TELECOM Digest     Wed, 11 May 94 10:36:00 CDT    Volume 14 : Issue 208

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    FCC Order on Interstate Caller ID (John R. Levine)
    Searching For High School Classmates ... Help, Please! (Glen Gilbert)
    Cellular Telephone Pirates (Knight-Ridder via Van Hefner)
    Graceful Degradation (Jerry Levin)
    Erlang B Algorithm (James Slupsky)
    AT&T Major Billing Errors!! (Shantanu Jana)
    Need Criteria for Choosing a Phone Number (Barry S. Rein)
    SRI Ends Two Bobs' MGR (Alfredo E. Cotroneo)
    Cable Dates (Stewart Fist)

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.
It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. 

Subscriptions are available at no charge to qualified organizations
and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:

                 * telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu *

The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax 
or phone at:
                    9457-D Niles Center Road
                     Skokie, IL USA   60076
                       Phone: 708-329-0571
                        Fax: 708-329-0572
  ** Article submission address only: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu **

Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using
anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email
information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to
use the information service, just ask.

*************************************************************************
*   TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the              *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland    * 
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES)   * 
* project.  Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU.                                                 *
*************************************************************************

Additionally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such
as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help 
is important and appreciated.

All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: johnl@iecc.com (John R Levine)
Subject: FCC order on interstate Caller ID
Date: Wed, 11 May 94 02:39:45 EDT


I picked up a copy of the FCC's Caller ID order, which is available by
FTP as /pub/Orders/Common_Carrier/orcc4001.txt or orcc4001.wp.  (Kudos
to the FCC for making this info available so easily and quickly, by
the way.)

Much of the order is straightforward and not contentious, e.g.
delivering CNID between local and long distance carriers is so cheap
to implement that neither may charge the other for the data.  They
also note that per-call blocking is a good idea, and that *67 should
be the universal code to block CNID delivery.

But the arguments they list against per-line CNID seem, to me, to be
astonishingly specious.

There are three blocking options 1) per call for anyone, 2) per line
for anyone, and 3) per line for special groups.  The FCC thinks, not
unreasonably, that it's a mare's nest to ask the telco to implement 3,
since they have to determine who's in the special groups and who
isn't.  Then they say:

  43.  In the NPRM, we tentatively concluded that per line
    blocking unduly burdens calling party number based services
    overall by failing to limit its applicability to those calls for
    which  privacy is of concern to the caller.  The Commission noted
    that even in the case of law enforcement personnel, there may be
    a need to maintain calling number privacy on some calls, but that
    the same number may be used to telephone other law enforcement
    personnel, victims of crimes, cooperative witnesses, and family
    or friends.  The Commission asserted that in these types of
    calls, calling number privacy is not needed and calling number
    identification can actually be a valuable piece of information
    for both the caller and called parties.  The record reflects the
    useful nature of CPN based services, and the comments of
    Rochester illustrate that callers are likely to be interested in
    blocking only a small percentage of their calls.  The comments of
    USCG illustrate the usefulness of caller ID to emergency
    services.  In contrast, Missouri Counsel's analogy to unlisted
    numbers is inapposite because caller ID only permits parties
    called by the calling party to capture the calling party number,
    and then only if the calling party has not activated a per call
    blocking mechanism.  We find that the availability of per call
    unblocking does not cure the ill effects of per line blocking. 
    Moreover, in an emergency, a caller is not likely to remember to
    dial or even to know to dial an unblocking code.  For the
    foregoing reasons, we find that a federal per line blocking
    requirement for interstate CPN based services, including caller
    ID, is not the best policy choice of those available to recognize
    the privacy interests of callers.  Thus, carriers may not offer
    per line blocking as a privacy protection mechanism on interstate
    calls.  We agree that certain uses of captured calling numbers
    need to be controlled, and address that issue infra.  

In other words, per-line blocking is a bad idea because subscribers
are too dumb to unblock calls when they want to unblock them, although
they're not to dumb to block calls when they want to block them.

In paragraph 47 they note that where per-line blocking is offered,
telcos use *67 as a blocking toggle, so users can't really tell what
*67 does, but it doesn't seem to occur to them that the problem is
easily solved by requiring a different code for unblock than for
block.  In paragraph 48 they wave their hands and say that people who
care about privacy can just buy a box for "as little as $40.00 per
unit" that will stuff *67 in front of each call.  Thanks, guys.

