TELECOM Digest Thu, 9 Mar 95 14:50:00 CST Volume 15 : Issue 141 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson More on Hong Kong's Internet Debacle (Rob Hall) Who's the B Cell Carrier in Ithaca NY? (John Levine) Re: Is ISDN Equipment Limited by Switch? (Howard M. Weiner) Re: Is ISDN Equipment Limited by Switch? (Michael Berlant) Re: AT&T Offers 'International Redial' (Al Varney) Re: Paging Interface With Computer (Raymond Abbitt) Re: Caller ID, Privacy, and Cranks (was Yes, Yung'uns) (John R. Levine) Re: Caller ID, Privacy, and Cranks (was Yes, Yung'uns) (Craig Steinberger) Re: Caller ID, Privacy, and Cranks (was Yes, Yung'uns) (Benjamin Carter) Re: PBS Rumors and Innuendo: Any Truth? (Richard F. Masoner) Re: Pair Gain Line Problem (Gordon D. Woods) Re: E(TACS) and GSM (Samir Soliman) Re: E(TACS) and GSM (John Leske) 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: 500-677-1616 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 8 Mar 1995 11:08:27 +0800 From: robhall@hk.super.net Subject: More on Hong Kong's Internet Debacle From the March 8, 1995 {South China Morning Post}: Police blame Internet raids on expansion ======================================== Rapid growth of the Internet was partly responsible for police raids that left thousands of users with their links to the global information superhighway severed, police said yesterday. "In the last few months, the Internet area has grown wild," head of the Commercial Crime Bureau (CCB) Chief Superintendent Neil McCabe said. "Suddenly a large number of unlicensed providers [came on the market]. "We felft now was the time to do something rather than wait till it becomes a very huge and out of control commercial enterprise. It is vital that the service providers operate on a commercial footing." Last Friday, the CCB raided seven Internet service providers. Computer equipment was seized and seven men and one woman were detained for questioning and later released on police bail. An estimated 5,000 Internet subscribers in Hong Kong were disconnected as a result. The CCB initially claimed it was acting on complaints by the Telecommunications Authority that a number of Internet service providers were operating without a license. The search warrant used by the CCB to gain access to at least two of these companies' premises stated they were under suspicion of "maintaining any means of telecommunication without license" in contravention of Caption 106 Section 8(1)(a) of the Telecommunicaitons Ordinance. However, police said on Monday the raids were related to an investigation into computer hacking. The office of the Telecommunicaions Authority (OFTA), which is carrying out its own investigation into the licensing issue, has distanced itself from the CCB's actions. Since January, OFTA has been looking into what if has publicly called "grey areas" in the applicability of telecommunications licenses to Internet access providers. However, Mr McCabe said the CCB had received advise from Legal Department that no such grey areas existed. He said the primary reason for the CCB raids was hacking. "We know that hacking took place via one of the unlicensed platforms and that's what we're investigating," Mr McCabe said. The CCB move has sparked widespread criticism of the Government among Internet users. Industry analysts believe the CCB failed to consider the public interest when it cut access to the Internet without warning. "I fully appreciate people's concern, but my view is that the concerns should be expressed to the providers who have set themselves up as legitimate [but were not]," Mr McCabe said. Provider Hong Kong Internet & Gateway Services will be back in operation this morning, a company official said yesterday. The firm was yesterday granted a permit which allows it to restore the Internet to about 2,000 subscribers. end of article ------------------- Locally, this situation is being likened to Liquor and Restaurant Licensing. The current laws and procedures would require that an establishment be fully renovated, then sit empty for six to nine months before licenses would be granted. This, in a city with the second most expensive rents in the world. The government body tasked with issuing PNETS licenses (OFTA) says there are "grey areas" in its licensing policies, but the government's lawyers say there are none. I wonder, if I shared the fact that two of our three Internet IDs have been hacked (with the only licensed provider) if they would shut them down also?! Rob Hall Hong Kong ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 08 Mar 1995 19:18:06 -0500 From: johnl@iecc.com (John Levine) Subject: Who's the B Cell Carrier in Ithaca NY? I find that I'm spending enough time in Ithaca NY that I'm thinking of getting a cell phone. Oddly, there seems only to be an A carrier here, and no B carrier. This is the only part of New York with no B carrier, and it's nowhere near as rural as areas farther north and east. So can anyone tell me who has the B franchise for the NY-4 RSA? It consists of Cayuga, Chenango, Cortland, Schuyler, Seneca, Tompkins, and Yates counties. NYNEX/NYT is the dominant wireline carrier with some Contel and several tiny independents with one or two exchanges. TIA. