by now? PAT] I remember party lines with literal suffixes, too. My maternal grandmother's phone number was Everett (Massachusetts) 4052-W and our phone number was Everett 3409-W. I would call my grandmother by going off hook, and when the operator asked "Number, please," I would say "Everett 4052-W." Later, I believe it was in 1948, both these numbers became EVerett 7-xxxx (dropping the -W), and we got dial service, and later still, around 1956, DUnkirk 7-. Then we were told that we were in area code 617, and a little later, the numbers became 387-. My paternal grandmother's phone number was Chelsea 0123-R, in the adjacent town, and later became CHelsea 3-0123, and later still, TUrner 4-0123. (All these numbers have long since been reassigned, so please don't bother the people who have them now.) David A. Cantor +1 203-444-7268 (203-444-RANT) 453 Bayonet St., #16 New London, CT 06320 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: When 12 years old, I was talking on the phone one day to my friend Dennis, and the conversation turned a bit blue. There was a click on the line, but he kept on talking, and then after a couple minutes another click (as the third party replaced the receiver after listening for a couple minutes). I tried to shush Dennis and told him someone had overheard him. His reply? "Oh, that's just Mrs. Jones. That witch has been our party line neighbor for years, and if she doesn't know what's going on by now she never will!" And that is the way party lines operated: everyone knew everything about everyone else. Even though some party lines were arranged so that the bells would not ring for the other parties on the line, the phones in those instances would still make a quiet 'click-click' sound in the bell mechanism when one of the other phones on the line was being rung. Particularly snoopy people with nothing else in their lives would set the phone inside or on top of a *galvanized washtub* to amplify that 'click-click' which ordinarily could not be heard unless you were right next to the phone. Then whatever they were doing, when they heard that noise, they would drop what they were doing and rush over to the phone. Some kept the mouthpiece unscrewed so they could spy without themselves being overheard by the party line neighbor they were spying on. PAT] ------------------------------ From: serviss@tazdevil.cig.mot.com (Gerald Serviss) Subject: Re: Calling 911 on a Cellphone When Out of Area Date: 8 Feb 1994 15:14:32 GMT Organization: Cellular Infrastructure Group, Motorola In article jrg@rahul.net (John Galloway) writes: > When I call 911 on my cellular (having seen an accident just happen) > it appears that I get forwarded to a fixed site that just dispatches > the call to the proper 911 officem i.e. the first person answers "911 > emergency" but just asks where you are, and then the phone rings a > second time and you get another "911 emergency". This seems silly > since obviously the provider has the necessary info about where you > are to do this automatically. I have not ever called 911 when out of > my area. Would I still get the same (Northern CA) based dispatch > operator who would then have to send me to (e.g.) Austin Texas 911??? > (I am using Cellular-One). I beg to differ with you on your claim that > " This seems silly since obviously the provider has the necessary > info about where you are to do this automatically." Motorola's cellular switches have a feature that is called 911 route by sector. This feature allows the system operator to direct calls to a particular destination based upon sector of origin. In most cases this is good enough by there are many variables that go into the systems decision of what sector is the ' best server' for a call. For example in my neighborhood (NW sub of Chicago) there is a cell that is located very near the border of at least three different suburbs (Palatine, Rolling Meadows and Schaumburg). In the case of a call made on this cell it is very possible that even our route by sector feature will make an incorrect choice. An analog or TDMA cellular system has only general knowledge about a callers location. The information that it does have is only based on received signal strengths and changes in that signal. With a wire line call there is a much better chance of getting the call routed correctly. I am sure you would agree that its better to get the call routed correctly the first time without bouncing from one agency to another. In this case 'good' location information is not good enough. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 9 Feb 94 08:49:00 CST From: varney@ihlpe.att.com Subject: Re: V&H Report - 15 January 1994 Organization: AT&T In article de@moscom.com (David Esan) writes: > Once a quarter I USED to receive the BellCore V&H tape. Using this > information I could total the number of exchanges in each area code. > The twenty most populous area codes are listed below. After the > written text of this article I have included the count for each of the > area codes. > This is no longer our procedure. The information in FCC #10 is now > detailed enough that we no longer need to order the tape from BellCore > and are using FCC #10 for our V&H information. You may wish to obtain certain NANP documents from the current Administration, Bellcore. In particular, the newest information in IL-94/01-001 and IL-94/01-002 would be useful. The former is "Status of Numbering in the NANP Served Area" -- the latter is "Opening of 710 Numbering Plan Area (NPA) Code". According to -002, 710 will be officially opened in US/Canada LEC and Cellular carrier's networks on 18 Sept. 1994. No local-operator- assisted calls will be permitted. The code is officially called "US Government". It's administered by the Office of Manager, National Communications System. All calls will require PINs. The -001 document contains the status (as of 31 Dec. 1993) of the geographic NPA codes in World Zone 1. Tables describing recent NPA activity, planned or in-progress NPA splits and NPA near exhaust are included, as well as an un-readable revision of the NPA map. A list of all NPA assignments includes the Albama 334, US Gov. 710 and special non-World-Zone-1 NPA 456 for inbound International traffic only. > - This list includes three new area codes: 905, 810, and 910. I have not > yet received information on 610. The early 1995 splits are Alabama (334, 1/15/95), Washington State (360, 1/15/95) and Arizona (520, 3/19/95). Permissive period for Ontario (416->905) ends 3/26/94 {look for a few remaining problems getting rid of the lingering association of 905 with Mexico}, North Carolina (919->910) ends 2/13/94 and Michigan (313->810) ends 8/10/94. > The NPA that is largest and is not splitting nor has plans, at this time, > to split, is 708. [PAT - keep your ears open for the impending split!] The -001 document also includes a list of NPAs projected to exhaust prior to 2004. NPA 708 is fourth on the list, after 205 (probably left over from pre-NPA-334 data) and 713 and 214 in Texas (exhaust in 4Q95 and 2Q96). NPA 708 is projected at 3Q96, followed closely by the just-split Washington State 206. In fact, many of those on the exhaust list are recent splits: Texas 214 (split to 903, 11/4/90) 2Q96 Illinois 708 (split from 312, 11/11/89) 3Q96 (and 312 exhaust 2Q2001!) Washington 206 (split to 360, 1/16/95) 4Q96 (counting NPA 360 NXXs??) Georgia 404 (split to 706, 5/3/92) 4Q96 (too many towns hung on?) Florida 305 (split to 407, 4/16/88) 2Q97 (and 407 exhaust 2Q2003) Arizona 602 (split to 520, 3/19/95) 4Q97 (counting NPA 520 NXXs??) California 310 (split from 213, 11/2/91) 2Q98 Colorado 303 (split to 719, 3/5/88) 3Q99 That's eight exhausts from splits effective after 1984, of the 17 possible exhausts before year end 1999. Caribbean (809) is possible in 4Q99. I wonder if any will use overlay NPAs? Also included is a table listing Inter-changeable NPA progress by NPA. Maine, Massachusetts and Vermont have yet to specify a plan. Information on 4-digit carrier code (950-XXXX and 101XXXX) planning and the requirement to support 15-digit International numbers at one second before midnight, 31 Dec. 1996 (UTC). Al Varney - any errors could be mine.... ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 8 Feb 1994 16:58:47 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: EFF Wants You (to add your voice to the crypto fight!) FYI Begin forwarded message: From: mech@eff.org (Stanton McCandlish) Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.news Subject: EFF Wants You (to add your voice to the crypto fight!) Date: 7 Feb 1994 17:34:17 -0600 The Electronic Frontier Foundation needs your help to ensure privacy rights! * DISTRIBUTE WIDELY * Monday, February 7th, 1994 From: Jerry Berman, Executive Director of EFF jberman@eff.org Dear Friends on the Electronic Frontier, I'm writing a personal letter to you because the time has now come for action. On Friday, February 4, 1994, the Administration announced that it plans to proceed on every front to make the Clipper Chip encryption scheme a national standard, and to discourage the development and sale of alternative powerful encryption technologies. If the government succeeds in this effort, the resulting blow to individual freedom and privacy could be immeasurable. As you know, over the last three years, we at EFF have worked to ensure freedom and privacy on the Net. Now I'm writing to let you know about something *you* can do to support freedom and privacy. *Please take a moment to send e-mail to U.S. Rep. Maria Cantwell (cantwell@eff.org) to show your support of H.R. 3627, her bill to liberalize export controls on encryption software.