TELECOM Digest Mon, 16 Jan 95 09:19:00 CST Volume 15 : Issue 32 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Would You Believe More Rain on the Way? (Stephen P. Sorkin) Re: Would You Believe More Rain on the Way? (Aryeh M. Friedman) Re: Would You Believe More Rain on the Way? (Olcay Cirit) Re: Would You Believe More Rain on the Way? (Mark Nichols) Re: Would You Believe More Rain on the Way? (Clarence Dold) Re: Would You Believe More Rain on the Way? (Benjamin P. Carter) Re: Would You Believe More Rain on the Way? (Steven H. Lichter) Re: Would You Believe More Rain on the Way? (Rich Greenberg) Re: Chatter Heard on Scanner Leads to Criminal Charges (Peter Laws) Re: Chatter Heard on Scanner Leads to Criminal Charges (Bill Sohl) Re: Chatter Heard on Scanner Leads to Criminal Charges (Bruce Roberts) Re: Chatter Heard on Scanner Leads to Criminal Charges (Bill Mayhew) 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 America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available 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. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. 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: mars!ssorkin@uunet.uu.net (Stephen P. Sorkin) Subject: Re: Would You Believe More Rain on the Way? Date: 16 Jan 1995 07:10:05 GMT Organization: Cal State University, Los Angeles > Have the floods in California affected telephone service to any extent? A sink hole tore through an interoffice cable in Long Beach or Torrance (I can't remember which). That cut off several thousand calls. We had a problem with our old lead shielded drop cable (water shorted it out). Stephen ssorkin@calstatela.edu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Jan 1995 00:18:44 +0800 From: aryeh@cash.UCSC.EDU (Aryeh M. Friedman) Subject: Re: Would You Believe More Rain on the Way? Organization: UCSC Dept of Econ We have had spotty outages in Pac Bell and GTE land soem of West LA was out earl last week and my calls to up north are getting all circuit busy very often. Aryeh ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Jan 95 02:33:50 PST From: olcay@libtech.com (olcay cirit) Subject: Re: Would You Believe More Rain on the Way? > Have the floods in California affected telephone service to any extent? Not to my knowledge, although Libtech has experienced a four-day power outage to the high winds and rain. But then again, we weren't flooded. Sometimes I wish PG&E was as dependable as AT&T. ;) olcay ------------------------------ From: Mark Nichols Organization: Belmont Information Services Date: Mon, 16 Jan 1995 03:26:02 PST Subject: Re: Would You Believe More Rain on the Way? In article TELECOM Digest Editor writes: > Have the floods in California affected telephone service to any extent? I tried several times yesterday to place a service call to "611" and after several no-answers of 20 rings or more, I called the operator. She said they're taking names manually of people they need to call back to log a problem report. In other words, I can expect to wait "several days" just to get the opportunity to log a service call, which itself might take some time to address. Yes, the service has been affected. I'm in Pac-Bell land, although on Tuesday I had similar problems in Ventura County, GTE land. ------------------------------ From: Clarence Dold Date: Mon, 16 Jan 95 05:05:48 PST Subject: Re: Would You Believe More Rain on the Way? Organization: a2i network WHAT!!! I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!! MY LINES ARE WET AND THERE'S A LOT OF STATIC!!! I TRIED 611 AND GET A SIT, all circuits are busy. Actually, the static is _so_ bad, that I often can't draw dialtone, although I can receive calls. If I do get dialtone, I can't break dialtone with DTMF, although I can dial. On some incoming calls, I would suddenly get stutter dialtone, as if i had hit flash-hook. Incoming calls answer themselves midway through the first ring, as the CO detects line current, due to the ring voltage conducting through the swamp I call a pasture, even though we have overhead lines. Wonderful thing, these error-correcting modems... ;-) More in line with what I think you were asking: Except for a lot of individual lines being out due to insulation/moisture problems, I don't know of any trouble. There don't appear to be any COs down in the Napa area. I work for an IXC, and other than static on lines, service has been good in the flood area. Clarence A Dold - dold@rahul.net - Pope Valley & Napa CA. