TELECOM Digest Fri, 27 May 94 02:22:00 CDT Volume 14 : Issue 256 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Book Review: "NetWare for Dummies" by Tittel (Rob Slade) Need Information on "Microcel" Technology/Products/Company (Jeff Miller) Lower Domestic Telephone Rates (National Information Systems) Average Data Speed of Wire Telegraphy Wanted (Steve Chafe) DTMF Decoding via SoundBlaster Card? (Eric L. Hinson) Two Line/LED 'In Use' Mod (Eric L. Hinson) NYNEX Announces Mandatory 1+NPA (Stan Schwartz) Reverse Directory FAQ Wanted (Lloyd Matthews) Un*x Based SS7 Decoders (Mark Gallion) NH E911 (was Re: No 911 Available as Tot Drowns) (Paul S. Sawyer) Name and Address -> Long Distance Companies (Jonathan Loo) FCC World BBS Now Distributes TELECOM Digest (TELECOM Digest Editor) National BBS Numbers Available (David Smith) Re: Government Regulates Modem Redial Attempts (Paul Lee) Re: Internet Access at Home? (Dave Mausner) Re: Internet Access at Home? (K. M. Peterson) Re: No 911 Available as Tot Drowns (Carl Moore) Re: No 911 Available as Tot Drowns (Jonathan) What Did You Have For Dinner Today? (was Re: Solomon Islands) (Carl Moore) 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 26 May 1994 13:23:48 MDT From: Rob Slade Subject: Book Review: "NetWare for Dummies" by Tittel BKNTWDUM.RVW 940208 IDG Books Worldwide, Inc. 155 Bovet Road, Suite 310 San Mateo, CA 94402 "Netware for Dummies", Tittel, 1993, 1-56884-003-9, U$19.95/C$26.95 Dummies are not supposed to run networks. This was probably not a terribly good concept. A computer network is a complicated object. There are many factors to consider in planning, building and running a network. Given the complexity, the topic is not a good candidate for an easy reading manual. In addition, the network operating system chosen is Novell NetWare, which is not only complex in terms of the feature set, but also in terms of incompatible versions. The "... For Dummies" breezy and light-minded style does not suit the topic. Too many topics are opened simply to be discarded when the going gets tough. An example is security rights, one of the areas that many administrators have problems with. Combinations of attribute rights, trustee rights, and rights masks contribute to effective rights. All of the various rights and attributes are mentioned, but no formula is given for calculating effective rights and there is only a single example. The content is presented in an organized and amusing manner. If you are faced with getting up a Novell network and are terrified of the prospect, you may find this easier to read through than the NetWare documentation. It will also help you consider some aspects, such as cabling (although there is not much detail here, either). This may, therefore be a helpful starting guide -- but no more. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1994 BKNTWDUM.RVW 940208. Distribution is permitted in TELECOM Digest and associated newsgroups/mailing lists. Vancouver ROBERTS@decus.ca Institute for Robert_Slade@sfu.ca Research into rslade@cue.bc.ca User p1@CyberStore.ca Security Canada V7K 2G6 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 May 1994 17:26:09 -0700 From: cornhead@netcom.com (Jeff Miller) Subject: Need Information on "Microcel" Technology/Products/Company Hi, a surplus dealer friend of mine has stumbled onto some "Microcel" equipment and I'd like to know if it would be usefull to me. If it simply can be used as a decent cordless phone I'd be happy! The system consists of three rechargeable handsets that seem at least as fancy as the typical cellular phone, an ~15 pound "control unit" and another plastic unit which I would guess is an antenna/receiver unit. The control and "antenna" are joined by an ~25 conductor DIN cable. A photocopy stuffed in with the antenna indicates minimum clearance figures. A quick glance at the owner's manual for the handset (the only manual available) indicates the handsets can intercom to each other and what not. A modular cord is boxed with the control unit, so I guess you can plug it into a standard telephone outlet. With luck it has modest PBX funtionality, too. Pawing over the system, I remembered a press release I read about a year ago about a "new" type of cellular phone with 1/4 mile radius blah blah blah ... I wonder if this system might be related. This surplus dealer friend suggested the system might not work out of the box, that the phones might somehow be (hmmm, what's the phrase?) node locked or some such. I myself wondered if the whole affair might have been a test-bed or demo system and might not have proper FCC approval at this point. So I am looking for any hints or information on this system. If you are familiar with these systems, deos it sound complete? Will it work out of the box, and is it feasible for me to get it working without any technical docs? What is its status in the eyes of the FCC? I'm