TELECOM Digest     Thu, 2 Jun 94 11:05:00 CDT    Volume 14 : Issue 266

Inside This Issue:                          Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Help: Bad Phone Lines in San Jose (John R. Haggis)
    Re: Help Needed: Fax/Answering Machine/Phone (Steve Cogorno)
    Re: Security of a Code? (Mark Brukhartz)
    Re: Ground-start trunk line sharing product? (Dave Ptasnik)
    Re: S-s-s-stuttering Dial Tone Detection (Dave Ptasnik)
    Re: U.S. Postal Service and the Information Highway (Dave O'Shea)
    Re: Out-Going Call Blocking to Local Numbers (thssamj@iitmax.iit.edu)
    Re: Average Data Speed of Wire Telegraphy (Wes Leatherock)
    Re: Average Data Speed of Wire Telegraphy (Dick St.Peters)
    Re: Cost of Caller ID in PA (Fred Linton)
    Re: Cost of Caller ID in PA (Robert G. Schaffrath)

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: haggis@netcom.com (John R. Haggis)
Subject: Re: Help: Bad Phone Lines in San Jose
Organization: Millennium Research
Date: Wed, 1 Jun 1994 12:21:03 GMT


In article <telecom14.260.3@eecs.nwu.edu> terry@hh.sbay.org (Terry
Greenlee) writes:

> I am having trouble with my phone lines at home and I was wondering if
> anyone else had this same thing happen to them?

Terry, I've had bad phone lines all over the place, including the
rusty, musty lines up in Boulder creek.

> Monday a Bell tech will come out to test.

Yeah, and he'll say, "We don't guarantee lines for more than 4800
baud.  You have to get a leased line to do better."  This is their
mantra.  Don't accept it for a second.

> Does anyone at Pacific Bell know how to fix these problems?

No.  That's the problem.  Short of replacing all the lines,
everywhere.  Maybe we should get phone service over the cable TV
lines ...

Seriously, here's how you deal with them.

To the "not rated over 4800 baud" mantra, just insist that everybody
else has better operation, and keep insisting that it's your individual 
lines.  Keep insisting that they change drops or incoming trunk lines 
until it works.  Tell them it worked before for you at another house
(it has for me, both the strategy and the mechanics).

Above all, keep calling and going over peoples' heads.  The people at
Pac Bell, while regular, nice people on the outside, become flaming
assholes when at work under the strain of a job they have no concept
or understanding of.

Give 'em h*ll.


John  (haggis@netcom.com)

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

From: cogorno@netcom.com (Steve Cogorno)
Subject: Re: Help Needed: Fax/Answering Machine/Phone
Date: Wed, 1 Jun 1994 11:14:56 PDT


Said by: Kathy Vincent

> 2.  Can anyone recommend integrated equipment -- a three-in-one
>     combination in which all THREE elements are quality?
>     She says she's found some combinations, but the answering
>     machine is usually junk.  She would prefer a digital answering
>     machine (i.e., no tapes).  Can anyone recommend anything that might
>     do the job -- especially anything <=$500?

Does she have a computer?  I have a modem that is made by Promethus
Products, called the Ultima Home Office.  It integrates 14,400 bps
DATA, 14,400 Send/Receive Fax, and Voice mail with up to 100
mailboxes.  It will only handle one line, and it has a few quirks, but
once you get the hang of it, it works wonderfully.

There are PC and Macintosh versions availible for around $390.  One
caveat: for voice mail, the computer must be on, and running the
MaxFax software (it can be in the background; the modem will
automatically bring it to the front).  If she has a Macintosh with
Solid-State power (All of the Macintosh II series, Quadra 700, 800,
840, 900) there is an adated availible for about $30 that will turn on
the computer on the first detected ring.  For other models, you can
get a similar adapter, but more expensive (around $150) which is like
a power strip: you plug the computer into it, and it turns the power
on after the first ring.


Steve   cogorno@netcom.com

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

Date: Wed, 1 Jun 94 14:12:25 -0500
From: mark_brukhartz@il.us.swissbank.com (Mark Brukhartz)
Subject: Re: Security of a Code?


The basic measure of cipher strength is key length. If a cipher has no
other weaknesses (a major point), it can still be broken by trying
every key until one produces recognizable data. This is known as a
"brute force attack."  Each bit of key length doubles the time needed
for a brute force attack.

