TELECOM Digest     Thu, 30 Dec 93 12:09:00 CST    Volume 13 : Issue 844

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Super Long Range Cordless Phones (Mark W. Earle)
    Re: "Anonymous Call Rejection" - Could be Dangerous (Dave Niebuhr)
    Re: "Anonymous Call Rejection" - Could be Dangerous (Jack Hamilton)
    Re: Privacy and Caller ID/Auto Callback? (M.A. Karinen)
    Re: New Service From NYTel - 'Reverse Directory' (Dave Niebuhr)
    Re: Direct Broadcast Satelites (Mark Chartrand)
    Re: Intro Book on Telecommunications Wanted (M19249@mwvm.mitre.org)
    Re: Is UK IDDD Changing 4/94? (George Zmijewski)
    DC Area Calls (was Re: NPA Questions) (Carl Moore)
    Radio Religion (was 500 channels...) (A. Padgett Peterson)

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.
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 compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson Associates of
Skokie, Illinois USA. We provide telecom consultation services and
long distance resale services including calling cards and 800 numbers.
To reach us:  Post Office Box 1570, Chicago, IL 60690 or by phone 
at 708-329-0571 and fax at 708-329-0572. Email: ptownson@townson.com.

    ** 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 gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup comp.dcom.telecom. It has no connection with the unmoderated
Usenet newsgroup comp.dcom.telecom.tech whose mailing list "Telecom-Tech
Digest" shares archives resources at lcs.mit.edu for the convenience
of users. Please *DO NOT* cross post articles between the groups.

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

Date: Thu, 30 Dec 93 11:37 EST
From: Mark W. Earle <0006127039@mcimail.com>
Subject: Re: Super Long Range Cordless Phones


Michael Dimitrov wrote:

> A few months ago I saw an ad for a long range radio telephone -- it
> works like cordless, but it's range is about 100 miles (right, one
> hundred miles).  Of course, it said "Not for sale in the US".  A
> friend of mine from Eastern Europe would like to buy one of these, but
> I've lost the ad since then.  Could anyone provide information about
> similar telephone systems -- manufacturers, reteilers, technical
> details etc.

These usually turn out to be nothing more than 1/2 duplex, two way
radios (hand held or mobiles) with a telephone interconnect similiar
to an amateur radio "autopatch". The reason they are not for sale in
the US is that, to use such a device requires a business or other
license; the gear must be FCC type accepted.
 
The range stated is usually "optimum", assuming the base station part
of the system were atop some high structure or land feature. More
typically, the range of such systems is 20 or so miles if installed at
150' above average terrain; less if lower.
 
Such systems typically do not include directions to the user, antennas
and coax for the base station, service literature, etc. The stuff not
included drives the cost up, of course.
 
While you could conceivably purchase such a system, and get it legally
licensed in the US, you'd typically have no support. Such units also
tend to be of low quality; the portable radios in particular will not
withstand rugged use; and the cost usually is not much less than
getting a "first rate" system with quality components from a local two
way shop.
 
Note that these things usually include no details of how to license it
for legal use "overseas" either! Many of the same problems apply.
Usually, most foreign phone companies take a dim view of anything
connected that they haven't "approved" or taxed. Same thing with the
foreign authority which approves radio transmitting devices.  If you
simply buy one and put it on the air as equiped, usually you are on a
frequency already in use by someone, and you will have your gear
siezed, pay a fine, etc.
 
So usually, save your money and ignore these things. Consider
cellular, or talk to a local two way communications shoo for options
to cellular if you think you need something non-cellular.
 
                   --- Technical Notes ---

Some of these system use a full duplex base station, and half duplex
mobile units. These sound "OK" and the caller usually can't tell the
difference from a "normal" call, except if the party on the radio is
talking, than they can't hear "uh huhs"; the radio only talks or
listens.
 
Some systems use a 1/2 duplex base. Typically, it transmits using
voice sensing, sampling the callee; these can be problematic if the
callee is in a noisy environment. Still others key the transmitter,
but very quickly (once/second for xx milliseconds) drop the
trransmiter and if the mobile / portable has been switched to
transmit, than the base stays in receive mode, and the callee can hear
the mobile.  >From the mobile side, the callee has little "holes" in
their speach.  These types of systems are generally used on amateur
radio frequencies for a very low cost phone interconnect.
 
These "interconnects" used to be very popular in the U.S. as add ons
to two way radio systems. Typically, during the day, an operation
would have a "base" station and mobile or portable radios; a
dispatcher could talk to their field units. After hours, field units
could make calls from their mobiles without anyone having to be at the
office.
 
IMTS mobile phones (the fore runner to today's cellular phones) were
impossible to get in major markets - there was literally years waiting
list. Someone had to die or give up their service before a new
customer could be accomodated; so although of less quality, these
interconnects became very popular. As cellular became dominant and
readily availble, they're not as widely used as in years past.
 