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: This reminds me of the tunnel flood here in Chicago a couple years ago. For a few days after the flood had been brought under control but before all the water had dissapated and the underground cables dried out, the amount of cross-talk on the lines was incredible. Dial tone of course was very slow as people made up for a few days of being unable to use the phone at all, and in the typical ten to twenty second wait for dial tone, you'd hear six different conver- sations in the background all at one time; none of them very clearly, just like a bunch of people in a room at a party everyone talking to someone else. Once dial tone was delivered to your line, all the cross- talk would go away, but during your connection itself, if you and your party were silent for a few seconds and you listened closely, you would hear a couple other people talking, way off in the background, not loud enough or well enough to understand what they were saying most of the time. The City Hall public information phone lines served as the center for information during the flood week, and those lines themselves went out of order on the first day when the water filled the basement of City Hall and doused the phone cables there. But amazingly, when so much of the downtown area was without phone service crews managed to keep the City Hall information lines up and running all but for about three or four hours. I remember calling to get an update early that afternoon and the lady telling me the rest of City Hall had been evacuated 'except for the information phone lines and the centrex operators, we will stay as long as our lines are up ...'. About 45 minutes later their lines went under also but in about three hours they were answering again from another location, across the street in the Chicago Temple Building, giving updates on the flood conditions to thousands of callers. The cross-talk was not just confined to outgoing calls from the downtown area, although that is where it was worst. When someone from outside the area called downtown, mainly into the Wabash or Franklin COs, as soon as your call left your CO and hit one of those, you'd get a click on the line, static and cross-talk in the background as the phone rang at the place you were calling. Once they answered -- if they did -- the cross- talk mostly went away. The rain on Saturday here was the cause of a lot of very wet demarcs and such, because of strong winds blowing the rain sideways at you and getting it into literally everything; cracks in the window of your house, etc. PAT] ------------------------------ From: bpc@netcom.com (Benjamin P. Carter) Subject: Re: Would You Believe More Rain on the Way? Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Date: Mon, 16 Jan 1995 01:00:21 GMT TELECOM Digest Editor writes: > Well, good luck and my best regards, folks. It seems like the people > in California spend all summer burning the place down, Actually, we have more fires in late autumn, when the vegetation is dryest and most flammable. > then spend all winter enduring mud slides and flooding. Did you forget about our earthquakes? And worst of all is our state legislature in Sacramento. It makes the U.S. Congress look responsible by comparison. > We are getting a lot of rain here today also, but the only effect > has been to melt all the snow which had accumulated and leave some > *huge* puddles of water to navigate at curbs where the street sewers > are plugged, etc. > Have the floods in California affected telephone service to any extent? Well, the prices just went up, but that is probably unrelated to the floods. (Pac Bell and GTE can expect a flood of complaints about the bills they are sending out this month.) Ben Carter internet address: bpc@netcom.com [TELEOCM Digest Editor's Note: No, I did not forget about the earthquakes. That one at Northridge (?) in particular was something else. Last year was pretty tragic all over California, and apparently 1995 is starting out badly for the folks there also. Your legislature may be bad, but wait until you see the Chicago City Council -- what a bunch of clowns they are. Did you know in the election coming up (for City Council members) we have six ex-felons running for office? Seriously ... and over a dozen of the ones who have been in office in the past seven or eight years have been found guilty of something and sent to the penitentiary. Real bunch of winners, all. PAT] ------------------------------ From: co057@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Steven H. Lichter) Subject: Re: Would You Believe More Rain on the Way? Date: 16 Jan 1995 03:45:17 GMT Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA) Both PacBell and GTE have had spot outages. The Laguna Beach CO, which was seen on the news, but nothing was said as what it was, had sand bags and other blocks to prevent any more damage. I had heard that one RSU way up north was running on its own since the Fiber cable got washed out. I would say it was either good planning or just plan luck that more damage was not done. Though I'm sure that the people out here that lost service were not happy. My computer kept going even though we lost power since I have a UPS on it and the one I have could run a Lan so it stayed up for almost an hour, running my BBS. but no calls. Sysop: Apple Elite II -=- an Ogg-Net Hub BBS Home of GBBS/LLUCE support (909) 359-5338 12/24/14.4 V32/V42bis ------------------------------ From: richgr@netcom.com (Rich Greenberg) Subject: Re: Would You Believe More Rain on the Way? Date: Sat, 14 Jan 1995 23:33:14 GMT The forcast on the