Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id KAA09087; Mon, 29 Apr 1996 10:57:32 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 10:57:32 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199604291457.KAA09087@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #204 TELECOM Digest Mon, 29 Apr 96 10:57:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 204 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Russian Dial; Other International Items (Mark J. Cuccia) Re: Russians Killed Dudayev Through Satellite Phone! (Linc Madison) Re: Russians Killed Dudayev Through Satellite Phone! (Leonard Erickson) Re: Russians Killed Dudayev Through Satellite Phone! (Alistair Knox) Re: Russians Killed Dudayev Through Satellite Phone! (Gary Breuckman) Re: Russians Killed Dudayev Through Satellite Phone! (Marvin Kurtti) Supercomm '96 Approaching - Plan to Attend (Gordon Ray) Opinion Poll: Online Censorship (Arun Sharma) Re: ATT Free Internet Access Status? (Phil Stanley) US 1-800 Number Access From Japan (Collin Park) 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: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.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: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at mirror.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. * ************************************************************************* In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, 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: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 19:34:33 CDT From: Mark J Cuccia Subject: Russian Dial; Other International Items I found copies of several articles from {Bell Laboratories Record} magazine from the 1960's and 70's regarding International and Overseas Telephony. They are as follows: Overseas Dialing - a Step Toward Worldwide Telephony, July 1961, by O. Myers and C. A. Dahlbom Switching International Calls via Submarine Cable, July/Aug. 1964, by J. Becker and R. D. Deming Signaling Systems - an International Concern, Jan. 1970, by G. H. Johannessen Overseas Dialing - Yesterday, Today and Tommorrow, May 1970, by L. J. Scott International Dialing - No Longer a Novelty, Jan. 1979, by R. J. Keevers The 1961 and May 1970 articles give some examples of dial layouts used in various countries. An article on international signaling formats in the {Bell System Technical Journal} circa 1960 also gives similar dialface examples. In the dialface layouts in these articles, the old Danish dial shows a single letter 'C' on the 'one' digit, nothing on the 'zero', and two symbols on the 'nine' digit. The 'AE' as a "single combined" symbol was one of the two letters on the 'nine' digit and the "slashed 'O'" was the other. I'm not all that familiar with Germanic and Scandinavian dialects, etc., so I'm not sure if the "slashed 'O'" and the "single combined" 'OE' have the same use. A sketch of the old Russian dialface using letters of the "Cyrillic" alphabet was shown in the May 1970 article. Since I am typing in US ASCII, it might be a bit difficult to more precisely describe or represent the Cyrillic lettering here. (Please read the following in a "fixed-font" mode). 1 - A ("ah"); 'alpha' _ 2 - b ("beh"); looks like lower-case 'b' with horizontal bar on top; 'beta' 3 - B ("veh"); another 'beta' _ 4 - | ("geh"); 'gamma' _ 5 - / | ("deh"); similar to 'delta' --- ' ` 6 - E ("yeh"); 'epsilon' 7 - >|< ("jeh"); similar to 'psi' 8 - |/| ("ee"); similar to 'eta'; looks like an 'N' reversed or flipped 9 - K ("kah"); 'kappa' _ 0 - / | ("el"); similar to 'lambda' There was also a picture of a Chinese dial at the beginning of this 1970 article. It had standard Arabic numbering running from one thru nine, and then zero (at ten dialpulses), but also had some Chinese symbols -- single symbols associated with each of the ten numericals. I don't know whether these symbols were Chinese numericals or alphabetical/pictoral symbols from the Chinese alphabet. The Arabian and Persian dials were also shown. They didn't have any type of letters, but the numericals were more of the origianl Arabian or Persian numbers, and both the Arabian and Persian dials were quite similar. Also, both of them had the numbers (and dialpulses) in the more familar way- one thru nine, and then zero (at ten dialpulses). All of these {Bell Labs Record} articles also dealt with various technical and interconnection standards of international and overseas telephony. The 1979 article also had a picture of an Operator's position at the Bell System (AT&T Long Lines) "International Operating Center" in Pittsburgh PA. The particular operator position shown had *BOTH* a cordboard and keyshelf *AND* TOPS-like equipment. There were *two* TOPS-like Video Display Terminals associated with each position- both display screens were at each side of the operator's position flush with the bottom of the cordboard, angled-in somewhat to the operator. A TOPS-like keyboard