Assume that an attacker has a million CPUs, each capable of trying a
thousand keys per second. (I believe that those are reasonable figures
for a well financed opponent attacking a typical cipher.) Here are the
average times to break a cipher by brute force for several key
lengths:

  40 bits 9 minutes
  48 bits 40 hours
  56 bits 1 year
  64 bits 300 years
  72 bits 7 thousand years
  80 bits 20 million years

These times will shrink as computers get faster. For data which must
remain secure for several decades, extraordinarily long keys are
warranted.

Ciphers based upon typical pseudo-random number generators are weak,
and can be broken quickly by a professional cryptographer regardless
of key length.  Such ciphers are all too common, often built in to
applications such as word processors and spreadsheets.

Academic cryptographers publish new ciphers which have passed analysis
by their immediate colleagues. Many of these ciphers, if not most of
them, are still broken within a few years. Beware of proprietary
ciphers, because they have not been subjected to such scrutiny.

For moderate data security, the old US Data Encryption Standard (DES)
is still a decent algorithm. In over fifteen years of academic
analysis, no serious weakness has been revealed. Unfortunately, its 56
bit key is small by today's standards. It is widely speculated that
government spy bureaus have built specialized DES cracking hardware
which can complete a brute force attack within minutes. DES still
provides excellent security from ordinary hackers and nosy employees,
though.


Mark Brukhartz   mdb@il.us.swissbank.com 

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

From: davep@u.washington.edu (Dave Ptasnik)
Subject: Re: Ground-Start Trunk Line Sharing Product?
Date: 1 Jun 1994 19:16:42 GMT
Organization: University of Washington


Rod Regier <rr@dymaxion.ns.ca> writes:

> Background:

> My organization is currently using a Mitel SX-100 PBX.  The incoming
> TELCO trunk lines are ground-start trunks.  I have no "free" locals

> I would like to use the two-line pool at night to add to my dialup
> modem pool without adding any additional (expensive, $C1000/yr) telco
> lines.

> If the two-line pool used normal loop lines, I could use a product
> like the Cardinal Communications Comshare 550 to support both incoming
> voice and data calls, as well as outgoing PBX calls.

One of the Mitel family of SMar-T dialers includes a loop/ground start
converter.  Placet this on the line and you can use any 2500 equivalent 
on a ground start trunk.  Ask you Mitel dealer for details. A 4 line unit 
probably costs less than $300.


Dave Ptasnik  davep@u.washington.edu

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

From: davep@u.washington.edu (Dave Ptasnik)
Subject: Re: S-s-s-stuttering Dial Tone Detection
Date: 1 Jun 1994 19:26:00 GMT
Organization: University of Washington


kmp@tiac.net (K. M. Peterson) writes:

> My problem: I don't want to have to lift the handset to find out if I
> have messages.  Has someone come up with a box to sit on one's line
> and detect this (and flash a lamp or something)?

A Canadian company called Xinex Networks, Inc. makes an amazing
telephone called the mindSET.  It periodically samples the line
looking for stutter dial tone, and turns on a big message light when
it finds it.  There is a nice display that shows Caller-ID information.  
It also has a whole bunch of speed dial keys and function keys, or you
can enter in bunches of names and scroll through them on the display,
like a Rolodex.  Naturally it has a speakerphone.  It also passes
through the ring provided by the phone company, so if you have custom
ringing, you can hear the different patterns.  All in all a very nice
unit.  Don't know the price, just got to play with a demo unit for a
while.


Dave Ptasnik  davep@u.washington.edu

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

From: dos@spam.wdns.wiltel.com (Dave O'Shea)
Subject: Re: U.S. Postal Service and the Information Highway
Date: 1 Jun 1994 20:04:27 GMT
Organization: WilTel
Reply-To: dave_oshea@wiltel.com


> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Despite what Runyan may say, the United
> States Postal Service is in very bad condition. Over the past three months
> there have been major upheavals in the USPS here in Chicago, as Runyan
> himself can attest. Several top officials of the post office here have

There is value in the post office, though: Much like New York City's
subways, where "I took the subway" is excuse for any lateness at all,
"it's in the mail" is a wonderful, irrefutable excuse for whatever
kind of misbehavior you feel like. If I forget to send my car loan
payment in, I just say "the check's in the mail" when they call. End
of case, I have two weeks to do whatever I want. Now, If I was dumb
enough to use someone like Fedex, the bank could simply ask for an
airbill number, and in 30 seconds, I'd be hanging my head in shame,
admitting that I blew the car payment on a new 500mb drive.

(Sarcasm intended. I drop by the post office weekly to give them the
mail that has been delivered to me, though it is addressed to people
sometimes near, sometimes far. And exchanging mis-delivered mail is a
great way to meet the neighbors.)