suspicious of the whole thing because I've never heard of anything quite like it being generally available. But it sure deos seem cool and I can probably get it cheap so I'd like to know. The only model number I gleaned from the system was "2400". I'd be glad for any information via e-mail. Thanks! cornhead@netcom.com ------------------------------ From: nis@netcom.com (National Information Systems) Subject: Lower Domestic Telephone Rates Organization: NIS, San Jose CA Date: Thu, 26 May 1994 21:44:02 GMT Does anyone know of a company that shops for low telephone rates for you? For the last five years, we've changed phone companies every year. Each time we sign up for low rates in one area we're calling to but the other areas are very expensive. We use the telephones for tele-sales and heavy outgoing FAXes. I've heard there are small, independent telephone consultants that can mix and match the best rates into a coherent package deal. We're looking for something customized to us. Has anyone ever heard of this? Please respond in this group -- don't email me, ok? dave (dave@nis.com) ------------------------------ From: itstevec@rocky.ucdavis.edu (Steve Chafe) Subject: Average Data Speed of Wire Telegraphy Wanted Organization: Information Resources, UC Davis Date: Thu, 26 May 1994 21:58:45 GMT Hello, 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. Thanks, Steve Chafe itstevec@hamlet.ucdavis.edu ------------------------------ From: ehinson@nyx10.cs.du.edu (Eric L. Hinson) Subject: DTMF Decoding via SoundBlaster Card? Date: Thu, 26 May 1994 20:42:47 MDT I would like to be able to call up my computer from a remote phone, dial in a code and then have the system transfer me to various places. For this I would need a line controlling device of some sort (could just use a modem) and a way to link the SoundBlaster to the phone line. Any information/suggestions on this will be greatly appreciated. Eric L. Hinson (kb4rzf) / 'finger -l ehinson@satelnet.org' for PGP Public Key Internet: ehinson@nyx.cs.du.edu (finger this address for more info about me) Snail Mail: 69 Sanford St, St. Augustine, FL 32084 USA / Phone: (904)823-8668 Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above may not be those of the sys admin(s) ------------------------------ From: ehinson@nyx10.cs.du.edu (Eric L. Hinson) Subject: Two Line/LED 'In Use' Mod? Date: Thu, 26 May 1994 20:51:07 MDT I have an old Western Electric desk phone that I would like to modify for two-line use. If possible I would like to have the ability to determine which lines are in use before picking up the phone. Does such a modification exist already? If so, how is it done? Thanks, Eric L. Hinson (kb4rzf) / 'finger -l ehinson@satelnet.org' for PGP Public Key Internet: ehinson@nyx.cs.du.edu (finger this address for more info about me) Snail Mail: 69 Sanford St, St. Augustine, FL 32084 USA / Phone: (904)823-8668 Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above may not be those of the sys admin(s) ------------------------------ From: stans@panix.com (Stan Schwartz) Subject: NYNEX Announces Mandatory 1+NPA Date: 27 May 1994 00:54:32 -0400 Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and Unix, NYC NYNEX announced yesterday that they will close the last gap and make 1+NPA dialing mandatory for inter-NPA calls from the 516 and 914 area codes, effective 9/24/94. Until now (as far as 516 was concerned), we were able to use the old-style ten-digit dialing method. In related news, the new Suffolk County (516) phone book instructs callers to dial 0+516+XXX+XXXX for INTRA-NPA operator-assisted/calling card calls. I assume this will also be mandatory on 9/24/94. Stan ------------------------------ From: lloyd@pebbles.esl.com (Lloyd Matthews) Subject: Reverse Directory FAQ Wanted Date: 26 May 1994 21:21:57 GMT Organization: TTC - ESL, Inc. Is there a Reverse Directory FAQ available? From the comments in the Digest, it seems that a Reverse Directory with consistently up-to-date telco databases would be welcomed. I am new to commercial telecom applications, and have found this group fascinating and educational. I would welcome any information that would help me put one together. (And also whether I could actually make any money operating one!) ------------------------------ From: bellcore!iscp.bellcore.com!gark@uunet.UU.NET (Mark Gallion) Subject: Un*x Based SS7 Decoders? Organization: Bellcore Date: Thu, 26 May 1994 19:23:08 GMT Does anyone know of any Un*x based software that might convert binary SS7 data to a "pretty print" format. I'm trying to find something that isn't unlike a protocol analyzer, but would just format and display the binary data that I already have access to and not be a separate hardware device. Any suggestions would be appreciated. Mark S. Gallion Bell Communications Research Piscataway, NJ gark@iscp.bellcore.com ------------------------------ From: paul@senex.unh.edu (Paul S. Sawyer) Subject: NH E911 (was Re: No 911 Available as Tot Drowns) Date: 26 May 1994 20:13:05 GMT Organization: UNH Telecommunications and Network Services In article rlvd_cif@uhura.cc.rochester. edu (Rob Levandowski) writes: > [article about child drowning because parents dialed '911' in an area > with no '911' service deleted] > In any case, I'm sure the following bit of information is as true in > other rural non-911 areas as it is in Cheshire County: If you can't > get through to 911, you should try dialing 0 for the operator. The > operator can connect you more quickly than it would take you to look > up the number in a phone book or try to dredge it out of memory when > you're in a panic. Most N.H. towns, especially the non-911 ones, have nice fluorescent stickers which they hand out so that the number can be handy on each of your phones. A few years ago, my town, on the other side of the state, had six or seven numbers on that sticker under "to report a fire ..." These were the home numbers of the volunteer firefighters which would likely have someone there to answer most of the time. If the first one did not answer, just go down the list until someone answers (or the fire burns itself out ... :-) Of course, we have just one number (not 911) now, and that is to a 24-hour dispatch center; and soon, > The gossip I've heard is that Cheshire County will jump directly to > Enhanced 911 once all of the local offices install modern switches. > Since virtually all emergency calls are handled out of the Mutual Aid > center in Keene as it is, the political-boundaries question Pat > mentioned is already resolved. The statewide E911 system is more than gossip. At this point, it is a "done deal" with NYNEX, to be up and running mid-1995. This of course cuts through the petty bureaucracies by imposing a much larger one and adds a level of complexety or more. Your parents, and all the rest of us are already paying for it through a monthly charge on our phone bills. By the way, the center you speak of (S.W.N.H.) has been operating for many years as a good example of a coordinated regional dispatch center, thanks in a large part to its first chief/coordinator, Bob Callahan. Paul S. Sawyer - University of New Hampshire CIS - Paul.Sawyer@UNH.Edu Telecommunications and Network Services VOX: +1 603 862 3262 50 College Road FAX: +1 603 862 2030 Durham, New Hampshire 03824-3523 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 May 1994 20:39:06 -0400 From: Jonathan Subject: Name and Address -> Long Distance Companies In a recent TELECOM Digest Editor's Note, Pat Townson wrote: > the rules currently say that local telcos may not withhold > name and address information from long distance carriers -- even if > the number is otherwise non-published -- for billing purposes. This is a security problem. Customers should be allowed to block the delivery of their name and address information if they have non-published telephone numbers or non-listed addresses. If a customer does this, then the telephone company should either act as billing agent for the long distance companies, or billing-block all calls placed through long-distance companies that the customer doesn't want. This won't affect COCOT equal access; users should still be able to place calls from the COCOT over whatever company that they choose; but the customer may request a BILLING block for all companies except those designated by the customer. This would prevent excessive dissemination of customer name and address information. Also, the customer name and address information should be confidential by law. Jonathan D. Loo [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Fancy that; customer name and address information should be confidential by law; I guess under such a law only criminals would publish, distribute or possess telephone directories. Jonathan, how do you suppose R.L. Polk, Haines, and the other directory publishers all did business back in the 1920's? (Yes, they have been around that long compiling their 'criss-cross' books ...) They had dozens of women sitting at the machines of those days each with pages taken from local telephone books, sitting there keying in the data by hand. When punch cards became the norm, the same women sat at keypunch machines and punched cards with the data right off the pages of the phone book. They'd then take those cards to the IBM machine (was it a 1401 that sorted cards out to the ten pockets based on the punches in each column?) and sort them by phone number, then by street number and name, etc ... off it went to the printer. Until you outlaw phone books you will not be able to outlaw the dissemination of customer names and addresses. And there is *already* a law in place which says long distance companies can use CNA for one purpose, and one purpose only: billing for calls. Already, they are unable to get the names of subscribers who