was close by the operator, in front of the old toggle keyswitches area. TOPS keyboards have been *quite* similar to standard computer keyboards. The numerical keypad is to the right of the "alpha/symbol" keyboard on TOPS, just like most computer keyboards. On TOPS, the keyboard portion had *operator functions* associated with the keys rather than alphabetical letters and symbols, although I think that the keyboard can be changed when needed for the operator to type in alphabetical letters/symbols. *TSPS*, on the other hand, had a rather *large* board with large square buttons/lamps (some buttons were opaque, others had lamps underneath; some were just lamps with a flush square color shield) for operator functions, and also a wide rectangular display area with "nixie" lamps to represent numerical information. TSPS also had a numerical keypad located to the right of the operator funcation keyboard area. OSPS and TOPS are both based on digital switches. OSPS is based on an AT&T/ Western Electric (Lucent) #5ESS, while TOPS is based on a Northern Electric (Northern Telecom or Nortel) DMS switch. TSPS is based on a non-digital ESS, but there is also an earlier "TSP" developed and used in the mid 1960's, based on a Crossbar Tandem. Its terminals and operation procedures were *almost identical* to the later 1970's-on TSPS, except for the type of switch they each were based on. MARK J. CUCCIA PHONE/WRITE/WIRE: HOME: (USA) Tel: CHestnut 1-2497 WORK: mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu |4710 Wright Road| (+1-504-241-2497) Tel:UNiversity 5-5954(+1-504-865-5954)|New Orleans 28 |fwds on no-answr to Fax:UNiversity 5-5917(+1-504-865-5917)|Louisiana(70128)|cellular/voicemail ------------------------------ From: Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.com (Linc Madison) Subject: Re: Russians Killed Dudayev Through Satellite Phone! Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 14:46:22 -0700 Organization: Best Internet Communications In article , rishab@nntp1.best.com (Rishab Aiyer Ghosh) wrote: > Scary if true. But I wonder why the satellite (what service wasn't > mentioned -- if it was INMARSAT or some such, under what conditions > did the Russians get hold of tracking data?) tracks location at all. > If it is to focus the transmission beam (i.e. it doesn't use > multiplexing) than I wonder how many phones it could track at a time. > Surely it would make more sense to simply broadcast the downlink, or > at least not focus it enough to offer a military target, as reception > AFAIK need not require any tracking from the satellite. Much simpler (but still hypothetical) scenario: Russian military knows that Dudayev is using a satellite phone with fair frequency (several times a day, perhaps). It is trivial to establish the frequency bands in which the satellite phone operates; that's public information. Probably not a whole lot of people in Chechnya have satellite phones, particularly not many people who aren't involved in the rebellion. Thus, you have your Russian satellites watch for transmissions in the given frequency band in the Chechnya area, or you can use aircraft and ground-based equipment to triangulate. You just wait until he makes a call and then try to pinpoint his location. No cooperation from the satellite phone provider is required, except the disclosure of the frequency bands used by the telephone. It also doesn't matter if the signal is encrypted or scrambled, since you're only using it as a homing beacon, not to intercept the message content. Of course, if CNN is on hand, transmitting field reports over a satellite phone (or other equipment in the same band), you could have a very embarrassing international incident, but the Russians probably have a good idea of where the CNN reporters are, and can filter out that data. Any other country could use the same scheme, just as long as the density of satellite phones in the target zone is very low. Linc Madison * San Francisco, Calif. * Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.com ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Russians Killed Dudayev Through Satellite Phone! From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) Date: Sun, 28 Apr 96 20:48:26 PST Organization: Shadownet rishab@nntp1.best.com (Rishab Aiyer Ghosh) writes: > A report datelined 24 April from Agence France Presse quotes Russian > sources as saying that a satellite phone was used for homing in on > Chechen separatist leadet Dzhokar Dudayev, who was blown up by rockets > on Tuesday. Russian Interior Ministry sources said that Dudayev was > tracked as he used a satellite phone; AFP reported unidentified > experts as agreeing that the satellite could have tracked Dudayev > while he was using the phone even when mobile. > Scary if true. But I wonder why the satellite (what service wasn't > mentioned -- if it was INMARSAT or some such, under what conditions > did the Russians get hold of tracking