TELECOM Digest     Tue, 16 Nov 93 12:25:00 CST    Volume 13 : Issue 765

Inside This Issue:                        Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

   Re: NPA 905 Not Universally Recognized (Mark Brader)
   Re: NPA 905 Not Universally Recognized (Paul Robinson)
   Re: NPA 905 Not Universally Recognized (Rick Blaiklock)
   Re: NPA 905 Not Universally Recognized (James Renals)
   Re: TDMA vs CDMA = Betamax vs VHS? (Alex Cena)
   Re: Do You Monitor Cellular Channels? (Jack Decker)
   Re: Do You Monitor Cellular Channels? (Michael D. Sullivan)
   Re: Do You Monitor Cellular Channels? (Alex Cena)
   Re: In the Matter of: Connecting to Kremvax.demos.su (Petri Helenius)
   Re: Wiring a New Home - Suggestions? (Rich Greenberg)
   Re: Wiring a New Home - Suggestions? (John Powell)
   Re: Wiring a New Town (David G. Cantor)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [email protected] (Mark Brader)
Subject: Re: NPA 905 Not Universally Recognized
Organization: SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, Canada
References: <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 93 10:36:36 GMT


>> Digest readers who are interested in testing 905 out could try to get
>> Toronto weather information at +1 905 676.3066 to see if 905 will work
>> (pre-recorded message).

For greater clarity: Toronto is in 416.  676, however, is a Mississauga
(or as Bell says, Malton) prefix; presumably it's the meteorological
office at the Toronto international airport, which is in Mississauga.
So it's in 905.

Digression: the following dialogue was reported by a returning traveler
at Canadian customs/immigration *at the airport* some years back.

  "Where do you live?"
  "Mississauga."
  "I asked you where you live, not what your name is."

> It works from Brooklyn, N.Y., though the recording said it was nine
> degrees out.  Can that be right?  It was in the 70s today in NYC!

SEVENTIES?!!  The all-time world record is only 58 degrees!

Oh, right.  Fahrenheit.  Chuckle.


Mark Brader    SoftQuad Inc., Toronto   utzoo!sq!msb, [email protected]

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

Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1993 09:32:09 EST
Reply-To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: NPA 905 Not Universally Recognized
From: Paul Robinson <[email protected]>
Organization: Tansin A. Darcos & Company, Silver Spring, MD USA


From a 301-585 number, 10288 1 905 676 3066 (ATT) and 10222 1 905 676
3066 (MCI) go through without any trouble.  I suspect Sprint doesn't
have enough trunks; the first three times I dialed 10333 1 905 676
3066 I got a busy signal.  All three of them went to the recording for
Toronto Weather.

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

From: [email protected] (Rick Blaiklock)
Subject: Re: NPA 905 Not Universally Recognized
Reply-To: [email protected] (Rick Blaiklock)
Organization: The National Capital Freenet
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1993 22:00:17 GMT


In a previous article, [email protected] (James Taranto) says:

> [email protected] wrote:

>> Digest readers who are interested in testing 905 out could try to get
>> Toronto weather information at +1 905 676.3066 to see if 905 will work
>> (pre-recorded message). I work in (905) area as well, and could
>> provide the work number(s) on request.

> It works from Brooklyn, N.Y., though the recording said it was nine
> degrees out.  Can that be right?  It was in the 70s today in NYC!

9 degrees C(elcius) is approx 50 degrees F.

PS: Did you know that only two countries in the world don't use the
metric system?

I'm told the other one is Liberia.

Just a comment, no flames please.


Rick Blaiklock   [email protected]    Ottawa, Ontario, Canada


[Moderator's Note: Actually we use some metric notation. We have 9 mm
bullets for our weapons.  :) My thanks to Mark Brader for passing
along that chuckle, which he got from Dave Berry.  PAT]

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

From: [email protected] (James Renals)
Subject: Re: NPA 905 Not Universally Recognized
Reply-To: [email protected]
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1993 19:54:40 GMT


In article <[email protected]> [email protected] writes:

> Digest readers who are interested in testing 905 out could try to get
> Toronto weather information at +1 905 676.3066 to see if 905 will work
> (pre-recorded message). I work in (905) area as well, and could
> provide the work number(s) on request.