The docket number is 91-281, with comments due by May 18th.  Comments
must reference the docket number.  Send ten copies (yes, 10) to:

Office of the Secretary
Federal Communications Commission
Washington DC 20554

Before you fire off a comment, please get a copy of the order, since
there's a lot of material beyond what I've summarized.  For people
without FTP access, I've put them on my mail server.  Send:

send fcc-cnid.txt (for the text version)

send fcc-cnid.wp.uu (for uuencoded compressed WP version)

to compilers-server@iecc.com.


Regards,

John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, jlevine@delphi.com, 1037498@mcimail.com

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

From: gilbert@cs.ucsd.edu (Glen Gilbert)
Subject: Searching for High School Classmates ... Help, please!
Date: 10 May 94 21:54:13 GMT


At the suggestion of someone more knowledgeable than I, relative to
the power of computer-aided search, I have been directed to this
group to ask for help.

I am wanting to locate a list of people (or do a search for these
people via net), about 300+ of them, who are being sought for our
thirtieth high school class reunion. One (manual) way is to go to the
telephone books for the general area, available here in out University
library for most all of the US, (Oakland, CA and San Francisco Bay
Area) and go through each of them (there are about two dozen covering
the Alameda County area and outlaying districts!)  to find the names
of the people who are "missing". But, aside from being a gargantuan
task and extremely time consuming, I am wondering if there is a manner
of doing a search of users in that area -- those who are connected to
some computing system that is readable from this net? (My lack of
expertise is about to show here 8-( )

I don't know if a list of names could be given as a list for a script
to do searches of computing resources it that particular area. And,
how time-consuming it would be. But, is it a feasible task? And, how
would I go about it? I have some pretty good resources (personnel) who
could help with the script, but I wanted to throw it out to this group
since the numbers who read/write to this group certainly must exceed
my wildest dreams -- including the depth and breadth of knowledge!!!

Or, would it be a better thing to send a blanket list to cites in the
area (SF/Bay Area) and/or the USA to ask others to look thru the list
for names of friends/employees whose names they recognize and ask that
they ask them to be in touch with me?  [Now _that_ one is a task that
I shudder to think about. How many would be willing to receive a list
of 300+ peoples' names and search through them for people they might
know? But, then again, if I knew someone from the Boston area as a
coworker and read about a class reuniong from that area, I might look
thru the list for his/her name. Then again, I may not! 8-/ ]

Have I given enough information to warrant a thumbs up, =b d=, or a
thumbs down, =p q=, on this thing?  Comments are most welcome. And, if
this is not the most appropriate group, then where would you suggest I
send this? Oh, yes, I was also thinking of setting up a Group called
alt.rec.class.reunions. Does this sound like a good idea?  I've not
done anything like that before. My experiences have been in reading,
replying to and posting articles in the netnews.

Thank you for your help.


Glen W. Gilbert
CSE Operations, UCSD (ggilbert@ucsd.edu)
Glen Gilbert, UC San Diego
Computer Science & Engineering Dept
(619) 534-0454  email: ggilbert@UCSD.EDU

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

From: vantek@aol.com
Date: Tue, 10 May 94 19:47:42 EDT
Subject: Cellular Telephone Pirates


CELLULAR TELEPHONE PIRATES IN CARIBBEAN COST FIRMS HEAVILY

BY DAVID KIDWELL
Knight-Ridder News Service

MIAMI -- Modern-day pirates of the Caribbean are sailing the waves -- the
high-tech airwaves of cellular telephones.

So pesky and adept have they become at cloning cellular telephones and
running up thousands of dollars in fraudulent overseas bills that
Florida cellular companies have begun to block direct dial service to
the Bahamas and parts of the Caribbean.

BellSouth Mobility this month stopped direct-dial service to Jamaica,
Haiti, the Dominican Republic and the Bahamas. Cellular One blocked
the Dominican Republic last fall and Jamaica in February.

"It's a few bad apples," said Jim Walz, BellSouth's regional vice
president. "This cloning problem didn't really hit us until late last
year.  It's now enough of an inconvenience to our customer base to do
something about it.