data?) tracks location at all. > If it is to focus the transmission beam (i.e. it doesn't use > multiplexing) than I wonder how many phones it could track at a time. > Surely it would make more sense to simply broadcast the downlink, or > at least not focus it enough to offer a military target, as reception > AFAIK need not require any tracking from the satellite. There's a fundamental misunderstanding here. The satellite *tracking* him was not the satellite providing the service! The US and Russia both have *many* Electronic Intelligence (ELINT) satellites. These monitor radio signals in other countries, partly for the info being transmitted, and partly for the info on *where* the signals are coming from. While the details on just *how* good these satellites are is classified, it is pretty much *assumed* that they can pick up an ordinary cellular phone, or a military walkie talkie. Thus, receieving and tracking something as powerful as a satellite phone is going to be *easy*. Remember, radio signals can be received by *anyone*, not just the intended recipient. This sort of thing is why it's standard practice to have *several* antennas for any sort of command post, with none of them especially close to it. And they place them fairly randomly too. Would be revolutionaries, take note. If a major government *really* wants to nail you, don't use radios. At least not except in *short* transmissions. Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow) shadow@krypton.rain.com <--preferred leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com <--last resort ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 13:26:10 +0100 From: Alistair Knox Subject: Re: Russians Killed Dudayev Through Satellite Phone! Organization: Macrovision UK Ltd. In article , Rishab Aiyer Ghosh writes: > But I wonder why the satellite (what service wasn't mentioned -- if > it was INMARSAT or some such, under what conditions did the Russians > get hold of tracking data?) tracks location at all. Did anyone actually confirm that the *communications satellite* was tracking the phone? I assumed that the Russians had a high-flying electronic reconnaissance aircraft searching for ground-originated transmissions in the satellite band and then used this information to target air-launched missiles/bombs. I suppose they could alternatively have used one of their own specialist satellites (much higher than an aircraft and almost impossible to detect) for the same purpose. Alistair Knox ------------------------------ From: puma@netcom.com (Gary Breuckman) Subject: Re: Russians Killed Dudayev Through Satellite Phone! Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 02:21:58 GMT I doubt the satellite provided the location, they likely just tracked down the transmitter. It's not like cellular traffic where there are MANY signals to try and separate, he probably had the only transmitter on that frequency in the area. puma@netcom.com ------------------------------ From: Marvin Kurtti Subject: Re: Russians Killed Dudayev Through Satellite Phone! Date: 29 Apr 1996 14:03:16 GMT You don't use the satellite transmission, you just have a missile lock on to the up-link frequency. The technology for knocking out radar, ground control transmitters, etc is well known. Marv ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 28 Apr 96 16:57:12 -0600 Organization: IEC From: Gordon Ray Subject: SUPERCOMM '96 Approaching - Plan to Attend Pat, many of your readers surely are interested in the "new" SUPERCOMM taking place June 23-27 at the Dallas Convention Center. SUPERCOMM '96 will be biggest and best version of the trade show and conference. Look to SUPERCOMM '96 to find the extensive breadth of companies and organizations that are shaping the future of communications. The expanded show floor has more than 600 exhibitors and special pavilions devoted to fiber, multimedia, wireless and software products and services, and a zone for end users. Plentiful education sessions at SUPERCOMM about business, operations, technology and applications surround hands-on show floor experiences and unequaled peer networking opportunities. The theme, "Explore the Whole World of Communications," is a harbinger for the industry's best annual event. Free Plenary Sessions enable all attendees to see leading authorities examine critical issues facing the industry. And a free program by Minority- and Women-Owned Business Enterprise (MWBE) looks at "Participating in the Information Age." In all, SUPERCOMM '96 presents about 225 education sessions with leaders and experts in all facets of the industry. The sessions are presented by SUPERCOMM and by three internationally renown organizations: the International Communications Association (ICA), for end-user needs; the International Conference on Communications (ICC), sponsored by the IEEE Communications Society; and the International Engineering Consortium (IEC), which provides executive-level programming as well