are not their customers. Why add another layer? PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 May 1994 18:30:58 CDT From: TELECOM Digest Editor Subject: FCC World BBS Now Distributes TELECOM Digest I am pleased to welcome FCC World, a new BBS operating in Washington, DC to the network of independent systems on which this Digest is distributed on a regular basis. Effective in the next few days, each issue of the Digest will be made available to read or download in a section of the Library files on FCC World, and our readers in the Washington, DC metro area may find it more convenient to use this new service than reading through Usenet and comp.dcom.telecom. The choice of course is yours, and I hope you will join me in thanking attorney Shaun A. Maher (sysop of FCC World) for making this option available. They are also inviting TELECOM Digest readers to open a user account on the BBS if you want up-to-date news from the Federal Communications Commission as it occurs. In addition to the email address 'avb@cais.com' you can contact these folks as follows: Shaun A. Maher, Esq. Smithwick & Belendiuk, P.C. Sysop of FCC WORLD Voice - 202-785-2800 Fax - 202-785-2804 BBS - 202-887-5718 The BBS is multi-line, but I am told it has been quite busy in the past week with new subscribers coming on board, so be patient in trying to get in. Thanks again to Shaun Maher for agreeing to make TELECOM Digest available on a regular basis to the FCC World subscribers. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ From: David Smith Subject: National BBS Numbers Date: Thu, 26 May 94 23:15:45 -0500 Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice) This is an invitation to join DJSA Bulletin Board. You can call DJSA BBS in one of two ways. You can either call us direct at (305) 749-6458 or you can call your local Tymenet or Telenet number and connect through Global Access. DJSA Bulletin Board has been online since April 21, 1989. We are a multi-node BBS specializing in SHAREWARE and PUBLIC DOMAIN software. We publish the National BBS Directory which contains a list of over 2,000 BBS numbers throughout the USA. The directory is released quarterly in March, June, September and December. You can gain immediate membership to DJSA BBS by calling our Telephone Access Billing System (TABS). TABS will allow you to call our 1-900 numbers from any touch tone telephone, 24 hours per day. This phone call is not made with your computer modem, it is made by voice. A computer automated voice will ask you to input the number of our BBS. You enter the following phone number ... <749-6458>. Have a pen handy so that you can write down the access code that you are given by the computer automated voice. You need this access code to gain entry to DJSA BBS. Then, call DJSA Bulletin Board and enter the access code when you log in. You have two choices of subscriptions at DJSA BBS. You can pay $10.00 for one month of access by calling TABS at (900) 622-8227. You can pay $25.00 for four months of access by calling TABS at (900) 622-5225. The cost of this call will be on your next telephone bill. Customers under the age of 18 must get their parents permission before they call TABS. TABS is a service of True Media Inc. If you would like more information,then please call customer service toll free number at (800) 889-DJSA. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 May 1994 23:30:00 CDT From: Paul A. Lee Organization: Woolworth Corporation Subject: Re: Government Regulates Modem Redial Attempts In TELECOM Digest Volume 14 Issue 250, Steven Bradley wrote: > if you are a developer, do NOT use the internal redial option in the > faxmodem, use the BUSY, VOICE, NO ANSWER result codes to re-dial it using > the software command to ... allow unlimited and unregulated re-dialing Indeed, most of the communications software I've encountered uses the modem result (either numeric code or verbose text string) to determine the result of a dial attempt. The software can keep track of "BUSY" results and redial up to a preset number of attempts. Why, though, would one want to redial upon encountering a "VOICE" or a "NO ANSWER" result? A "VOICE" result would typically indicate that the modem's dial attempt has reached either an intercept message or a live body at the dialed number, indicating that a wrong number is being dialed (for legitimate purposes, at least). A "NO ANSWER" result on a valid number typically results from a problem with the modem or fax machine that should have answered at the other end. I can understand making numerous redial attempts on a "BUSY" condition, but what would be the purpose of redialing on a "VOICE" or "NO ANSWER" result, other than to harass (whether innocently, ignorantly, or maliciously) the recipient of the call? And our esteemed and unflappable editor admonishes Mr. Bradley: > I hope you are the next victim of someone's 'unregulated and > unlimited redialing' rather than me. And no, I do not think 'it is > about time we fired the FCC ...'