"We don't want any more of our customers to get these exploding phone
bills," he said.

"And we want them to know if they do get one of these bills, it's not
their problem. It's ours. We eat it."

Customers can still use their cellular telephones to call the blocked
countries, but must use an operator and a personal credit card.

Here's how the pirates pillage the airwaves:

With a special radio scanner and the right computer equipment, they
can pluck from the airwaves the cellular code numbers of legitimate
customers. From there, they are able to load the codes into other
telephones, then sell them to drug dealers, smugglers or immigrants
who can't afford regular long distance service to their former
homelands.

Charges for the calls, sometimes reaching $10,000 in a month, then
show up on the legitimate customer's bill. When the customer
complains, the phone codes are replaced, making the duplicate phone
inoperable.

But catching the pirates is difficult, especially because they're calling
numbers overseas.

"This particular area -- Miami in particular -- has become a mecca for
cellular phone fraud," said Brian Stafford, assistant agent in charge
of the U.S. Secret Service's Miami Office. "We're getting dozens of
reports every month, and the average for one of these bills is about
$6,000."

Stafford said South Florida's large Caribbean immigrant population
makes it a natural market for cellular pirates.

"It's tempting when they can make free calls home for price of a clone
phone," he said, adding that the phones sell for an average of $150.
Nationwide, the cellular industry estimates fraudulent calls cost
about $1 million per day. South Florida is among the top three
markets, both in legitimate and fraudulent calls. The others are Los
Angeles and New York City.

Walz said the battle against the pirates is being waged on computer
screens.  BellSouth has already persuaded the Bahamas to install
computer software like that used in the United States that makes
easier to detect duplicate phones and shut them down.

"We expect to have service restored to the Bahamas sometime next
month," Walz said.


Van Hefner      Discount Long Distance Digest     vantek@aol.com

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

From: levin@1.121.159.165.in-addr.arpa (jerry levin)
Subject: Graceful Degradation
Date: 10 May 1994 23:58:45 GMT
Organization: Trident Data Systems


Can anyone explain to me what is meant by graceful degradation when
referring to a data bus?

Thanks for your help in advance.


Jerry Levin  Voice-mail, 703-802-3685

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

Date: Wed, 11 May 1994 04:57:54 +0700
From: jslupsky@pwss.gov.ab.ca (James Slupsky)
Subject: Erlang B Algorithm


If you are looking for the Erlang-b formula, it is:

B(C,A) = [(A**C)/C!]/[sum from i=0 to C of ((A**i)/i!)], where C=# of trunks
and A=offered load (in erlangs=CCS/36).

A neat recursive formula (for calculating on a computer) is: 

(taken from "An introductin to Telecommunications Network Traffic
Engineering", by Dr. Lansun Lee, 1986 Edition, Alta Telecom
International Inc)

B(0,A) = 1,
B(C,A) = [A*B(C-1,A)]/[C + A*B(C-1,A)]

Hope this helps!


James

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

From: sjana@chaph.usc.edu (Shantanu Jana)
Subject: AT&T Major Billing Errors!!
Date: 10 May 1994 19:08:25 -0700
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA


Hi everybody,

This is Shantanu Jana from Los Angeles warning you about the present
misdeeds of AT&T.  I believe that most if not all of you have seen the
aggressive campaigning of AT&T on television, wherein they started by
offering True USA rewards of 20% of all US calls totalling to more
than $25, and True World savings, to all numbers in one country of
your choice, giving 50% off to all the numbers.

Well, I signed up in March 1994, and in the March bill, I did not
receive the 20% off, and also on one weekend, when AT&T went to match
MCI and offered 73 cents a minute on weekends to India. Guess what, I
was billed 86 cents a minute, which is more than half which was
guaranteed otherwise. Calling them is no joke too. I called the
billing inquiries number, and was put on hold for 24 minutes, after
which I went through the operator and managed to reach them. I was
given the figure for the credit, and they also noted my complaint for
their billing irregularities and for the difficulty in reaching them.