local news station (KFWB) Saturday morning about 7am PST was predicting about an inch, 70% chance of rain Saturday night and Sunday. At the moment (3:30pm pst) its overcast and dry. There were some periods of sun yesterday and today. > Have the floods in California affected telephone service to any extent? Not in my local area (Near LAX airport). The two hardest hit areas are Malibu and an area south of here (I forget the name). (A later update) .... The "70% chance of rain" is now 100% at my place. Light so far. Rich Greenberg Work: TBA. Know anybody needing a VM guru? N6LRT TinselTown, USA Play: richgr@netcom.com 310- 649-0238 Pacific time. I speak for myself & my dogs only. Canines: Val(Chinook,CGC), Red(Husky,(RIP)), Shasta(Husky) ------------------------------ From: plaws@comp..uark.edu (Peter Laws) Subject: Re: Chatter Heard on Scanner Leads to Criminal Charges Date: 15 Jan 1995 18:30:09 GMT Organization: University of Arkansas Bob Keller writes: >> Sorry, that is absolutely false. The FCC part 15 rules are the >> specifc requirements for which RF devices must be tested against by >> the FCC to CERTIFY them for initial sale to the public. That is all >> that the rules govern ... initial certification. The rules do not grant >> any "authority to operate" the device, nor do the forbid operation of >> any certified device that has been modified after the initial sale nor >> do they forbid operation of any uncertified device that may have been >> built from scratch. Bottom line...Part 15 rules impose absolutely NO >> duty on the consumer. > I don't agree. Rule 15.1(b) provides: > "The operation of an intentional or unintentional radiator ^^^^^^^^ RADIATOR!!! Not receiver!! *Transmitters* are a "whole nother" thing. Radiator != receiver (I'll leave aside poorly shielded local oscillators:). Peter Laws|"Suppose you were a politician. Now suppose you n5uwy@ka5bml.#nwar.ar.usa.noam |were an idiot. Ah, but I repeat myself."-Twain ------------------------------ From: billsohl@earth.planet.net (Bill Sohl Budd Lake) Subject: Re: Chatter Heard on Scanner Leads to Criminal Charges Date: 15 Jan 1995 07:51:02 GMT Organization: Planet Access Networks - Stanhope, NJ Bob Keller (rjk@telcomlaw.com) wrote: >> Sorry, that is absolutely false. The FCC part 15 rules are the >> specifc requirements for which RF devices must be tested against by >> the FCC to CERTIFY them for initial sale to the public. That is all >> that the rules govern ... initial certification. The rules do not grant >> any "authority to operate" the device, nor do the forbid operation of >> any certified device that has been modified after the initial sale nor >> do they forbid operation of any uncertified device that may have been >> built from scratch. Bottom line...Part 15 rules impose absolutely NO >> duty on the consumer. > I don't agree. Rule 15.1(b) provides: > "The operation of an intentional or unintentional radiator > that is not in accordance with the regulations in this part > must be licensed pursuant to the provisions of Section 301 > of the Communications Act, as amended, unless otherwise > exempted from the licensing requirements elsewhere in this > chapter." I have no problem with this statement and I'll state unequivocally that scanners and/or other types of radio receivers are not (if designed properly) included in the catagory "intentional or unintential radiator" and they are not, therefore, licensed. > Note that this rule addresses _operation_ of the device. In most, if > not all, radio services, the modified device would not be properly > type accepted in the applicable service which would, in turn, preclude > licensing of its use pursuant to Section 301 except in special cases > (e.g., an experimental or developmental authorization, or possibly > certain amateur radio uses within ham bands and subject to ham rules). Agreed, but again, radio receivers and scanners are not described anywhere as a radio service. Bill Sohl previously said: >> Anyone can buy any commercial receiver (or scanner, or TV, or úÿ >> computer, etc.) and modify it in any way they want and not be in >> violation (as you claim) of any law. Additionally, hobbyists have >> been building their own receivers and/or modifying commercial (as well >> as military surplus) receivers for years. Doing so is not a crime, >> nor does it render the use of any such home built or modified RECEIVER >> illegal. Furthermore, there is NO license required to build, modify, >> repair or otherwise tinker with any radio receiving equipment used by >> the general population. > I am not sure that this statement can be squared with Section 15.21 of > the FCC Rules which provides: > "The users manual or instruction manual for an intentional > or unintentional radiator shall caution the user that > changes or modifications not expressly approved by the > party responsible for compliance could void the user's > authority to operate the equipment." I have seen this warning in various part 15 "radiating" devices such as my daughter's remote control dancing Barbie, baby