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com Primary perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies" ------------------------------ From: hmweine@PacBell.COM (Howard M. Weiner) Subject: Re: Is ISDN Equipment Limited by Switch? Date: Thu, 09 Mar 1995 09:36:46 -0800 Organization: Pacific Bell Strategic Systems Architecture In article , cogorno@netcom.com (Steve Cogorno) wrote: > I am in the process of converting my two lines into an ISDN line, and > while on the phone today the PacBell representative said somthing a > little startling. She told me "You are served off a 5ESS (which I > knew), so you need to buy AT&T equipment." I thought this was a little > odd, so I asked her why. SHe said that AT&T ISDN equipment will not > work with a DMS-100 and Northern equipment will not work with the > 5ESS. So, if I move to an area that has a DMS-100, I will have to buy > all new equipment. Is this _really_ true? Depends ... First, a small piece of the background in the ISDN saga. CCITT (now ITU) built specifications for ISDN service a long time ago. Within those standards, there is much room for interpretation and unique implementations. In early implementations, AT&T and NTI went different ways, in access protocol as well as architecture. They, of course, also felt the need to come up with unique features to distinguish themselves. Since many of the RBOCs who are deploying ISDN must work in a multivendor environment, these non-transparencies caused many problems, customer equipment being one of the major ones. Because of these issues, the major stakeholders got together and eventually hammered out something called "National ISDN" (NI), as documented by Bellcore. NI is implemented in phases, NI-1, NI-2, NI-3, etc., where NI-2 does not obsolete NI-1, but builds on it without changing the basic protocol. So, your NI-1 compliant CPE will still work (all the NI-1 supported features) after the switch has been upgraded to NI-2. Depending on the particular feature and CPE vendor, upgrading the set to accomodate the NI-2 feature could be as simple as an EPROM change. Keep in mind that because there were so many differences in implementations between the major switch vendors, the NI-1 feature set that could be agreed upon by them, is really a small subset of a combination. Of course, the feature set grows more robust in NI-2 and NI-3. PacBell is in the process of retrofitting their 5e`s and DMS100`s with NI-1 software. How far along in the process this conversion is, I longer have contact with. It sounds to me like the switch from which you are served offers only Custom (Classic ) ISDN. I think you might want to ask for more in depth technical help than that first tier rep you are talking with. Find out what the upgrade plans are, etc., etc. I'm sure they can hook you up with someone who will be able to help you. If not, send me direct email and I will see if any of my old contacts can help. Howard M. Weiner hmweine@pacbell.com ------------------------------ From: lnjptyo1.mberla01@eds.com (Michael Berlant) Subject: Re: Is ISDN Equipment Limited by Switch? Date: 9 Mar 1995 02:08:18 GMT Organization: EDS Japan In article , cogorno@netcom.com says: > She told me "You are served off a 5ESS (which I knew), so you need > to buy AT&T equipment." This is partly true. You need to by AT&T-*compatible* equipment. You will not need to buy AT&T brand equipment. I have successfully installed ITT Cortelco equipment, which is program-switchable between AT&T Custom, Northern Telecom DMS-100, and NI-1 from the keypad. Aside from this versatility, this equipment is more feature-rich and user friendly. For example, AT&T equipment will not pass call progress information to the caller (such as "Number Busy" or "Number Not Assigned"), but the ITT equipment will. ------------------------------ From: varney@usgp2.ih.att.com (Al Varney) Subject: Re: AT&T Offers 'International Redial' Organization: AT&T Network Systems Date: Thu, 9 Mar 1995 17:18:17 GMT In article , Kareem Hinedi wrote: > Actually, as late as 1988 or 1989, there was no direct dial service to > Syria. You had to "book" the call with the AT&T operator. > I am sure this is still used for the few countries which cannot be > reached by direct dialing. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I think the majority -- maybe all -- of > the still non-direct-dialable places in the world from the USA are in > northern Africa and the Middle East. I think there are historic reasons > for this going back many years ago when many countries in Africa were > colonies of France. The telecom in France held very tight control.... While I enjoy banging on the French telecom as much as anyone, I'm not sure that this reasoning accounts entirely for "non-dial" countries. And certainly not the current list (circa 1994): North Africa/Middle East Other ------------------------ ----- Somali Republic Afghanistan Spanish Sahara Burma Sudan Easter Island Laos Midway Pitcairn Island Wake This excludes Cuba, which used to be "non-dial" except for City Code 99, Guantanamo Bay. (Or you could say 5399 is the Guantanamo COUNTRY CODE.) Hmm ... Could you blame Afghanistan/Burma/Laos on the French telecom too? :) Then they would be responsible for all the non-island non-dial countries ... Al Varney - just my opinion - and I don't really believe France and its telephone empire are to blame for all the ills of the world. ------------------------------ From: rabbitt@ccnet.com (Raymond Abbitt) Subject: Re: Paging Interface With Computer Date: 9 Mar 1995 08:11:39 -0800 Organization: CCnet Communications (510-988-7140 guest) HUANG Zhengqian (zqhuang@sunmp.csd.hku.hk) wrote: > Does anybody know if there is a paging receiver that can be > connected to a computer so that data received over the air can be > sent to the computer? Depends on what you want to do with the data. I haven't seen any fully integrated system (I looked into this a couple of years ago) but there are a number of ways to do it. Depending on the paging format used, the decoding can be decidedly non-trivial, but if you are more of a software than hardware type a modified pager can be used. If you would rather spend money than time, there are a number of solutions on the market ranging from stand-alone systems meant to control some device to hardware/software packages meant for system monitoring and testing (the application that I was interested in). Check the mobile radio trade magazines. There are a number of manufacturers out there. Ray ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Mar 95 13:09 EST From: johnl@iecc.com (John R Levine) Subject: Re: Caller ID, Privacy, and Cranks (was Yes, Yung'uns...) Organization: I.E.C.C., Cambridge, Mass. That Call Trace feature is available every place CNID is, and in many places like California where it isn't. Of course, Call Trace is more work and less money for the telco, so they've done their best to make it hard for people to use it, e.g. in some places you have to presubscribe for a monthly fee in order to use it, they charge several dollars per use (unlike the traditional annoyance call bureau which is available at no extra charge), and they usually make you state that you're willing to go to court before they'll do anything with the traced numbers. Another feature far more useful than CNID for stopping crank calls is Call Block. With that service, you dial a few digits after an unwanted call and all further calls from that number go to a recording. Your phone won't even ring. Both of these services are unaffected by CNID blocking, by the way. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies" ------------------------------ From: stein-c@acsu.buffalo.edu (Craig Steinberger) Subject: Re: Caller ID, Privacy, and Cranks (was Yes, Yung'uns...) Reply-To: stein-c@eng.buffalo.edu úÿ Organization: SUNY at Buffalo CFD Lab Date: Wed, 8 Mar 1995 20:58:38 GMT In article , Robert Levandowski wrote: > Here in Rochester NY, the phone company (Rochester Telephone / Frontier) > has what I think is an elegant solution to the Caller ID vs. crank call > problem. > To keep this service from being abused, there's a $1.50 charge for > every call that is successfully traced. Why should the customer (aka "the victim") have to pay in order to prosecute someone who is violating the law by placing annoyance calls. What's next? Should I have a major credit card available before I call the police to investigate a break in? IMHO, the cost for the call should be waived if the customer decides to file a complaint. Craig Steinberger stein-c@eng.buffalo.edu SUNY at Buffalo, Computational Fluid Dynamics Lab http://cfd20.eng.buffalo.edu/~stein-c/craig.html send email with subject "PGPKEY" for PGP public key ------------------------------ From: bpc@netcom.com (Benjamin P. Carter) Subject: Re: Caller ID, Privacy, and Cranks (was Yes, Yung'uns...) Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Date: Thu, 9 Mar 1995 00:59:39 GMT rlvd_cif@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Robert Levandowski) writes: > Well, here we have Caller-ID, and per-line and per-call blocking, but you > don't need Caller-ID to take care of annoyance calls. > If you get an annoyance call, you hang up, and then dial *64 (or > 1164 if you only have a rotary phone). > This will then automatically "trace" the number (or so it says in > the phone book -- more likely just grab the CNID/ANI information) > and report it to the Annoyance Call Bureau at the phone company. You > do NOT get a copy of the number you traced; but you can then call > Rochester PD and file a complaint, and RochesterTel will turn the > traced number over to the police for investigation. Sounds interesting. I have a couple of questions. Does this system work even if the caller attempts to block his ID, or if he is far enough away to defeat the usual Caller ID, or if he is calling from a place with its own switchboard? Do the cops feel obliged to investigate every complaint? Ben Carter internet address: bpc@netcom.com ------------------------------ From: richardm@cd.com (Richard F. Masoner) Subject: Re: PBS Rumors and Innuendo: Any Truth? Date: 8 Mar 1995 21:30:51 GMT Organization: Central Data Corp. This piece of professionally crafted rhetoric is indeed a clever bit of writing, designed to make you react emotionally without making any real arguments. Anyway ... > Power Rangers. Sen. Larry Pressler, R-South Dakota and chair of the > Senate Commerce Committee announced Bell Atlantic was prepared to take > Big Bird and Barney off the government's hands and syndicate it to > cable, satellite and television outlets. Americans could still enjoy > Big Bird -- for a fee, of course. Barney and Big Bird would obviously have a life if Federal PBS funding were axed. I'm not sure about the "for a fee, of course" phrase, since we *already* pay a fee through our tax dollars. I, myself, enjoy listening to Click & Clack on NPR's "Car Talk," but I would have no problems cutting funding for left-leaning shows such as "Morning Edition." There is *much* more to PBS than Sesame Street, boys and girls. [Notes about attempts by evil capitalist foreigner who talks with a funny accent to compete with 'Merican networks, by Jingo!] Did anyone else catch this? This is propoganda pure and simple -- the writer is trying to pull the wool over yer eyes, yanking your chain with Jingoistic "America First!" language to hide the fact that this guy's a socialist. > Perhaps the bitter battle over Big Bird and Barney's future > makes a bit more sense now. Makes perfect sense: "Capitalism is evil, communism is good." Richard [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You sir, are going to be turned in to Senator McCarthy for investigation based on that comment. The last time I talked to Joe, he said I needed to supply a hundred more names to keep from getting investigated myself. Thanks for making my job a lot easier for me. On a related note, did you see the report in the papers a couple days ago where some little kid goes in the kitchen to get his mother? He has been watching television and is crying. He says, "mama, Barney says he has to go away and I won't be able to see him any more unless you send him some money." I thought to myself, those #$$%# !! Appealing to the little kids like that ... but the station which aired that said later it was only coincidental that the plea to 'help save public broacasting' went over the air at the time it did; they say they are trying to keep the kids out of it. Sure they are ... they know the success the commercial advertisers have each week on Saturday morning advertising during the children's programs. The little brats see the products advertised, then harrass their parents until they get their way and have one (of whatever) of their own. PAT] ------------------------------ From: gdw@fozzie.wh.att.com (-gordon.d.woods) Subject: Re: Pair Gain Line Problem Organization: AT&T Date: Wed, 8 Mar 1995 15:09:41 GMT In article , ssatchell on BIX wrote: > The original question was why the "pair-gain" line restricted modem > speed to 9600 bps. > The problem is that most "pair-gain" systems use some form of ADPCM > (Adaptive Differential Pulse-Code Modulation) which reduces the > bitstream rate from the standard 64 kilobits/s to something smaller. Most seems to be a bit strong. Although most pair gain systems can support low bit rate voice (ADPCM above), it is a special option and the equipment costs more. I don't think it is actually installed much just because of the problems it causes. We should remember that many telcos are moving toward "integrated" environments where the PCM is not converted to voice at the local CO but remains PCM until the destination end office. In this environment ADPCM needs to be translated back to regular PCM with special hardware. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Mar 1995 08:25:34 -0800 From: ssoliman@qualcomm.com (Samir Soliman) Subject: Re: E(TACS) and GSM In Sam Spens Clason wrote: > In shirleyg@stanilite.com.au writes: >> GSM is digital whereas TACS is analog. This means your calls are more >> secure but the coverage will possibly be not as extensive as it is a >> newer technology (thats the way with GSM and AMPS in Australia anyway). > AMPS is on 800MHz, thus those radiowaves "travel farther". ETACS, NMT > and GSM are the same however and should behave about the same. Older > tech typically has better coverage since it's been around for a while. It is not really older vs. newer technology issue, it is the difference in the base station receiver sensitivity that accounts for the better coverage. Analog technologies have narrower receiver bandwidth (AMPS 30 KHz and TACS 25 KHz/ 12.5 KHz) as compared to 271 KHz for GSM and hence has 10 dB better base station receiver sensitivity. CDMA on the other hand, being a spread spectrum system, enjoys 21 dB processing gain that offsets the degradation in base station receiver sensitivity and provides better coverage than alanog and other digital systems. Samir Soliman QUALCOMM Incorporated ------------------------------ From: johnl@ctin.adelaide.edu.au (John Leske) Subject: Re: E(TACS) and GSM Date: 8 Mar 1995 07:14:16 GMT Organization: Centre for Telecommunications Information Networking Reply-To: johnl@ctin.adelaide.edu.au In article 5@eecs.nwu.edu, shirleyg@stanilite.com.au writes: > Alexander Cerna writes: >> Can someone explain to me what E(TACS) and GSM are in detail? > I'm sure lots of people can! Someone will correct the bits I get wrong. frequencies with a lot more than the 1000 or so in AMPS. > GSM is a French standard which is (roughly) translated as Group > Special Mobile or something similar. Someone else will know exactly. GSM is Global System for Mobiles. It is a EUROPEAN standard. But I am sure the French reading your post can understand your confusion (France being of course the centre of not only Europe, but the world) Of course originally it _was_ an abbreviation of the french name. > GSM is digital whereas TACS is analog. This means your calls are more > secure but the coverage will possibly be not as extensive as it is a > newer technology (thats the way with GSM and AMPS in Australia anyway). Meaning that more time and effort has been spent so far providing coverage on the analogue network. However GSM is generally limited to 35km range from the base station, because of timing considerations in the TDMA technology. I have been told that on a good day, in the correct phase of the moon, while standing on four leaf clovers, you can get (some sort of) reception out to 100km with an AMPS phone. [Accurate advice on this appreciated!] So it is easier to build a larger coverage in laarge geographic areas with AMPs (and TACS for that matter) - though the quality will suffer. >> Also, this service provider that uses GSM says that they're the only >> provider that's 100% digital. One of the implications of this, they >> claim, is that their phones can't be cloned as easily as the analog >> ones. Is this true? >> Also, they say that analog systems are very prone to charge errors. >> Is this also true? Or are they just trying to scare me from going to >> the other service providers? The main charging errors that I hear about in analog systems are due to fraud and poor billing systems. There have been many comments in this news group regarding cloning and the use of stolen phone numbers. The cloning issue is certainly stopped in GSM. Phone theft is still an issue though, because SIM cards can be changed. So while there would not be extra calls on your account, there is still a reason to steal phones. Regarding the comments of levine@seas.smu.edu (Dr. R. Levine), GSM is in operation in a large number of countries: over 15 european and more than 40 worldwide. Roaming certainly is dependent on the existance of buisness agreements between operators in different countries. The GSM-MoU group is there to facilitate exactly this, and there is a lot of emphasis placed on producing these agreements. However note that there is a difference between GSM and DCS1800 - DCS1800 is a GSM system running in a different frequency band. As such these handsets can only be used in the countries (7 so far I think) that have this system. Regards, John Leske ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V15 #141 ******************************