Now, a month later, my second bill contains only the True USA credit
and not the True World credit, and my billing for International is far
from the half off at 78 cents a minute. They billed me at $1.33 per
minute. When I spoke to the customer service representative, she could
not even give me the credit amount to appear in my future bills. She
mentioned something about two working days. Then I asked to be
connected to a supervisor, and I was connected to VICKI GARCIA, who
managed to find the credit amounts owed to me. I requested her to send
me a letter of apology mentioning how they mess up the billing, which
she declined, and so I asked her to attach to the bill, a statement
informing the subscribers that the bills were messed up and that they
should go through them carefully. This too could not be done.

At this stage in exasperation, I asked to speak to a person in charge,
who could own up to their mistake and send the apology note, only to
be informed, that in AT&T (A phone company I believe) beyond the
supervisor, you need to write to the Vice President, and you could not
speak to anyone further, even if they cannot answer your questions or
solve your problems. This I believe speaks highly of an establishment
as big and spread out as AT&T. I am really surprised that in a country
like the US, such a firm, with such a terrible customer service exists
and thrives.

GOD SAVE AMERICA!!!

I believe that many subscribers who trust AT&T as a good phone
company, are being cheated out of what is promised to them, unless
they are willing to go through this ridiculous (suposedly customer
service), who are only out to con.  When, in their advertisements,
they have the audacity to ask you to ask them to give it in writing,
they are the ones who are covering the big fraud.

An obviously harassed subscriber,


Shantanu Jana     (213) 747-0855.


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Part or all of the problem lies in the fact
that AT&T billing is done by the various local telephone companies and
they (the local telcos) seem to not always be up to snuff at having the
right software for billing in place. Probably AT&T should have mentioned
to you when you first enrolled in their various offerings that in the 
event your bill -- as prepared and sent to you by the local telco -- was
incorrect you should call them (as you have done) and they would issue a
manual credit covering the differences between what they advertised and
what the local telco in fact charged. I think you may be coming down a 
little to hard on them demanding a written apology, etc.   PAT]

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

From: barry.s.rein@jpl.nasa.gov (Barry S. Rein)
Subject: Need Criteria for Choosing a Phone Number
Date: 10 May 1994 23:32:09 GMT
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory


We're moving soon and we'll have to get a new phone number.  For
$10.00 Pacific Bell will let me choose any phone number with the right
prefix as long as it's not already taken.

I'm looking for criteria on what makes a telephone number easy to
remember.  Restaurants are supposedly willing to kill for a memorable
phone number, so I wonder if there is any research or recommendations
on how to select one, ie what combinations are remembered; what
combinations are most often mis-dialled, etc.

Incidentally, our exchange prefixes are 398, 791, 794, 797, and 798 -- 818
area code.

Thanks very much for your advice,


Barry Rein    barry.s.rein@jpl.nasa.gov

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

Date: 11 May 94 01:17:28 EDT
From: Alfredo E. Cotroneo <100020.1013@CompuServe.COM>
Subject: SRI Ends Two Bobs' MGR


Swiss Radio International announces a restructuring of its services
which will come into effect on June 6, 1994, and will bring -- among
other things -- the close down of the popular weekly DX program "The
Swiss Merry Go Round", hosted by the "Two Bobs", Bob Thomann and Bob
Zanotti. Details on what has been heard today on SRI follow.
 
As reported today by Paul Saffren on the "Grapevine" on Swiss Radio
International, in an interview with Nicholas Lombard, Head of the
English Satellite Project, these are the dramatic changes coming into
effect at SRI on June 6, 1994:
 
- SRI will establish a 24 hours English service on European satellite
(Astra, current transponder/subcarrier?), with 1/2 hours news
(bulletins, commentaries, press reviews, and Swiss matters to interest
to Intl audience) and 1/2 hour feature programs (life, science,
economy, culture in Switzerland) every hour;
 
- The current twenty-five people of the news room and English Service
will be amalgamated into a one single Dept. for both Shortwave and
Satellite service;
 
- There will be an addition of commercial and financial news (advertising?) 
to the current programs;
 
- There will be definitely a loss of emphasis on Shortwave
transmissions, especially in Europe, justified by the "inevitable
further decline of Shortwave", especially after the introduction of
"mobile satellite receivers". Shortwave transmissions in Europe will
be available "only during prime time (morning, midday and evening)",
while at the moment there seem to be "no intention to close down
overseas". (Might this prelude to a close down of Shortwave in
Europe?).  No details were given on where "mobile satellite receivers"
to receive SRI can be purchased, and at which price.
 
