TELECOM Digest     Wed, 15 Jun 94 15:37:30 CDT    Volume 14 : Issue 289

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Piping Sound From a Stereo to a Telephone Line (Will Spencer)
    Brooks Statement on Crypto (David Banisar)
    Cell One/NY Question (Stan Schwartz)
    Current Status of TAPI? (Clint Eaker)
    Environmental Project Needs Telecom Help (Ben Anderson)
    Calling Philippines From Spain Cheaply? (Mark Maimone)
    Re: Bell Canada Joins the 700 Club (Jim Mercer)
    Re: Bell Canada Joins the 700 Club (Evan Leibovitch)
    Re: Bell Canada Joins the 700 Club (Fred Ennis)
    Re: Can I Use Deactivated Cellular Phone in Emergency? (Subodh Bapat)
    Re: "Re-readiating" Car Cellular Antennas (Doug Sewell)
    Re: "Re-readiating" Car Cellular Antennas (John Gilbert)
    Correction: Uniformed and Uninformed (TELECOM Digest Editor)

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: will@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Will Spencer)
Subject: Re: Piping Sound From a Stereo to a Telephone Line
Date: 12 Jun 1994 00:47:28 GMT
Organization: Free Software Foundation / Cambridge, MA  USA


Introducing:   | |_| |_    _ _______    _____    ____             ({})
               | | | |__      |     \  /     \  /    \ |  _/      ({})
                           _ _|_____/  |     |  |      |_/        ({})
})({})({})({})({})({})({})    |   \    |     |  |      | \_       ({})
                      ({})    |    \   \_____/  \____/ |   \      ({})
                      ({})     _ _______    _____  _    _         ({})
                      ({})        |     \  /     \  \  /          ({})
                      ({})     _ _|_____/  |     |   \/           ({})
                      ({})        |     \  |     |   /\           ({})
                      ({})     _ _|_____/  \_____/ _/  \_         ({})
                      ({})                                        ({})
                      ({}) Created & Designed By Video Vindicator ({})
                      ({})                                        ({})
                      ({})({})({})({})({})({})({})({})({})({})({})({})
 
 INTRODUCTION
  
    And now for all you basement engineers... Here's the ROCK BOX!
Basicly what the Rock Box does is channel the music from the stereo
out to the phone line via the headphone output.  There are two models
to this Box, the Basic Box and Advanced Box.  I would recommend the
Advanced Box for better sound quality, although the Basic one get's
the job done.  Well ... enough for the formalities, now for the
Advanced Box!
 
         Identification   Materials        Specification
         --------------   ---------        -------------
 
         A                1 Resistor       (Brown-Black-Red-Silver)
         B                1 Resistor       (Orange-Orange-Orange-Gold)
         C                1 Resistor       (Gold-Red-Red-Grey)
         D                1 Resistor       (L.Green-D.Green-Brown-Gold)
         E                1 Resistor       (Brown-Red-Red-Gold)
         F                3 Condensators   (1070 (50v))
         G                4 Condensators   (1002 (40v))
         H                1 Condensator    (1060 (16v))
         <*> (Also S)     2 Switches       (2-Channel)
         ?#? (Also K)     1 Transformer    (LUN5250B)
         ~o~              1 LED Light      (Optional)
         J                Junction
 

                      Wiring Diagram -Advanced
 
     Switch for Volume Hi/Lo    Switch for Power On/Off
      _______________________________________________________________
     |                                        +---------+            |
     | +-----------+  C-B-A           +-------+  J   J  +--------+   |
     | |  S-S-S-O  |    |       +-S-S | S--------+   +---------> >   |  IN
     | |           |    |       |     +-S+  O    +-------------> >-+ |<LINE
     | +O S S-S+   |    |   O   | S-S    +----------------------+  | |
     | |  |    |   C    |       |   +------G-G   J+  J--------O |  | |
     | |  |  O-+   |    | +C    |                 O---------+ | |  | |
     | |  +-+  |   O B  | |  G  +----------G-G      G+      | | ++ | |
     | |    ++ |     |  F | FG                    O-G+      | |  | | |
     | <  O  | |    O+    +-------+ O    +-----+  |         | | O+ | | OUT
     |    | D+ E--O  |            O------+  K  +O O         | > >+ | |<LINE
     | +--+    |     +----------O      +----+               |      | |
 IN  | |       |   F   F--H----------~o~                    +--> >-+ |
 FROM|<|  +----+   F      H                                          |
STEREO>|       |   F-----------O-----KKK          KKK            |
     | +------D--E-+                     ?#?      K   ?#?            |
     |_______________________________________________________________|
 