Tried to dial the above number from the U.K., using BT and Mercury,
and success fully got through on both occaisons.  Interesting to think
that foreign telecos are more up-to date than local ones :)


James Renals  [email protected]

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

Date: Mon, 15 Nov 93 08:28:47 EST
From: Alex Cena <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: TDMA vs CDMA = Betamax vs VHS?


In Telecom Digest #761 Ed Casas ([email protected]) wrote:

> A fair comparison would have been between a second-generation TDMA
> system (which could make use of many of the above techniques) and a
> CDMA system.  I think you would then see the capacity advantage for
> CDMA eliminated.  You should understand that a CDMA receiver starts
> off with a major handicap -- its correlator cannot separate signals
> anywhere near as well as a TDMA receiver's IF filter.  You have to use
> a lot of tricks to overcome that initial disadvantage.

I believe Ameritech, which has tried the most recent generation of
TDMA systems available, publicly stated the results of its TDMA trials
in Chicago.  Ameritech held three trials: TDMA vs CDMA Fall of 1992;
TDMA only Jan/Feb 1993; and TDMA only in May/June.  The final May/June
test was held in order to allow vendors a chance to show off their
latest generation of equipment.  In fact, Ameritech issued a press
release indicating TDMA was not ready for commercial deployment since
its customers did not perceive any incremental value in the service
over current analog.  In a blind survey of 15 high-usage customers
eight said TDMA was better than analog and six said it was worse. This
compares to CDMA where most rated it as excellent or very good
relative to analog.

> To me (at least) the technical superiority of CDMA is far from proven.

In my opinion, we still are in the second inning of this ball game.
The score is 3 to 2 with US West New Vector, Pactel Cellular and Bell
Atlantic Mobile Systems purchasing CDMA-based equipment, while
Southwestern Bell Mobile Systems and McCaw opting for TDMA.  It gets
somewhat confusing in areas like Bay Area Cellular in San Francisco,
which is equally owned by McCaw and Pactel.  Since Bay Area Cellular
is composed of Ericsson switches and radios, I'm counting it as a part
of the McCaw vote.  The ball game internationally is quite different
since GSM seems to have quite a bit of momentum.


Alex M. Cena   [email protected]

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

From: [email protected] (Jack Decker)
Subject: Re: Do You Monitor Cellular Channels?
Date: 15 Nov 1993 18:37:20 GMT
Organization: Youngstown State/Youngstown Free-Net


On Sat Nov 13 23:45:32 1993, [email protected] (sohl,william
h) wrote:

>> [Moderator's Note: That's really something, to equate the laws
>> pertaining to privacy in communications with the old (but still in
>> force in about half the states in the USA) laws on sodomy. The latter
>> are considered by many people to be an invasion of individual privacy,
>> while the former are considered by many people to promote and protect
>> individual privacy. In any event, they are all a bunch of worthless,
>> unenforceable laws, eh?  So what else is new in these United States?  PAT]

> Pat, when a law is unenforceable, it is both useless, and a waste of
> time to even enact.  Can you truly say that the ECPA has improved the
> privacy of cellular?  I doubt it.  The ECPA is a "feel good" law with
> no true impact.  The politicos who passed can say ... "boy we feel good
> about striking a blow for privacy" even though the blow has the impact
> of a feather against a brick wall.  Since listening to cellular isn't
> something done in public (anymore than sodomy is) just how do you see
> the ECPA helping communications privacy?