- It was stated that one of the reasons behind the change in broadcast
policy is that "satellite is much cheaper" vs. Shortwave as far a the
technical infrastructure is concerned, although this choice means
"losing autonomy" and depending on other organizations/countries for
satellite usage.
 
- On Shortwave only the first half hour (i.e. news, no feature
programmes) will be used. Features will be only aired once at 14:30 on
SW to Europe, but not to overseas.
 
- The Grapevine and the Swiss MGR as they are now will not continue.
As for the two Bob's MGR Nicholas Lombard made a strong comment on the
air stating that as "a DX program we will forget about that particular
program". There might be a replacement -- perhaps -- strictly in the
form of a media program, and on European satellite only, but it will
be very different from the current DX program.
 
                             -----

No mention of the restructuring was given at all on the MGR this week
(following the Grapevine program), maybe due to the fact that the MGR
was recorded before the announcement was given. Bob Zanotti in today's
MGR, however, seemed to anticipate what might be explained on one of
the next and last editions of the two Bobs', before closing down on
June 6 : "The whole field of telecommunications is changing, moving,
and we are moving with it". You get all the irony and sadness of the
sentence, once you know the full story.
 
I immediately contacted Bob Zanotti, who has been a good friend of
mine for many years, but he declined to add any further comments
besides what has being heard today on the air. He only mentioned his
sadness and disbelief in hearing himself the complete details of the
project on the air. The restructuring of SRI was apparently announced
internally only a few days ago.
 
SRI may not be reached by e-mail, but you may contact them by fax on
+41-31-350 9569 for inquires or comments on the above. I am sure the
two Bobs will be glad to have your support, and hear your comments
(maybe there might be a last minute change if there are enough
protests). We have offered to relay any e-mail directed to them to us
here (100020.1013@compuserve.com or Compuserve: 100020,1013).  Well
forward all comments to them, if you want to convey your support or
protest.
 
We will also appreciate receiving by direct e-mail copy or echo of any
comment on the above which appears on Internet/USENET, and on
other media, since we do not have a direct Internet/USENET
connection.
 
We will also try to interview the two Bobs and other SRI representatives 
on the next edition of the "Hello There" on IRRS-Shortwave on the air
on the week-end of May 15, in an effort to better understand the
reasons behind what appears an insane decision.
 
Thank You.
 
 
73,
 
Alfredo E. Cotroneo, President          NEXUS-IBA is a
NEXUS-Int'l Broadcasting Association    non profit org.
PO Box 10980, I-20110 Milano, Italy     which operates 
Phone: +39-337-297788 / +39-2-2666971   IRRS-Shortwave &
email: 100020.1013@compuserve.com       IRRS-GRM on FM
 

[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Although there is a lot of nostalgia
and romanticism where shortwave radio is concerned, the SRI people
*are* correct that satellite is less expensive and probably it is
more reliable also. Consider all the changes in the past few years:
radio (in general) yielded much of its influence to television. For
a half century or so, Hollywood reigned supreme with radio in the 
lives of Americans at least. Then television began to replace going
to the theatres since talking-pictures were now common in one's own
home. Why just listen to the radio when you could listen and *see* 
what was going on? Now television has been to a large extent been
made obsolete by cable and satellite programs. All the inconveniences 
of listening to shortwave radio have been rendered moot by the ease
of a couple buttons on a receiver. People went to motion picture
theatres in the 1940's for entertainment which was impossible to
obtain elsewhere and to watch the newsreels. We had a theatre here
in Chicago called The Forum which showed nothing but newsreels; the
news of the day in a 50 minute program which started every hour on the
hour from 6 AM until 3 AM the next day. (They closed for a couple of
hours in the early morning so the janitor could clean the place up.)    
During the intermissions between shows they piped in the BBC over
a loudspeaker. People were angry when The Forum closed its doors 
about 1960 saying that television news had put them out of business.