One segment still using these interconnets is the "3rd Network" you
hear advertised on Rush Limbaugh and other shows. Usually, the angle
is you invest monies and get some % of revenues. These systems are two
way conventional or trunked 800 Mhz radios. The user buys/leases a
mobile or portable. The "service provider" sets up a base station
system and installs a full duplex interconnect. Since on 800 Mhz the
mobiles are full duplex, call quality is quite good. The mobile
usually keys a mike, pushes *, hears dial tone, and dials; # to
disconnect the call.  Some systems provide mobiles with telephone -
like handsets. Some have fairly sophisticated computer driven billing.
Some allow incoming calls; usually, the callee dials a common number,
hears a tone, and keys in a "unit number", which the base station
computer than translates to a mobile unit, generates a "ring", and the
mobile user pushes * to answer the call.
 
Compared to Cellular, there are some advantages: usually lower cost or
even flat rate/month unlimited calling. But, these systems work over a
smaller geographic area; whereas a cellular phone will generally work
no matter where you travel. The "3rd Network" type systems also
require a bit more of the callee to reach a mobile. Service quality
may be good to medium, or excellent; usually, the base station is one
or two sites, and so if you are far away from the site you may get
static/noise; cellular usually has more sites in a given market to
minimize this problem.
 
There is generally less fraud problem with this type of radio phone.
(I.E., no ESN "tumbler" call shop activity)
 
I know of one construction company which uses them for this reason:
they get a flat rate, and it only works over a limited area. So they
don't care/worry if employees make "personal" calls on the truck
phone. So in some cases, these system can be advantageous.
 
Generally, there is no "roam" capability. If you travel beyond the
area of your system, the radio/phone cannot receive or place calls.
There is some discussion of developing a name/ network similiar to
Cellular One for these "3rd Network" users, but there are many more
technical issues and regulatory issues; and ultimately, the cost of a
true "network" would probably be more than just using a cellular
phone. Cellular enjoys volume pricing.
 
Equipment costs to the end user may be higher than cellular; usually
the cellural provider pays the agent a subscription fee equal to the
cost of the phone, so that the agent can sell the phone for almost
$0.00; whereas on the "3rd Network" type systems, the user pays around
$500 for a mobile unit.
 
Another consideration is that the cellular providers usually offer
extended area dialing, where you pay only air time for calls that are
long distance to neighboring cities on a "regular" phone. On a "3rd
Network" type phone/radio, such plans are usually not offered.
 
Also, you're dealing with a local, sometimes "small" company, instead
of a regional Bell subsidiary or Cellular One agent; this can be a
plus or minus, depending on your needs.
 
Oh, the "3rd Network" calls are much easier to intercept with a
scanner, and legal to do. A call stays on one channel of a possible 5,
10, or 20 channels of a base station system for the entire call.
Cellular calls are illegal to intercept; and on a heavily used cmt
system, a call will "jump" from frequency to frequency, making a
particular call tough to target or follow for the hobbyist level
scanner user. (Note that LE/detectives/those with $$ can purchase
"cellular call followers"). Use of such devices is a legal and wire
tap grey area, but it does happen, especially in big $ divorce and
drug cases. The evidence may never be admitted in court, but it gives
the listener pointers at other evidence, or allows the detective to be
at the right place and time to snap photographs of afternoon
encounters, etc .  :-)
 
Another factor may be, in the coming years, Personal Communications
System (PCS) low cost, short range portable phones being test marketed
in limited areas (one of our Digest correspondants reports once in a
while on how his test experiences are going). PCS should not be
confused with the above described systems; they're totally different
animals. Be especially careful when listening to slick ads asking you
to invest :-)

Another market that uses interconnects is near off shore oil
exploration. Around Texas, several compaines off "RTI" Rig Telephones
Inc. At the oil rig, a regular looking phone controls a radio; on a
tower near shore, a radio/interconnect are hooked to the regular phone
system. The oil exploratoin/service company pays a flat fee to the
owner, or leases eqipment, etc. For high call volumes, this is cheaper
than cellular. Of course, it only works to about 40 miles our so off
shore. Then point to point microwave relay, satellite, or some other
method must be used, at higher costs.


mwearle@mcimail.com

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

Date: Thu, 30 Dec 93 06:43:31 EST
From: dwn@dwn.ccd.bnl.gov (Dave Niebuhr)
Subject: Re: "Anonymous Call Rejection" - Could be Dangerous


In TELECOM Digest V13 #843 dannyb@panix.com (danny burstein)
writes:

> A new service offered in the NYC area by NY Tel (soon to be called
> Nynex) is called "Anonymous Call Rejection." This tariff allows you
> (at a fee, of course) to take calls coming from caller-id BLOCKed
> numbers and reroutte them to a recording saying something like:

>   We're sorry, the person you called does not take calls from anonymous
>   callers. If you want to reach this person, please redial from an
From: Carl Moore <cmoore@BRL.MIL>
Subject: DC Area Calls (was Re: NPA Questions)


mk@TFS.COM (Mike King) writes about local calls between area codes:

> These calls include 301<->202, 301<->703, 202<->703, 301<->410, and
> possibly, 410<->202.