Well, I have a fervent belief that unenforceable law is bad law, and
that it causes people to lose respect for the law in general.  The
ECPA is particularly bad law precisely because it makes listening to
cellular phone calls a felony, but it is virtually impossible to
detect someone listening to a cellular phone call, so the law is
generally unenforceable.

However, think like a lawmaker for a moment.  Assume that there are
several undesirable outcomes that may occur when someone listens in on
a cellular call.  People's privacy may be violated.  People may gain
access to information they would otherwise not have had, that they can
use to their financial (or other) advantage (for example, you might
hear something about a famous person that could be sold to the press,
or used to blackmail them, or to ruin a political career).  The
cellular telephone industry may lose money because potential users
perceive that their calls are not private (which of course they
aren't, but apparently many cellular users don't know that).

If one considers these outcomes so undesirable that legislation is
required, then it should legislate against these outcomes.  In some
cases, the necessary laws existed prior to the enactment of the ECPA
(for example, laws making it illegal to reveal what you heard to a
third party, or to use information you heard to your advantage).  I
think everything else that the ECPA might accomplish could have been
achieved by banning the sale or importation of any receiver capable of
receiving cellular frequencies, and making it illegal to advertise any
device as having the capability to receive cellular calls.  Those are
things you can regulate, at least to a much greater extent than what a
person does in the privacy of their home.

You could make a similar argument about the sodomy laws ... they may
not stop what goes on in the privacy of someone's home, but they do
stop (at least to some extent) folks from openly soliciting for it
(depending to some extent on whether local authorities are willing to
actually prosecute offenders).  But more to the point, they do give
folks a bit of a handle on the situation when such practices are
openly advocated.  For example, if a public school teacher wishes to
teach students that homosexuality is just another acceptable lifestyle
choice, parents who disagree can point out that the teacher is really
advocating commission of an illegal act (if sodomy is still a crime in
that state).  It might be better if the laws actually addressed the
undesired behavior (making it illegal simply to solicit, and to teach
about sexual preferences in the classroom) but when you get that
specific you draw fire from groups like the ACLU, who claim that you
are somehow restricting free speech or something.  In some cases it is
easier to just keep the existing laws on the books -- they may be
overly broad but because of that, they're less likely to attact a
constitutional challenge.

I think the ECPA may be like that, too ... there may be a fear that if
you try to convict someone based on a law that says they can't reveal
what they heard on the airwaves, they could plausibly claim that their
constitutional right of free speech is bening violated.  Since there
is no constitutional right to listen to certain frequencies, you are
on less shaky legal grounds to attack that.  Thus we play legal games,
where the law as it is written is known to be virtually unenforceable,
but it allows the government to place sanctions against other types of
behavior that it is difficult to legislate against directly.

In my opinion, we need to first get rid of the liberal judges that
don't seem to have a lick of common sense, but kowtow to the every
whim of the ACLU, and then pass laws that actually sanction the
behavior we really want to limit (that is, get rid of the "back door"
approach to lawmaking).  At present, it's just too easy for lawmakers
to pass the overly-broad laws ... much less friction that way.

Having said all of that, I still consider the ECPA a fine example of
"special interest" legislation, passed at the behest of political
lobbyists.  The cellular companies should have been told to go develop
an effective scrambling system, if they truly wanted privacy of
communications.  It is really sad that special interests with enough
money and/or political clout can buy legislation favorable to
themselves, no matter how nonsensical that legislation is.  But of
course, this is nothing new ... the telephone companies of America
have honed this practice (of buying favorable legislation) to a fine
art over the years!  :-(


Jack

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

From: [email protected] (Michael D. Sullivan)
Subject: Re: Do You Monitor Cellular Channels?
Date: 15 Nov 1993 04:07:13 -0500
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA


[email protected] (Kevin Martinez) writes:

> In regard to the above, I live right under a cell site antenna tower
> and *every* radio and TV I own picks up these annoying conversations
> on occasion.  Even my telephone (noncordless) picks them up sometimes.
> I keep thinking of the Gilligan's Island episode where his filling
> becomes a rectifier and detects broadcast band radio.