Dave O'Shea                         dave_oshea@wiltel.com
Sr. Network Support Engineer        201.236.3730
WilTel Data NelzNitwork Services    


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I do the same thing at my post office
box downtown. Whenever I go in, I'll find several items in my Box 1570, 
Chicago, IL 60690 (intended for me) with a rubber stamp endorsement 
on the front of the envelope saying 'opened in error by First National
Bank of Chicago'. As well, there will be a few items in my box not for
me, but either for a nearby box or as often as not, someone who lives
at 1570 (some street) or Apartment 1570 (at some address), Chicago
60609, or Buffalo Grove, IL 60090. I used to simply take them to the
call counter and leave them with the clerk, but sometimes the very same
letter would be in my box *again the next day*. Now I have a little
rubber stamp which reads "Not For Box 1570 at Chicago 60690"  and I
stamp that on the envelope before giving it back. If I still get the
same letter back a couple times more (it has happened) then I take
a pen and completely obliterate the zip code the writer put on the
envelope forcing the 'nixies clerk' to seek it out manually.  

One little kid sent a postcard to WGN-TV at their box, which is 10003
(note the extra zero in the middle), Chicago, IL 60610. He wanted his
free prize offered on some television show for little folks. I got 
that damn postcard *three times* recycled to my box. Finally I penciled
in a note on the front by the address saying 'Try Fort Dearborn Station
at 606-one-oh'. When it arrived a fourth time (yes!) at my box the
next day with my 'try Fort Dearborn' notation scratched out I took the
card with me and dropped it off with the receptionist at the front
desk at WGN's offices, 2301 W. Bradley Place on my way home. 

But the best one of all was printed in {Pravda} several years ago. It
seems some Soviet school children had been given the assignment of writing
letters to the leaders of different countries asking them about their
country and encouraging them to work for peace among nations. One little
guy named Ivan had written to President Reagan. The picture in {Pravda}
showed this kid about ten years old with a very bewildered look on his
face and an envelope in front of him addressed to "President Reagan,
United States of America". On the envelope, a rubber stamp endorsement
quite plain for everyone to read, "Moved, left no forwarding address,
return to sender" with indicia of the Washington, DC post office. (He
was president at the time.) The newspaper's caption to the picture
read, "Postal Service says cannot locate President".  The picture and
accompanying story was on the employees bulletin board at 60690 for
several months. It was taken down finally when it had accumulated quite
a bit of graffiti written on it, no doubt by disgruntled postal workers
and/or customers who saw it.   PAT]

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

From: thssamj@iitmax.iit.edu (jani)
Subject: Re: Out-Going Call Blocking to Local Numbers
Organization: Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago
Date: Wed, 1 Jun 94 20:08:28 GMT


In article <telecom14.261.6@eecs.nwu.edu> thssamj@iitmax.iit.edu
(jani) writes:

> Is it possible to block outgoing calls to selected local numbers?
> Ameritech says they do not have such a service. Only kind of outgoing
> call blocking they offer is to 1-900 numbers and total blocking to
> long distance service.

> They suggested I should check out if there was such a device available
> from a third party. Is there such a thing?

> I would prefer if the phone company could do it at their end as it
> would be more secure. (The device can not be unplugged and disabled.)

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Telco does have classes of service which
> allow total blocking to local calls; blocking of long distance calls 

[deleted...]

> and can be secreted in an out-of-the-way place on your premises. A
> detirmined person could get into them, but they do the job in most
> cases.  PAT]

The phone company, Ameritech in Illinois says they do not offer the
class of service that blocks all local calls as they are in the
business of getting people to make more calls -- not restrict calls.

Are they saying this because it is not technically possible or is it
because they have marketing considerations in mind?

Is it possible to change to a phone company that offers such a service.
The line is located in a apartment building.  Is there another local
phone company in the area (Chicago) that would offer such a service?


amj


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: There is, for all intents and purposes,
no alternative to Illinois Bell (Ameritech) in your case. Your volume
of business does not warrant it. If your phone bill was like that of 
University of Chicago, or City of Chicago, or Amoco, or Rush-Presbyterian 
and around five hundred thousand dollars per *month* and you had a service
representative at telco assigned exclusively to your account, who 
worked on nothing but 'amj' business eight hours a day like the above
accounts, then telco would be coming around asking you what you wanted.