                          Wiring Diagram -Basic
                 ___________________________________
                |                                   |
                | <------+    F--KKK--H       +---> |
                |        |    |  ?#?  |      +----> | OUT
           IN   | <------*----+       +------*      |<LINE
          FROM  |        |                   +----> |
         STEREO>| <------+                    +---> |
                |___________________________________|
 
    Now some of the Benifits of this wonderful little device is that
you can record conversations, at whatever volume you want, without
those bothersome beeps the answering machines make.  Or another fun
thing is call up a Rodent Bridge and blast this thing with your stereo
at full ... Wala!  The bridge will most likely be clear, even they
won't sit through that shit.  It is a good idea to hit Radio Shack for
a project box and soderless curcuit board, because this can be messy
and a project box can easily make you look like a pro.  One more use
for it is if your computer can generate tones to match a Box of some
sort, this makes a GREAT amplifier for it, with almost no loss in
clearity.  If you have any problems with a humm or it intercepting
radio transmissions, then call up good-old Bell and get a line static
clearer dealy and splice that into the box via the outgoing line,
which SHOULD clear it up.  If that does not seem to help, try putting
a 9v battery (you know, the square ones) on the red and green phone
lines, because this will make up for the power the box drains from the
line.  Hope you enjoy the plans and be watching for more from me!
L8r...
 
                                                 The Video Vindicator


Will Spencer  Unix geek  PC guru      

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

Date: Tue, 14 Jun 1994 14:20:25 -0400
From: David Banisar <Banisar@epic.org>
Subject: Brooks Statement on Crypto


The following statement by Rep. Jack Brooks (D-TX) was today entered
in the Congressional Record and transmitted to the House Intelligence
Committee.  Rep. Brooks is Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee
and played a key role in the passage of the Computer Security Act of
1987 when he served as Chairman of the House Government Operations
Committee.
  
David Sobel <sobel@epic.org>
Legal Counsel
Electronic Privacy Information Center
  

ENCRYPTION POLICY ENDANGERS U.S. COMPETITIVENESS IN GLOBAL MARKETPLACE
  
       For some time now, a debate has been raging in the media and in
the halls of Congress over the Administration's intention to require
U.S. corporations to use and market the Clipper Chip, an encryption
device developed in secret by the National Security Agency.
  
       The Clipper Chip will provide industry and others with the
ability to encode telephone and computer communications.  The use of
the Clipper Chip as the U.S. encryption standard is a concept promoted
by both the intelligence and law enforcement communities because it is
designed with a back door to make it relatively easy for these
agencies to listen in on these communications.
  
       The law enforcement and intelligence communities have a
legitimate concern that advances in technology will make their jobs
more difficult.  But the issue here is whether attempts to restrict
the development, use and export of encryption amounts to closing the
barn door after the horse has already escaped.
  
       The notion that we can limit encryption is just plain fanciful.
Encryption technology is available worldwide -- and will become more
available as time goes on.
  
       First, generally available software with encryption
capabilities is sold within the U.S. at thousands of retail outlets,
by mail, even, over the phone.  These programs may be transferred
abroad in minutes by anyone using a public telephone line and a
computer modem.
  
       Second, it is estimated that over 200 products from some 22
countries -- including Great Britain, France, Germany, Russia, Japan,
India, and South Africa -- use some form of the encryption that the
Government currently prohibits U.S. companies from exporting.
According to the May 16, 1994 issue of _Fortune_, not only are U.S.
companies willing to purchase foreign encryption devices, American
producers of encrypted software are also moving production overseas to
escape the current export controls.
  