monitors, and other devices which are use some type of transmitting capability. I have seen no such warning in any receiving only equipment. > While I would not necessarily go so far as to label scanner and other > receiver adjustments and/or modifications as necessarily or even > likely "criminal," it is nonetheless important to keep in mind two > important factors: > (1) A device or a circuit within a device that is > "receive-only" may still be (and in the case of > radio receivers usually is) either an intentional > or unintentional radiator within the meaning of > Part 15 of the Rules; and If it is then where is the case law? Who has EVER been prosecuted. How would this "square" with one's ability to build their own radio receiving equipment? Are all those "do-it-yourself" hobbyists breaking the law? A receive-only device should certainly never fall into the catagory of an "intentional radiator." If a receive only device, after being modified, becomes an unintential radiator (that is, it is emitting RF beyond a certain allowed limit) then its operation would be illegal, BUT modifying the frequency coverage of a receive-only device without changing the amount of incidental RF emitted beyond an allowed limit, would not make it an unintential radiator. > (2) Without even getting into the debate over the special > statutory and regulatory provisions applicable to > cellular-capable scanners, there is a _big_ > difference between opening up a device to repair, allign, > or adjust it and modifying the manufacturer's design > features of the device. Bob's comments above really focus on the "potential" RF radiating associated with any electronic device. That is not the issue with all modifications, and would not, I contend, even likely be a problem for the frequency coverage type modification that is accomplished by "diode clipping" on many CELLULAR blocked scaners manufactured in the past. Note also that all of the above talks about the possibility of losing the authority to operate ... it does not say that you can't clip diodes or make modifications ... it just indicates that for SOME services, modifications MAY render the device as "unusable" because it no longer complies with part 15. The act of making the modification is not, howver, defined or identified as being illegal, nor does it say that the device, once modified is illegal to own or subject to forfeiture by the FCC, nor does it say that the person making the modification is breaking the law. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Thank you, Bob. Section 15.21 is all > I was trying to get across to readers here. No, one does not have to > have a 'license', ie. written document or whatever to operate a > receiving only radio; authority is automatically given when you buy > it from a licensed source. So where does authority come from when you "build it yourself?" As above, are you claiming it is illegal or a violation of part 15 to build electroonic equipment as an individual ... be it receivers, computers, etc ... all of which, when produced commercially, must be part 15 certified? You can't have it both ways. If it is illegal to modify it must, therefore, by logical extension be illegal to build your own. If it is not illegal to build your own, then modifying an existing device (a commercially certified device) just turns it into a do-it-yourself project with most of the work already completed which is, therefore, legal! > But as soon as you tamper with the innards and make changes in how > or what the radio receives, and how it processes what it receives *and > you are an unlicensed person* -- that is, you lack a tech ticket -- > then according the FCC and 15.21 you lose your authority (albiet > granted originally by default) to 'operate' the radio, which may > amount to nothing more than twisting the off/on switch and the tuning > dial. Pat, the FCC doesn't even require a second class radio license to do repair work on most commercial transmitting gear anymore, I don't need any license to build my own radio receiver OR modify an existing receiver, nor do I need any license (real or implied) to operate receive only equipment. It just ain't so! > May I suggest to readers the next time you decide to purchase some sort of > radio, or television perhaps, *look at the user manual*. You'll find the warning in radio control devices, baby monitors, and other devices intended to radiate; you won't find it in TV manuals, stereo receiver manuals, and other receive only device manuals. And, even if such a warning was included ... it has no impact ... it ranks up there with the "Do Not Remove This Label" warning found on furniture. > Read the manual. Note the legal verbiage in there somewhere about > *losing your 'authority' to operate the darn thing if you make > unlicensed repairs or modifications*. Why do you think General > Electric, Best Buy, K-Mart, Wal-Mart, etc and oh yeah! Radio Shack > put that admonition in there? The FCC *requires* them to do so. No one needs any authority from the FCC to operate a receiver ... that's