*Yes*, they do offer a class of service which restricts all local calls
and only allows long distance. And when you called and asked about it,
the rep who dealt with you probably wrote you off as a crackpot and
let it go at that. They won't give it to you, so forget it. For quite
a few years I had a part time job reconciling the phone bill and making
service changes for a large company downtown with centrex. A phone
on my desk was for long distance only. If I dialed seven digits to
anywhere it went to intercept (call cannot be completed as dialed). It
did accept 1+ ten digits; it did not accept 0+ dialing. I think the
bill there was only about sixty thousand dollars per month, making it
one of the smaller 'larger' accounts. 

If you want to do business with the 'competition' at Teleport (or
whoever it is that moved in on Ameritech's territory), plan to show
them where you can give them at least several thousand dollars per
month in business. They do not handle residence stuff. You are not in
Central Telephone's territory (I assume you are not in the little
sliver of land they control on the northwest side) so you cannot go to
them unless you want foreign exchange service and believe me you, when
you see the bill for FX you'll wish you had stayed with IBT and a few
unauthorized local calls from time to time.

Do as you were told here yesterday and visit the local Radio Shack
store in your neighborhood. Be creative and find a way to secrete the
device on your premises, under lock and key if necessary. You will get
along just fine. PAT]
 
------------------------------

From: wes.leatherock@oubbs.telecom.uoknor.edu
Date: Wed, 01 Jun 94 08:50:22 
Organization: [ OU BBS University Of Oklahoma  (405)325-6128 TBBS ]
Subject: Re: Average Data Speed of Wire Telegraphy Wanted


Quoting itstevec@rocky.ucdavis.edu (Steve Chafe)

> Does anyone know what the average speed (in characters per minute,
> or whatever is appropriate) of a professional telegrapher would
> have been when wire telegraphy was the main mode of electronic
> communication?  I'm trying to do a comparison of data communication
> speed then and now, so I'd love to hear any thoughts that people
> can offer.
      
I can't give a numeric figure, but I can provide some anecdotal
information.
      
In the 1950s, I was a reporter and editor for United Press in Dallas.
Our circuits serving clients (newspapers and radio stations,
primarily) were 60-speed Teletype circuits fed by ASR machines
(punched tape run through a distributor so that full throughput could
be obtained, unlike hand keying which is not more than two-thirds as
fast effectively, and often much less.)
      
On Saturday afternoons during the football season, many of the
accounts of football games came in on Western Union short period
leased circuits.  (At that time, Western Union had exclusive contracts
with virtually all stadiums, including college stadiums.)
      
We would have several such games coming in over Western Union
circuits, most of them set up on teletypewriters which were apparently
hand cranked at the stadium end by Western Union operators drawn from
their regular pool.
      
However, occasionally we had the pleasure of seeing a real live
operator show up with his key and sounder.  This was always a
pleasure.
      
The stories that came in by Western Union teletypewriter were always
slow and frequently had errors that had to be questioned.  (Press copy
uses full text, full punctuation, etc., and a story about a football
game is naturally full of figures and statistics, all of which seem to
be foreign to what Western Union operators usually handled.)
      
But the Morse operator with his key was something different.  (Some
used bugs, some straight keys.)  And obviously his counterpart at the
game was similarly competent.
     
You could start a story moving on the wire as soon as the Morse
operator gave you a couple of paragraphs.  He would stay ahead of the
60-speed Teletype circuit without any difficulty.  If there was a
question, he would break the sending operator and get the matter
straightened out immediately, even if the operator at the game had to
ask the writer.  (Often, if there was something questionable, the
receiving operator had already noticed and asked the sending
operator.)
      
They were real professionals and it was always a pleasure to deal with
them.  And their real output was a whole lot faster than the hand
cranked teletypewriter copy of the other circuits, and much more
accurate.
      
Of course, these were operators with real press experience and used
the Phillips code, understood what the press requirements were, and I
think got real pleasure out of exercising their skills, and
incidentally drawing our admiration.
      
A few years before, I had been writing play-by-play (newspapers used
that in early editions in the 1940s) for University of Oklahoma games,
and I had a Western Union operator sitting beside me, sending each
paragraph as I wrote it.  He, too, was similarly good and not
infrequently caught me in mistakes (in a friendly, helpful manner,
too).
      
Press operators were, I think probably the elite of operators sending
in the wire telegraph days.  Perhaps those working for brokerage wire
houses could also put in a claim to this, but I'm not sufficiently
familiar with them to be able to judge.
      