       Third, encryption techniques and technology are well understood
throughout the world.  Encryption is routinely taught in computer
science programs.  Text books explain the underlying encryption
technology.  International organizations have published protocols for
implementing high level encryption.  Actual implementations of
encryption -- programs ready to use by even computer novices -- are on
the Internet.
  
       The only result of continued U.S. export controls is to
threaten the continued preeminence of America's computer software and
hardware companies in world markets.  These restrictive policies
jeopardize the health of American companies, and the jobs and revenues
they generate.
  
       I support, therefore, the immediate revision of current export
controls over encryption devices to comport with the reality of
worldwide encryption availability.
  
       I believe law enforcement and the intelligence community would
be better served by finding real, and targeted ways to deal with
international terrorists and criminals rather than promoting
scattershot policies, which restrict American industries' ability to
design, produce and market technology.
  
       Now -- more than ever -- we cannot afford to harm our economic
competitiveness and justify it in the name of national security.
  
------------------------------

From: stans@panix.com (Stan Schwartz)
Subject: Cell One/NY Question
Date: 15 Jun 1994 00:00:37 -0400
Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and Unix, NYC


I'm a CO/NY customer, and I figured that someone on here would have an
answer to a question that Cell One didn't.

I was roaming in Montreal a few weeks ago, and before I left New York
I called Cell One customer service who assured me that Montreal is a
NACN city, with all the benefits that go with it.  I was able to
receive calls, but when attempting to dial out, I was attached to a
live operator from CANTEL who said that there was some weird
restriction indicator on my account (my account is current, so that's
not the reason!).  He said he'd never seen this situation on an
American account before, and if there actually WAS a restriction on my
account, I shouln't have been able to receive calls either.  Weird,
eh?

It gets better.

If I turned my phone off and dialed it from a landline, I got one of two
things:
   
 A: My CO/NY voice mail.
 B: A French language "the cellular number you are trying to reach..."
    message.
 
Upon returning to NY, I called CO/NY and the only explanation they had
was that I was roaming on the wrong carrier (I hadn't changed the
settings in my GE CT-700, and I had roamed without a problem in the
past).  If I _WAS_ roaming on the wrong side, why did I get auto-call
delivery?  CO/NY didn't have an answer.  They did clue me in to
*35/*350 to turn the feature on and off so that I could reach my voice
mail, but I can't imagine what CANTEL would have done with _THAT_
code!
 
Any ideas?


Thanks!

Stan

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

From: EAKER@RALVM29.VNET.IBM.COM (Clint Eaker)
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 94 15:21:14 EDT
Subject: Current Status of TAPI


A little over a year ago, Intel/Microsoft published a preliminary spec
for a Windows Telephony API (TAPI). A few months ago, they came out
with a software developers kit, that was available over the net.
Lately, I haven't heard a peep about TAPI.  Are there any TAPI enabled
applications out there yet?  Are there TSPI drivers for any specific
devices out there?  Is there any development going on at all?  I'd
like to push for some TAPI development here in my area, but that's
going to be hard to sell if it won't enable any existing or upcoming
applications.

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

From: B.Anderson@loughborough.ac.uk 
Subject: Environmental Project Needs Telecom Help
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 1994 15:21:15 GMT
Reply-To: B.Anderson@loughborough.ac.uk
Organization: Loughborough University of Technology


Hi,

I'm involved in setting up an environmental project to study Elephants
and Rhino in Indonesia and we'd like the field team (way out in the
forest -- nowhere near a fixed phone) to have telecoms access to the
outside world. The prmary reason for this is so that the project can
feed audio/video (via ???) and image/text (via email) reports from the
field into the internet via a WWW server based here at LUTCHI in the
UK. Eventually we'd like to try some 'live' video conferencing from
here to the field team using things like Cu-SeeMe etc. I realise that
this might be stretching things a bit but ...:-)

So, we seem to have two options: 

1. Satellite/PC (eg Inmarrsat B/M) direct to the UK or
2. Cell phone/PC feed into Inonesian telecoms structure

and an Internet account somewhere.  Has anyone out there tried a
similar type of thing? Can TCP/IP applications be run over
satellite/cell networks?

Email or post here with any ideas would be gratefully appreciated.