I do not think 410<->202 can be local.  After I learned of the 301/410
split three years ago, I found that, aside from the "strange" case of
301-688 at Fort Meade: if you are local to Washington, you stay in
301, and if you are local to Baltimore, you switch from 301 to 410.
If you leave Washington and go northeast toward Baltimore or east
toward Annapolis, you enter 410 as soon as you leave the DC calling
area.

Paul Robinson <PAUL@TDR.COM> writes:

> In Virginia, dialing 703 before a local number makes the call take
> longer than dialing the 7 digit number alone.  (Dialing the area code
> on a local call used to not work at all).  In Maryland, using 301 does
> not add any extra time to the call setup...

Are you saying there is difference in setting up a call between these
cases?

1. use of 703 + 7D for a local call within 703 in the Virginia suburbs;
2. use of 301 + 7D for a local call within 301 in the Maryland suburbs;

Paul Robinson <PAUL@TDR.COM> writes:

> Callers outside of Washington could call someone in a
> Maryland suburb by dialing either 301 or 202 and Virginia suburb
> numbers worked on both 703 and 202.

Formerly, incoming long distance could reach Maryland and Virginia
suburbs using area code 202 in lieu of 301 or 703, but this is gone
now (as of Oct. 1990) because of the prefix shortage. The NPA + 7D
scheme for local calls between area codes in the DC area was working
by then, but 202 + 7D was useable only for calls to DC.  This
shrinkage of 202 is my excuse for writing about this in the history
file, even though no new area code was created.

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

Date: Thu, 30 Dec 93 10:17:54 -0500
From: padgett@tccslr.dnet.mmc.com (A. Padgett Peterson)
Subject: Radio Religion (was 500 channels...)


> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The televangelism aspect is a very
> interesting one. I can remember years and years ago -- the 1950's 
> in particular -- when there were no specifically 'religious' radio
> stations with the exception of WMBI out of Chicago at Moody Bible
> and maybe one or two others; HCJB in Quito, Ecuador comes to mind if
> you include shortwave stuff.

Well I have many fond memories of WLAC (Nashville ? 1510 AM ?) keeping
me company during "red-eye" drives in the 60's and '70s from Florida to
Texas when most stations had left the air. One in particular sticks in
my mind -- a lady testifying how her faith had brought her "a new
Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham D'Elegance...".

Of course I have no idea what they broadcast during the day, I never
tuned in before midnight since the "Big Ape" - WAPE was available
then.  Seems to me that there was also a "pure religion" station in
either Tulsa or Broken Arrow about then.


Warmly,

Padgett


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well by the middle 1960's all-religious
stations were starting to be heard in a few places. WYCA-FM in
Hammond, Indiana came on the air I guess about 1963; WMBI in Chicago
started their FM affiliate station sometime in the early to middle
1960's. But prior to that, all the evangelists seemed to concentrate
on getting air time from the big, fifty-thousand watt clear channel
stations across the United States, or else they bought time from small
local stations.  A mark of success for those guys was when they could
afford a half hour or even fifteen minutes on the Mutual Network. The
CBS Radio Network also carried quite a bit of religion nationally on
Sunday morning, but they did not have it all day long like WLS or a
few other 'local' (albeit very large and powerful) stations. 

Radio station KSL in Salt Lake City, Utah is a CBS affiliate and they
originated "Music and the Spoken Word" from the Mormon Tabernacle for
about 40 years which CBS sent all over the world; not only did all
their affiliates in the USA run the show, but it went to the Armed
Forces Network and also shortwave station WINB (World International
Broadcasters) in Red Lion, PA. WCBS in New York City fed the Riverside
Church and Harry Emerson Fosdick to the network which in turn gave it
to Armed Forces and WINB plus affiliates all over in the USA. A
station here in Chicago, WJJD (1160 AM) fed the Chicago Sunday Evening
Club out to the Mutual Network which in turn gave it to several dozen
small local stations everywhere along with Armed Forces and WNIB/Red
Lion. Everyone in the USA who wanted it got People's Church from here
in Chicago via WLS on Sunday mornings and the ABC Network. Radio
religion was a big part of commercial radio here through the early
1960's and as the commercial stations began dropping it, the
all-religion stations came into existence to fill a definite need in
the marketplace. BTW, a movie which came out in the early 1960's with
Burt Lancaster ("Elmer Gantry", based on the novel of the same name)
was an excellent and realistic depiction of Aimee Semple McPherson and
her organization which in the 1930's was extremely powerful; she was
the Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson of that era.   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V13 #844
******************************



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