And now computers and satellites have largely replaced television and
Hollywood. So, I feel shortwave radio served us well and continues to
serve us to some extent, but if the purpose is communication among the
people of the world over a large geographical span in a very short
period of time -- almost instantly -- then there *are* better ways to
go about it than shortwave radio with the unreliable and unpredictable
problems of radio transmissions as they were done in the past. Which
magazine was it a few years ago that grumbled about how the 'challenge'
behind receiving shortwave transmissions was now gone. They cited all
the shortwave stations which were using repeaters all over the world
and how there no longer was any challenge or need for skill in tuning
in distant, weak transmissions; no longer any need to know anything
at all about how to construct an antenna for best reception.  But that
was the point, you see: the broadcasters of the world did not want a
challenge or stumbling block in the way; they wanted their information
widely available.  As an information provider, I want the same thing.
I don't want it to be hard for you to read this Digest, I want it to
be easy ... in the case of SRI and others, I guess their conclusion is
they can reach more people for less money and less effort by ditching
the old techniques and going with new methods. In that sense, can you
blame them?  I also love to live in the past, but ... well I think you
get the point.   PAT]

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

Date: 11 May 94 07:43:21 EDT
From: Stewart Fist <100033.2145@CompuServe.COM>
Subject: Cable Dates


Bill Brasuell asks:
 
> Does anyone know the date of the first undersea cable between the USA
> and Europe/UK?

You'll probably get a couple of different replies to this query,
because of the three attempts.  I've got a database on this trivia, so
let me straighten it out now.  This is the main sequence of events:

Back in 1852 the cable crossed the Irish Sea from the UK.  This was
the first essential step.  Dover to Calais had been completed in 1851,
thus making the continental connection possible.

In 1854 Cyrus Field established a company in America to construct the
Atlantic cable from Ireland to be landed in Newfoundland.  Lord Kelvin
led the push on the English end.  It was to be 4000kms (end-to-end)
and laid to maximum depth of 4400 m.

In 1856 two cables were laid from Canada to Newfoundland to get ready
for the Atlantic connection.

On August 7, 1857 laying began on the main Atlantic cable but it broke on
third day. They tried again early in 1858 and failed again.

On the third try later in 1858 they succeeded in laying the cable and
getting messages across it. On August 7, 1858 Queen Victoria and US
President James Buchanan exchange telegraphed greetings.  The cable
only carried messages for 27 days, and failed.

They laid another using the "Great Eastern" in 1866, and on August 4, 1866
the first permanently-operating Atlantic telegraphy cable link was opened 
 from New York to London -- and via London onto Paris.

And later:

December 12, 1901 was the first trans-Atlantic radio signal.  The
letter 'S' was send from Cornwall to Newfoundland by Marconi. The
Anglo-American Telegraph Company (cable owners) threatened him with
legal action because they claimed exclusive rights to electrical
communications in the British colonies.

September 25, 1956 was the day the first trans-Atlantic coaxial
telephone cable came into operations.

Let me add another bit of trivia.  

November 20, 1871 was the date the first overseas telegram reached
Australia.  It came via India, Singapore, Djakata to Darwin (later
Djakata (then Batavia) was by-passed) and was then carried overland by
horse messager to Sydney.

Because of many problems, the overland link from Adelaide to Darwin
(1937 miles) was only completed on August 22, 1872 when it joined the
cable to Melbourne and Sydney.

The signals needed to be rekeyed 18 times between Sydney and London,
and many of the Morse operators couldn't speak English.

Shortly after the official opening of the London link, a Sydney Reuter's 
correspondent sent a news story to the UK about a ground-breaking ceremony 
for the new Queensland railway.  His despatch began: "Governer turns first 
sod  ..."   

Unfortunately, by the time it reached London and went into print it
had been translated by the Morse operators into "Governer twins first
son ..."

As he was 80 years old and well-known in London society circles as a
gay batchelor, this created some consternation!


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Thanks for a neat article to close this
issue. Does anyone remember the game played by children in the past called
'Chinese Telephone'?  A group of people stand in a circle (the more the
merrier; twenty or more people are recommended) and the first person must
whisper a short sentence one time only to the person to his left. That
person in turn must whisper one time only what he *thought* he heard to
the person to his left; and on it goes until the final person in the circle
tells the person to his left (the originator) what he *thinks* he heard
said by the person to his right. The deviation between the original message
and the final report can be hilarious.   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V14 #208
******************************