Cheers,

Ben Anderson   Department of Computer Studies
Loughborough University  Loughborough  Leicestershire UK
B.Anderson@lut.ac.uk

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

From: mwm+@A.GP.CS.CMU.EDU (Mark Maimone)
Subject: Calling Philippines From Spain Cheaply?
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 1994 04:45:04 GMT


 Can anyone recommend a service for calling the Philippines
from Spain?  A friend will need to make such calls (to family) many
times over the summer, but unfortunately my US-based AT&T Universal
Card doesn't cover calls based wholely outside the US.  Thanks for any
tips.


Mark Maimone    phone: +1 (412) 268 - 7698
Carnegie Mellon Computer Science email: mwm@cmu.edu
WWW: http://www.cs.cmu.edu:8001/afs/cs/usr/mwm/ftp/www/HomePage.html

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

From: jim@reptiles.org (Jim Mercer)
Subject: Re: Bell Canada Joins the 700 Club
Organization: Reptilian Research, Toronto, Canada
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 1994 13:07:55 -0400


In article <telecom14.280.5@eecs.nwu.edu>, <msb@sq.com> wrote:

>> When 1 700 555 4141 is dialed from a Toronto phone, the following
>> recording is heard:

>> "Your provider of long distance service is Bell Canada. Thank you for
>> choosing us. This is a recording... 416 11"

> Not when I tried it just now from my home phone (416-488-XXXX).

> I got as far as 1-700-5554 and at this point heard one ring followed
> by "We're sorry. Your call cannot be completed as dialed ...".  This
> is particularly interesting since we haven't had 1 + seven digit
> dialing in this area for several years now.

I just tried it using our PBX in toronto.

The attempt to dial using an 8 prefix (long distance) resulted in a
fast busy from our PBX, probably because 700 is an invalid area code
on our switch.

I tried dialing 9,17005554141 and got the proper message.


Jim Mercer   Reptilian Research  merce@iguana.reptiles.org  +1 416 506-0654

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

From: evan@telly.on.ca (Evan Leibovitch)
Subject: Re: Bell Canada Joins the 700 Club
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 1994 23:19:48 -0400
Organization: Somewhere just far enough out of Toronto


Also works OK from my number, which is in 905. Reports "416 13" at the
end.


Evan Leibovitch, Sound Software Ltd., located in beautiful Brampton, Ontario
       evan@telly.on.ca / uunet!utzoo!telly!evan / (905) 452-0504

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

From: fred@page6.pinetree.org (Fred Ennis)
Subject: Re: Bell Canada Joins the 700 Club
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 1994 09:47:23 -0400
Organization: Page 6, Ottawa, Ontario +1 613-723-5711


Dave.Leibold@f730.n250.z1.fidonet.org (Dave Leibold) writes:

> When 1 700 555 4141 is dialed from a Toronto phone, the following
> recording is heard:

> "Your provider of long distance service is Bell Canada. Thank you for
> choosing us. This is a recording... 416 11"

From 613-723-xxxx I get the same recording with a 613 4 instead of the
416 11.


Fred Ennis, fred@page6.pinetree.org

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

From: bapat@gate.net (Subodh Bapat)
Subject: Re: Can I Use Deactivated Cellular Phone in Emergency?
Date: 15 Jun 1994 03:43:43 -0400


> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The way to do this would be to install the
> phone in your car *but not rely on it for emergency purposes*  until after
> a test or two had been made. DO NOT call 911 (or *999 or the zero operator
> as the case may be in your community) just to test the phone. 

Just curious: in all E911 implementations, calling 911 supposedly automatic-
ally and always sends the operator the calling number and physical
address of the caller. What calling number would be passed if 911 were
called from a *deactivated* cellular phone?