one of the fundamental differences between the USA and many other countries. Yes, commercial radio receivers must be certified to be sold, but subsequent modification or repair by anyone has not now nor has it ever in the past led to an individual "losing the authority" to operate the receiver (or scanner). Likewise, anyone can build a radio receiver from indiviual parts they buy at Radio Shack. The resulting radio has NO certification, nor does it require any ... the builder is in violation of nothing. Indeed, Radio Shack sells such "do-it- yourself" radio kits all the time. Let me state catagorically here ... I have built my own receivers, I have modified commercial receivers, I will continue to do so in the future, I have done nothing illegal, I have defied no law, I am not in any way afraid of the FCC "revoking" my authority to operate any of the receiving equipment I own because they don't have the authority to prohibit me from using that equipment as long as it isn't acting as a radiator beyond certin defined limits. Please if anyone can bring any example to this discussion of where any individual has been prosecuted for modification of any type of receive only equipment I'd welcome the information. Until then saying it is illegal to modify receivers is not going to make it so. On a final note, nothing here is intended to condone listening to CORDLESS or CELLULAR phone conversations which is illegal. However, owning the receiving equipment capable of listening, is NOT illegal. Indeed, receiving equipment capable of receiving CORDLESS is absolutely legal to be manufactured and imported today. Receiving equipment capable of receiving CELLULAR became illegal to manufacture or import after 4/26/94 (but was absolutely legal to manufacture and import before that). Owning such equipment is absolutely legal. Cheers, Bill Sohl K2UNK (Budd lake, New Jersey) (billsohl@planet.net) ------------------------------ From: bruce.roberts@greatesc.com (Bruce Roberts) Subject: Re: Chatter Heard on Scanner Leads to Criminal Charges Date: Mon, 16 Jan 1995 12:46:00 GMT Organization: The Great Escape - Gardena, CA - (310) 676-3534 Tony_Pelliccio@brown.edu (Tony Pelliccio) wrote: > Actually the AOR-2500 comes through with the cell band intact. Or at > least it did until the FCC attempted to clamp down on it. The nice > thing is the AOR-2500 is considered a communications receiver and not > a scanner and last I heard the whole thing was still tied up in > hearings. And the AOR-1000 hand held scanner with continuous coverage can still be purchased. These are "refurbished" units that look like new, come with all the accessories and the same warranty as the "new" model. The price, coincidentally, is the same as the "new" model which has the cellular bands blocked. TTFN -br- ------------------------------ From: wtm@uhura.neoucom.edu (Bill Mayhew) Subject: Re: Chatter Heard on Scanner Leads to Criminal Charges Organization: Northeastern Ohio Universities College of Medicine Date: Fri, 13 Jan 1995 20:17:39 GMT Section [15.21] covers intentional and unintentional radiators. I don't interpret that as specifically germaine to receiving eqipment, unless the equipment uses a local oscillator or some other detection process that produces RF emission. A passive TRF receiver should be exempt from part 15. Any manufacturer producing a TRF unit would still probably find itself under the thumb of the FCC anyway, having to prove such claims. John Q. Public is free do anything as long as it doesn't violate part 15. This means that any hacks done have to be in compliance with emission regualtions as set forth in various subparts. Part 15 doesn't prohibit modifications. Of course you might need a good lawyer to prove that, and a lot of money too. There is relatively little chance John Q. Public is going to have the time and financial resources to outlast the FCC's limitless patience and funding. The ECPA is what attempts to regulate what your permission to receive. Ins't it great when our government tries to function as our proxy to protect us from ourselves? Grrrr. Bill Mayhew NEOUCOM Computer Services Department Rootstown, OH 44272-0095 USA phone: 216-325-2511 wtm@uhura.neoucom.edu amateur radio 146.58: N8WED [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: My point exactly. It is very hard if not impossible to win anything from those people. And to Bill Sohl, yes of course you can make those kits from Radio Shack yourself, *as long as you made them exactly as described in the kit instructions*. Add a few pieces, or change a few values from those given or furnished in the kit, and you have broken the law, IMO. Also please note the warning in the instructions of so many devices which say in essence, 'you must tolerate any interference which comes as a result of someone else operating a licensed radiator, and you yourself are forbidden to cause any interference. If you cause interference, you must disconnect this device, etc ...' PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V15 #32 *****************************