. I think it is time we gave the > agency even greater enforcement powers in a few instances that I will > not go into here at this minute. If I may presume to interpret and amplify Mr. Townson's sentiment: Much of the basis for the existence of the FCC and most government regulatory agencies is the trouble and frustration brought about by careless, thoughtless, malicious, or brazenly stupid actions taken by a relatively small percentage of society. The irony in this, of course, is that many actions taken by those very agencies (that is, the people who constitute those agencies) are, themselves, careless, thoughtless, malicious, or brazenly stupid. I cannot determine which of those four categories might describe Mr. Bradley's desire to provide for "unregulated and unlimited redialing", but I would like to point out to him, and to others who might engage in such a practice, that they and their actions comprise a part of the *reason* for the existence of the FCC and other regulators of telephone equipment and services. Bearing that in mind, Mr. Bradley's sentiment concerning it being "about time we fired the FCC" seems disturbingly hypocritical, self-righteous, and irresponsible. The irresponsibility is manifested by proposing the demise of an agency, while promoting practices that serve to justify the existence of that same agency. That's like an organized crime boss proposing to do away with the FBI, or a drug lord advocating the demise of the DEA. It smacks of thugism, and it annihilates credibility. It's an argument that proves itself false. Paul A. Lee Voice 414 357-1409 Telecommunications Analyst FAX 414 357-1450 Woolworth Corporation CompuServe 70353,566 INTERNET , WOLVERINE@ASU.Edu says: > I am interested in getting a internet link to my home. I'm not > talking about a call up service, but am referring to an actual link to > my house. I am thinking of setting up a server. I need to know where > to start. How does one go about getting a line set up and what > hardware is required? Any response will be appreciated. Start here: 1. Contact the system or network manager at the nearest college or university, either by phone, or by mail. Engage this person in the above discussion. By offering a bottle of booze or other spiffs, you might obtain help in connecting to the backbone; if not, at least you will have a new friend. You will have to pay for your telco line. 2. Obtain a list of internet service providers near you (the guys who offer dialup access). One example I can think of is PSI, Inc. (Telephone 1-800-82-PSI-82). They usually offer higher-cost direct-line services, such as ISDN connections to their routers. 3. There are often bedroom sysops running public unix systems who already have net connections, and they will either offer you a feed, or put you in touch with their upstream connection. Continue swimming upstream until the costs are beyond your reach. Warning: Don't be surprised by costs starting at several hundred bucks per month. the faster your connection, the more you will pay for termination gear and phone charges. Still think the internet is free? Suggestion: let the group know how your quest progresses. Dave Mausner, Sr Consultant, Braun Technology Group, Chicago. ------------------------------ From: kmp@tiac.net (K. M. Peterson) Subject: Re: Internet Access at Home? Date: 26 May 1994 21:01:42 GMT Organization: KMPeterson/Boston In article TELECOM Digest Editor noted in response to an WOLVERINE@ASU.Edu and articles by others: > They're very typical of what I get in the mail, and hopefully > answers from readers will be seen by many others who are asking the > same thing. PAT 1) Monitor alt.internet.access.wanted to find out what questions are currently being posed and how they are being answered. 2) Purchase the book "Connecting to the Internet" ($15.95 from O'Reilly & Associates 800-889-8969, ISBN 1-56592-061-9). 3) Call the network support people at ASU and ask _them_. Ask them who their regional provider is. Ask them about whether they would sell you the service. A pointer: getting a dedicated line is probably going to be _very_ expensive, depending on the provider that you settle on and the distance to their point of presence (POP). You really may not need that kind of access ... try finding a provider who can provide dialup PPP and try that first. You didn't say much about what kind of setup you want and why. You may be under the (mistaken) impression that the only dialup access is to a Un*x box, and running Un*x commands in a shell. This isn't true: running PPP on my Mac, InterNews, Eudora (for mail), and a collection of other utilities gives me _identical_ access as if I were connected to an Ethernet connected to the 'Net, except for the speed of the connection. And you pay for speed, eh PAT? K. M. Peterson email: KMP@TIAC.NET phone: +1 617 731 6177 voice +1 617 730 5969 fax [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You sure do ... then you pay some more. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 May 94 17:18:15 EDT From: Carl Moore Subject: Re: No 911 Available as Tot Drowns There are lots of cases where a phone prefix crosses county lines. Near me: 1. Extreme southern New Castle County (Delaware) is served by the Smyrna CO, whose service is mostly in Kent County. 2. A tiny portion of eastern Baltimore County (Md.) is served by the Edgewood exchange, in Harford County. 3. A tiny portion of the 610-388 Mendenhall exchange (Chester County, Pa.) is across the Brandywine creek in Delaware County. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 May 1994 21:16:51 -0400 From: Jonathan Subject: Re: No 911 Available as Tot Drowns The Editor wrote: > The trouble is, no one seems willing to let some other town > handle their emergency calls. I think that it would be a good idea to coordinate 911 so that each 911 center can transfer calls to any emergency agency that serves nearby areas; and 911 centers within each state should be able to handle calls throughout the state. This would allow the telephone company to re-route calls more flexibly around network congestion, and also would keep people from being bounced from agency to agency or being told to call a seven-digit number. In addition, many areas have several emergency response agencies serving them; for example, some places are served by state, county and city police at the same time. 911 should be able to dispatch the nearest available unit, regardless of agency. If E911 is not available then 911 should route calls to some nearby emergency agency, such as the state police, or to the operator, or somebody who can provide emergency dispatch. People who call the emergency number should get intercept only when the system is hopelessly malfunctioning. Just my suggestions, for the record. Jonathan D. Loo ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 May 94 16:25:56 EDT From: Carl Moore Subject: What Did You Have For Dinner Today? (was Re: Solomon Islands) How could you write about cannibalism and forget Alfred E. Packer? [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Alfred Packer is probably the most famous (or infamous) cannibal in the history of these United States, or at least he was until Mr. Dahmer's naughty behavior became known to the police officers who opened the door of his refrigerator and looked inside. Packer, a resident of Colorado in the middle to late 19th century found himself stuck in the Rocky Mountains one cold, very extreme winter with nothing to eat but his associates in the party of six persons who were on the expedition. So he did just that ... killed the other five and ate them. With the warm spring weather, a rescue party was able to traipse up the mountain to bring all concerned back to safety. Shocked at finding a healthy and well-fed Mr. Packer and but the bones and unedible remains of the others they arrested Alfred and held him over for trial on charges of cannibalism. (Oops, pardon me, there goes my politcal incorrectness again, I mean 'human recycling'.) At his trial, he was found guilty and sentenced to the peniteniary for the remainder of his natural life to be served at hard labor. At the time of his sentencing, a furious judge remarked, "there were only seven Republicans in the entire county, and you, you son of a bitch, you had to kill and eat five of them!" To honor his memory after his death in the late 1800's, a university there (I believe in Boulder but I am not certain) named its student dining hall after him. The Alfred E. Packer Memorial Cafeteria in the Student Union Building at the university served nutricious and delicious meals to students for many years. For all I know it may still be in operation. Seriously ... some historians contend that naming the student dining hall after Packer was not done to glorify his cannibalism but rather to remember him as an individual persecuted by the government for doing, well, what he had to do under the circum- stances in order to survive all winter in the rugged mountains. In other correctional industry news, the {World Weekly News}, one of the few journals which Tells the Truth About Things -- other than this Digest of course -- reported in a recent issue that Jeff Dahmer has been placed in solitary confinement at the maximum security mental hospital where he is being cared for after he killed five other inmates in their sleep and was caught eating them. My thanks to Carl Moore for reminding me of Alfred Packer and suggesting this commentary which many of you will read during your breakfast on Friday! ... PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V14 #256 ****************************** -------------------------------------------------------------------------------