> Does the ECPA make it illegal to live in my neighborhood or only to
> possess a receiving device (or a filling)? Would these cold evenings
> be even colder without the comforting rays of this antenna? Perhaps
> this is the cause for retries on zmodem transfers ....

Of course it's illegal for you to live there, or to have fillings, you
wiretapper, you!  (Dano, book him for criminal possession of a filling
with intent to eavesdrop!)


Michael D. Sullivan  [email protected]        [email protected]
Washington, D.C.     [email protected]     [email protected]

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

Date: Tue, 16 Nov 93 08:43:09 EST
From: Alex Cena <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Do You Monitor Cellular Channels?


In Telecom Digest #761 Bill Fischer [email protected] wrote:

> Calls to and from all phones in a particular cell can be monitored, or
> specific numbers can be entered into a log, and all other calls
> ignored.  The equipment monitors the data on the cell's control
> channel and switches a radio scanner to the specified voice frequency
> when the phone makes or receives a call in that cell.  The equipment
> will change to a new voice frequency each time the phone switches,
> ensuring that the complete call is monitored from start to finish.

> We have a Cellular Surveillance Interface that performs this function.
> It doesn't cost $6000, and it will work on both the AMPS (USA, Canada,
> Mexico, Australia) and TACS/ETACS (Europe, Middle East, Southeast
> Asia) cellular systems.

Can this equipment be used to monitor digital cellular networks?  How
do you know where your target may pop up since there may be hundreds
of cell sites in a large city?  Do you essentially have to set up
monitoring stations in every cell site?

Moreover, are you familiar with the equipment vendors used by many
intelligence agencies besides E-Systems Melpar division?  I am asking
because of research I am conducting on a companwy called Comverse
Technology that specializes in monitoring systems called AudioDisk.
For obvious reasons, the company cannot reveal the name of its
customers for me to survey so I am concentrating on identifying its
competitors.

If possible, could you send me a copy of your brochure by private
e-mail.


Alex M. Cena   Lehman Brothers
200 Vesey Street, 14th Floor
New York, NY 10285
Internet: [email protected]

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

Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1993 21:39:23 +0200
From: Petri Helenius <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: In the Matter of: Connecting to Kremvax.demos.su


Paul Robinson <[email protected]> wrote:

> On the list Telecom Digest <[email protected]> there is mention
> that sites in the U.S. cannot connect (due to U.S. Government pressures)
> with some sites behind the former Iron Curtain.  One example of which is the
> site kremvax.demos.su.  Evidence from this message implies it is not the
> government doing this, it is someone else.

NSFNET/ ANS CORE. Name it anything you want. Our Russian friends have
been connected to NSFNET occasionally, but every time this has been
noticed, MERIT or ANS has cut them off, because they are not allowed
to connect to NSFNET. They can connect to all non-ANS sites in the US,
so this is not a government regulation.


Pete

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

From: [email protected] (Rich Greenberg)
Subject: Re: Wiring a New Home - Suggestions?
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1993 18:48:31 GMT


Pat, isn't this in the FAQ yet?  If not ...

In article <[email protected]> [email protected] (Bob
Tykulsker) writes:

> I am having a new home built and would like to install the wiring now
> that I might need for future technologies.  What would you recommend?
> Cable, fiber, copper, etc. Any suggestions welcome.

Nobody knows what YOU will need or want in the future.  Not even
yourself.  Anybody else will be just guessing, and who knows what new
technology is just around the corner?