      
Wes Leatherock   wes@obelisk.pillar.com                                    
wes.leatherock@oubbs.telecom.uoknor.edu      

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

From: stpeters@dawn.crd.ge.com (Dick St.Peters)
Subject: Re: Average Data Speed of Wire Telegraphy
Reply-To: stpeters@dawn.crd.ge.com
Organization: GE Corporate R&D, Schenectady, NY
Date: Wed, 1 Jun 1994 22:54:12 GMT


What a bunch of old memories this question brings up!  30 years ago I
used to run very high speed machine-keyed transmissions for people to
practice listening to, out of W1MX, the MIT student ham radio station.
W1AW, the ARRL station, used to tranmit practice transmissions at
speeds up to 35 wpm.  We started there and ran up to 65 wpm.

How fast someone can copy depends a LOT on the nature of what is being
sent.  Simple text that makes sense is an awful lot easier than the
random letters and numbers taken from the tables of vacuum tube
characteristics that were sent for a latter portion of the transmission
at each speed.  Nobody can copy that at the higher speeds, because of
the way people hear code.

At very low speeds, you hear individual dits and dahs.  Somewhere
around 5 wpm there's a barrier where you can't go higher until you
learn to hear whole letters.  Get past that barrier, and you can run
up to 20+ wpm pretty quickly, where there's another barrier where you
have to start hearing whole syllables, even whole words.  Once through
that, you can again progress rapidly (with practice) up to 60 wpm or
so, where you max out.  At these speeds, code essentially has become
another language.  If the transmission has a spelling error, you
"hear" the error as a sort of dissonance ... you still get the
meaning, but it doesn't sound right in the same way a basic grammar
error doesn't sound right in language.

That changed way of perceiving code at ca. 20+ wpm makes it very hard
to transcribe code at higher speeds.  Up to the character-at-a-time
barrier, you can learn to type the characters as they come in with a
kind of brain bypass ... code character to finger keystroke.  Once you
hear whole words, you can no longer do this.  Also, someone who can
hear the 60 wpm language with no sweat can have a problem copying very
slow transmission.

Ah well, 'twas a looong time ago.


Dick St.Peters, Gatekeeper, Pearly Gateway; currently at:
GE Corporate R&D, Schenectady, NY   stpeters@dawn.crd.ge.com

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

From: flinton@wesleyan.edu
Subject: Re: Cost of Caller ID in PA
Date: Wed, 1 Jun 1994 20:41:25 GMT
Organization: Wesleyan University


In article <telecom14.259.10@eecs.nwu.edu> gvaeth@netcom.com (Greg
Vaeth at Jerrold Communications) writes:

> Caller ID in Pennsylvania ... for residential customers is
> $6.50/month, business is $8.50.  How does this rate compare to other
> states?

Caller ID for SNET residential customers in Connecticut is also
$6.50/mo., where available.  Calls to New Haven (203 776 xxxx) often
get reported as "out of area" or, more bluntly, "error", or even just
" ------ " whenever the routing utilizes a non-caller-ID-aware switch
(even on calls known independently to originate in the same 776
exchange (!)).  So a "perfect privacy filter" Caller ID is certainly
not.  But, at $0.20 per day, it's good cheap fun, anyway, to see
whether SNET got it right this time, or muffed it yet again.


Fred [E.J. Linton : FLinton@eagle.Wesleyan.EDU : fejlinton@mcimail.com]

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

From: gfimda!rgs@uunet.UU.NET (Robert G. Schaffrath)
Subject: Re: Cost of Caller ID in PA
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 1994 01:09:40 GMT
Organization: Kraft General Foods


> An insert in my latest bill contained a notice that Bell Atlantic will
> offer Caller ID in Pennsylvania in August.  The cost for residential
> customers is $6.50/month, business is $8.50.  Call blocking and
> anonymous call rejection are free.  This charge seem outrageous
> considering that the equipment to do it is already there, right?  How
> else does return call, repeat call and all that stuff work. How does
> this rate compare to other states?

New York Telephone, uh NYNEX, also charges $6.50.  It's a rip off but
I really wanted the technology.  I got even though.  I was carrying
custom calling feature (forwarding and call waiting) which totalled
more than the $6.50.  I dropped them so my bill actually went down!


Robert G. Schaffrath, N2JTX    Internet:   rgs%wpmax2%gfimda@uunet.uu.net
Systems Engineer               CompuServe: 76330,1057                    
Maxwell House Coffee Company   Phone:      914-335-2777                  
Kraft General Foods Corp.      Slogan:     "ervice is ur mott"           

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

End of TELECOM Digest V14 #266
******************************