as sessions devoted to business, marketing, and governmental subjects. Mark your calendar now to attend SUPERCOMM '96, June 23-27 in Dallas. For more information, call toll-free 1-800-278-7372, or visit the SUPERCOMM website at http://www.super-comm.com You can register on the web, too. Registration is free until May 24, $50 thereafter, so hurry! Learn more about the education organizers through the following avenues: International Communications Association (ICA) telephone: 1-800-422-4636, ext. 122 e-mail: intlcoma@onramp.net web: http://www.icanet.com/ica International Conference on Communications (ICC) telephone: 1-800-422-6648 web: http://www-ee.uta.edu/organizations/commsoc/icc96home.html International Engineering Consortium (IEC) telephone: 1-312-559-3725 e-mail: SUPERCOMM@iec.org web: http://www.iec.org As a brief list of the more than 500 speakers and executives expected to converge at SUPERCOMM: U.S. Congress Jack Fields U.S. Representative, R-Texas Alcatel Network Systems David E. Orr President & CEO Ameritech Joel S. Engel Vice President, Technology Bell Atlantic John Seazholtz Chief Technical Officer Bellcore George C. Via Corporate VP, Customer Solutions BellSouth Telecommunications John R. Gunter Vice President, Network Broadband Technologies Salim Bhatia President & CEO Concert Management Services Michael H. Reeve Vice President, Technology Emory University Jagdish N. Sheth Kellstadt Professor Ericsson Network Systems Michael L. Margolis Executive VP, General Manager General Instrument Geoffery S. Roman Senior VP, Technology GTE Corp. Charles R. Lee Chairman & CEO Hewlett-Packard Robert E. Stringer General Manager, Telecom, Media Hughes Network Systems Rajendra Patel Senior VP, General Manager, Wireless Intel Steve McGeady Vice President/General Manager Liberty Cable Television Peter O. Price President LRA Gil Lee President & CEO Lucent Technologies Gerry Butters President MCI Fred M. Briggs Chief Engineering Officer Microsoft Craig Mundie Senior Vice President NEC America James P. Carpenter Senior Vice President Newbridge Networks Paul J. Trautman Director Nortel Jean Monty President & CEO O'Reilly & Associates Dick Peck Vice President Pacific Bell Jerald R. Sinn VP, Communications Mgmt Services SBC Communications Edward E. Whitacre Jr. Chairman & CEO Scientific-Atlanta Allen Ecker Senior Vice President Siemens Stromberg-Carlson E. Van Cullens Sr. VP, Mktg. & Business Sprint Terry J. Yake Vice President, Applied Research Spyglass Tim Krauskopf Vice President, R&D Stentor Resource Centre Carol M. Stephenson President & CEO Tandem Telecom C. Bruce Hill Vice President, Marketing TDS Telecom James Barr President & CEO Time Warner Steve Pearse Senior Vice President TV/COM International Robert A. Luff President & CEO Vocal Tec Elon Ganor CEO Yankee Group Howard Anderson President ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 28 Apr 96 20:08:15 -0700 From: Arun Sharma Organization: Arun Sharma Subject: Opinion Poll: Online Censorship The following survey on government purposed censorship of the online service is being conducted as a project for our Business Research Course. Your cooperation is greatly appreciated. Rajeev Sharma Tendai Tevera Please E-Mail your Responses to asharma@erols.com 1. Which of the following statements most closely corresponds to your opinion concerning online censorship ? A. I believe that online services should be completely free of censorship. The individual should have the right to decide what he/ she views in his or her home. B. I believe that online services are adequately governed by existing laws, that these laws make further legislation unnecessary. C. I believe there should be some limited censorship to ban certain extremes. D. I believe there should be blanket censorship of the On-line services. 2. Listed below are four approaches to censorship of online materials. After each statement, please indicate how the approach described satisfies the following conditions: EFFECTIVENESS, ENFORCEABILITY, and your personal opinion of the DESIRABILITY of this approach: 1= completely satisfactory 2= very satisfactory 3= somewhat satisfactory 4= somewhat unsatisfactory 5= very unsatisfactory 6= no opinion A. Use a rating scale similar to that used for movies (e.g., "G", "PG", "R", etc.) The ability to access material with "R" and other "adult" ratings could require the use of a password or other restrictive means of access. Effective_____________ Enforceability__________ Desirability____________ B. Services providers (Prodigy, AOL, CompuServe, etc.) would be required to monitor the contents of all materials displayed or uploaded to their particular electronic environment. Effective_____________ Enforceability__________ Desirability____________ C. Both service providers (Prodigy, AOL, CompuServe, etc.) and Web site owners of specific sites would be held accountable for material broadcast. Effective_____________ Enforceability__________ Desirability____________ D. The existing laws and restrictions as they presently stand. Effective_____________ Enforceability__________ Desirability____________ 3. Would you be willing to pay for accessing a site you previously accessed, if due to censorship that site was only available on a "Pay per View" basis. Yes__________ No__________ 4. How effective do you feel "blocking software" is or will be in preventing under age access to certain sites ? ............Examples: surfwatch, net nanny Very Effective __________ Quite Effective__________ Little Effective_________ In-Effective______________ Q 05. What on-line services do you currently access Prodigy_______ America online_______ Internet_______ CompuServe _______ Others _______ 6. What is the purpose of your on-line use. Check all that apply. _______Business _______Entertainment _______Educational 7. Gender: _______Male _______Female 8. What is your marital status ____Single(never married)____Married ____Divorced/Separated/Widowed 9. What year were you born 19__________ 10. Do you have any children below the age of 15 living in your house _______Yes _______No 11. What is the highest level of education you have attained. _______High School _______College _______Post Graduate All comments, good or bad, and suggestions for improvement, that do not have spaces on this form, can be e-mailed to: asharma@erols.com ------------------------------ From: Phil Stanley Subject: Re: ATT Free Internet Access Status? Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 02:40:56 -0300 Organization: MagicNet, Inc. basavaraj patil wrote: > Barry Margolius, NYC (bfm@pobox.com) wrote: >> I just received my AT&T Worldnet CDROM: I installed it last night. >> There is a proprietary installation routine that uses a highly >> stripped down version of Netscape to call what I believe is an AT&T >> private Intranet purely for registration (thus avoiding exposing your >> credit card on the public Internet). After that it installs a rather >> normal version of Netscape 1.1 and Eudora. I'm told they use standard >> PPP to connect, thought I've not had time to test this out yet. Their >> install program creates a REG.INI file that has all the necessary >> TCP/IP and login info. >> I had to call twice for my software. There seems to be considerable >> variability as to delivery of the software: some folks get it in a >> week or two, while others take several weeks/months. > I got my software about a month back (3.5" disks). Installation was > no problem. However registration is a nightmare. The software dials an > 800 number and then starts up a netscape session. The only problem is > that it takes forever to complete the registration. I have left my > machine running for more than an hour and still failed to complete the > registration. I have given up on the worldnet service as it is next to > impossible to get registered. You know the old saying! You get what you pay for!! or is it! Know the code! Phil Stanley|travlr@magicnet.net Excel Telecommunications|http://www.magicnet.net/~travlr/ Independent Representative|407-870-2526 ------------------------------ From: Collin Park Subject: US 1-800 Number Access From Japan Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 16:11:19 JST When we moved here to Japan about three years ago, we knew of only one way to get at 1-800 numbers -- via an AT&T calling card, very expensive. Some time after that, we heard about callback services -- but they couldn't reach "800" numbers either. [At least they couldn't reach *some* 800 numbers, because it seems that it worked a few times -- to different numbers, maybe. Or maybe the callback carrier somehow "found" and then lost this capability??] But I wanted to tell you that at least one local carriers, IDC, is now able to reach U.S. "1-800" numbers with no problem. Instead of a Japanese recording of "You can't do that!" we now get an apparently US-originated message: "This is not a toll-free call; it will be billed at usual IDDD rates. If you don't like it, please hang up now." After a few seconds' timeout, the call completes. I believe the local carrier charges me from the moment I pick up the phone, so I'm paying about 40 cents for the "this is not free" notification and timeout. So if you come to Japan and need to dial a 1-800 number in the US, you aren't forced any more to use your AT&T (Sprint, MCI ...) calling card; you can just use the local carrier, at a somewhat lower cost. But don't leave your US calling card at home! If you can't find a gold- faceplate (international capable) public phone, you may be stuck using your US calling card anyway, as they seem to work [at least AT&T does] even from [some] "domestic-only" pay phones. And if you're staying in a hotel and have to make calls from your room ... you're probably better off with your US calling card for any US-bound call. Cheers, collin ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #204 ******************************