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 +-------------> >-+ | >+ | | >-+ | FROM|<| +----+ F H | STEREO>| | F-----------O-----KKK KKK | | +------D--E-+ ?#? K ?#? | |_______________________________________________________________| Wiring Diagram -Basic ___________________________________ | | | <------+ F--KKK--H +---> | | | | ?#? | +----> | OUT IN | <------*----+ +------* | | 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 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 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 , 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 , 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 Date: Wed, 15 Jun 1994 12:56:58 GMT From: Ross E Mitchell Subject: Correction: Uniformed and Uninformed A note from Ross Mitchell 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 ******************************