* I believe this bill is critical to empowering ordinary citizens to use strong encryption, as well as to ensuring that the U.S. software industry remains competitive in world markets. Here are some facts about the bill: Rep. Cantwell introduced H.R. 3627 in the House of Representatives on November 22, 1993. H.R. 3627 would amend the Export Control Act to move authority over the export of nonmilitary software with encryption capabilities from the Secretary of State (where the intelligence community traditionally has stalled such exports) to the Secretary of Commerce. The bill would also invalidate the current license requirements for nonmilitary software containing encryption capablities, unless there is substantial evidence that the software will be diverted, modified or re-exported to a military or terroristic end-use. If this bill is passed, it will greatly increase the availability of secure software for ordinary citizens. Currently, software developers do not include strong encryption capabilities in their products, because the State Department refuses to license for export any encryption technology that the NSA can't decipher. Developing two products, one with less secure exportable encryption, would lead to costly duplication of effort, so even software developed for sale in this country doesn't offer maximum security. There is also a legitimate concern that software companies will simply set up branches outside of this country to avoid the export restrictions, costing American jobs. The lack of widespread commercial encryption products means that it will be very easy for the federal government to set its own standard--the Clipper Chip standard. As you may know, the government's Clipper Chip initiative is designed to set an encryption standard where the government holds the keys to our private conversations. Together with the Digital Telephony bill, which is aimed at making our telephone and computer networks "wiretap-friendly," the Clipper Chip marks a dramatic new effort on the part of the government to prevent us from being able to engage in truly private conversations. We've been fighting Clipper Chip and Digital Telephony in the policy arena and will continue to do so. But there's another way to fight those initiatives, and that's to make sure that powerful alternative encryption technologies are in the hands of any citizen who wants to use them. The government hopes that, by pushing the Clipper Chip in every way short of explicitly banning alternative technologies, it can limit your choices for secure communications. Here's what you can do: I urge you to write to Rep. Cantwell today at cantwell@eff.org. In the Subject header of your message, type "I support HR 3627." In the body of your message, express your reasons for supporting the bill. EFF will deliver printouts of all letters to Rep. Cantwell. With a strong showing of support from the Net community, Rep. Cantwell can tell her colleagues on Capitol Hill that encryption is not only an industry concern, but also a grassroots issue. *Again: remember to put "I support HR 3627" in your Subject header.* This is the first step in a larger campaign to counter the efforts of those who would restrict our ability to speak freely and with privacy. Please stay tuned -- we'll continue to inform you of things you can do to promote the removal of restrictions on encryption. In the meantime, you can make your voice heard -- it's as easy as e-mail. Write to cantwell@eff.org today. Sincerely, Jerry Berman Executive Director, EFF jberman@eff.org P.S. If you want additional information about the Cantwell bill, send e-mail to cantwell-info@eff.org. To join EFF, write membership@eff.org. For introductory info about EFF, send any message to info@eff.org. The text of the Cantwell bill can be found on the Internet with the any of the following URLs (Universal Resource Locaters): ftp://ftp.eff.org/pub/Policy/Legislation/cantwell.bill http://www.eff.org/ftp/EFF/Policy/Legislation/cantwell.bill gopher://gopher.eff.org/00/EFF/legislation/cantwell.bill It will be available on AOL (keyword EFF) and CIS (go EFFSIG) soon. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V14 #70 *****************************