Anyway, since you are not certain now, possibly the best approach is
to lay conduit.  Run plastic conduit as large as practical (at least
an inch ID, bigger==better, from a central point (basement, closet,
???)  to EVERYWHERE that you MIGHT possibly need access in the future.
Keep in mind cable TV, and "smart" appliances as well as any home
computer(s) and related equipment.  At each location, terminate in at
least a 4x4 deep box which can be papered over or just put on a blank
plate.  Inside each pipe run a strand of heavy cord, preferably a
synthetic that won't rot or be eaten by bugs/rodents that can later be
used to pull wires (and another length of cord!) as needed.  Leave
several feet of slack at each end.  Make sure each conduit is marked.
Make sure you have a map that says where each conduit comes out.


Rich Greenberg    Work: ETi Solutions, Oceanside & L.A. CA 310-348-7677
N6LRT TinselTown, USA    Play: [email protected]  310-649-0238
I speak for myself only.  Canines: Chinook & Husky

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

From: John Powell <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Wiring a New Home - Suggestions?
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 93 01:30:15 -0600
Organization: Valcom/PCC


> Unless fiber is available in your area now, go with a large amount of
> copper wire. Put your demarc in the basement, and run at least twisted
> six-pair to each room, in star format, e.g. each room's wiring is
> separate.  This allows you to have two phone lines and still have room
> for two four-line circuits.  The difference in price between four pair
> and six pair is probably negligible (less than 5c per foot, maybe even
> the same price); I know the last time I checked the price of 25 pair

I agree, but I personally like to run two (or more) four-pairs to each
location.  This will allow for more isolation and multiple signal
types/services to be sent to each room.  It is standard practice to
separate such things as voice lines, digital data, etc. as they can
interfere with each other (ie. ringing voltage can affect LAN data).
You will also be able to connect each cable to an RJ45 (ie. two RJ45's
in each location) and maintain a standard that can accomodate many
things from standard analog (one or two line) phone lines, ISDN, 10bT,
Token Ring, etc. without any modification to the connectors, just
change the connections in the basement.  The REAL cost of wiring is
pulling the cable, not the wire itself, and pulling two cables
shouldn't cost much more than one.  Also, there is no universal
standard for six pair that everyone can follow; four pair is as
universal as they get and any decent electrician or phone tech can
manipulate it as needed without the designer being there to explain
the kluge that would result from using six pair.


John

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

Reply-To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Wiring a New Town
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 93 12:01:45 -0800
From: David G. Cantor <[email protected]>


In Telecom-Digest: Volume 13, Issue 759, Tony Harminc states:

> And one personal crusade: consider the nature of street lighting.  If
> at all possible, use incandescant lights, preferably halogens.  If
> energy efficiency concerns won't allow this, use metal halides.  Avoid
> like the plague sodium and mercury lighting.  Light the sidewalks
> first, and worry about the streets later, if at all.  You want a
> community where people *want* to be out and about on the streets and
> public places at all hours - not locked behind bolted doors and alarm
> systems.  Obviously street layout and lighting are not the only
> determinants of this, but they are a base.

This is a major political issue in the City of San Diego. Mt.  Palomar
Observatory is nearby.  Low-pressure sodium lighting only minimally
interferes with the observatory because it's mono-frequency and can be
easily filtered out.  All of the other lights mentioned fog the
astronmer's films.

There is strong evidence that the kind of lighting is not the
important factor.  It's the brilliance.  Low-pressure sodium is MUCH
MORE efficient than the other choices and so the "green" position is
to use low-pressure sodium.

After prohibiting them for many years, the City of San Diego, over the
strong opposition of the Palomar astronomers, has just allowed
white-lights in certain high-crime areas.  We shall see if this deters
crime and we shall also see how much longer Mt.  Palomar remains a
useful observatory.



David G. Cantor   Center for Communications Research
4320 Westerra Court    San Diego, CA 92121   [email protected]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V13 #765
******************************



******************************************************************************


Downloaded From P-80 International Information Systems 304-744-2253

You are viewing proxied material from infinitelyremote.com. The copyright of proxied material belongs to its original authors. Any comments or complaints in relation to proxied material should be directed to the original authors of the content concerned. Please see the disclaimer for more details.