Subodh Bapat   bapat@gate.net


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It would send the same as it would if the
phone *was* activated, namely whatever outgoing trunk was seized on the
PBX-like switch of the cellular carrier. For example, although cellular
calls to me report 'out of area' on a Caller-ID box, they return some
weird number at the Illinois Bell central office when ANI is reported to
an 800 subscriber (and I assume to 911). A cellular call to my 800 number
gave ANI as a number in Bedford Park, IL. When I did a cross check of
that number through 796-9600, the 'subscriber' was listed as 'Eye Bee
Tee Company' at the street address where the CO is located. When I tried
to call that number, it was intercepted saying the number was not in
service for incoming calls. But in fact, dialing 911 from cellular here
also returns an intercept that the call cannot be completed as dialed.
"If this call is an emergency, please hang up and dial the operator."  PAT]

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

From: doug@cc.ysu.edu (Doug Sewell)
Subject: Re: "Re-readiating" Car Cellular Antennas
Date: 15 Jun 1994 15:28:26 GMT
Organization: Youngstown State University


Greg Vaeth at General Instrument (gvaeth@netcom.com) wrote:

> Does anyone have any experience with the car antennas that are to be
> used with a hand-held or luggable cell phone? I mean the type that
> does not actually connect to the phone, but looks like a normal cell
> antenna on the outside, and has a little stub on the inside.  The guy
> at Radio Shack said they work great, but I would like "independent"
> confirmation. 

I just switched from an older, starting-to-get-flaky transportable
phone to a new Uniden hand-held phone.  I only paid $40 for the phone,
but the price of add-on options of any kind for the phone was
out-of-this-world ($40 for a car power adapter ?!)

I went to Radio Shack and looked at one of these antennas.  I grudgingly 
shelled out the $45 it cost.  This is as compared to roughly $30 for a 
wire-connect magnet base jobbie that I used for the transportable.  I
think it's terribly over-priced.

Does it really work?  I don't know.  I still don't get the range I got
with the transportable -- I've had long calls disconnected a few times
as I moved from cell to cell, which rarely happened before.

If I look at the signal strength meter, it appears to be stronger when the
antenna is close to the re-radiator. 

One final word ... it has a tendency to want to get stuck in the
window seal, staying in the top of the window even when you roll the
window down partway.  Your options are to put it on a window you don't
open much (my back driver's side window fits this), or keep the window
open "a crack" so that it doesn't get stuck.  Otherwise you'll be
un-sticking it and re-clipping it every time you open the window.


Doug Sewell (doug@cc.ysu.edu)

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

From: johng@ecs.comm.mot.com (John Gilbert)
Subject: Re: "Re-readiating" Car Cellular Antennas
Organization: Motorola, LMPS
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 1994 18:30:14 -0500


In article <telecom14.282.3@eecs.nwu.edu>, gvaeth@netcom.com (Greg
Vaeth at General Instrument) wrote:

> Does anyone have any experience with the car antennas that are to be
> used with a hand-held or luggable cell phone? I mean the type that
> does not actually connect to the phone, but looks like a normal cell
> antenna on the outside, and has a little stub on the inside.  The guy
> at Radio Shack said they work great, but I would like "independent"
> confirmation. 

Unless your vehicle is extremly well RF shielded (a battle tank with
the hatches closed), it probably won't do anything for you.  High
coupling losses from the phone to the inside antenna aren't compensated 
for by the 3 db of gain the outside antenna provides.

Use a cable between the radio and the outside antenna.  You will have much
better results.  
 

John Gilbert   johng@ecs.comm.mot.com   KA4JMC

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

From: TELECOM Digest Editor <telecom@eecs.nwu.edu>
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 1994 12:56:58 GMT
From: Ross E Mitchell <rem@world.std.com>
Subject: Correction: Uniformed and Uninformed


A note from Ross Mitchell <rem@world.std.com> arrived shortly after
he sent me the article on 'Caller-ID With a New Twist' which appeared 
in an issue of the Digest earlier today.

He had accidentally left a typo in the article and the (correct) phrase
'uninformed caller' became 'uniformed caller' in error. He caught it
in time, and I caught it in time ... but put it on the side to be
fixed 'later'. Then the article got printed anyway. I feel like such an
idiot some days ... and today is one of them. Errors like that get to
be very annoying.

So, sorry Ross, yes you caught it and told me. I then promptly forgot
about it and to compound matters missed it in the proofreading.

Ross also mentioned that his article for Tech Review will be published
in the October, 1994 issue which will be out in mid/late September if
anyone is interested.


Patrick Townson

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

End of TELECOM Digest V14 #289
******************************

