Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id JAA24125; Sun, 28 Sep 1997 09:27:24 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 28 Sep 1997 09:27:24 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199709281327.JAA24125@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #264 TELECOM Digest Sun, 28 Sep 97 08:27:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 264 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Bell Atlantic CDMA Privacy Option (brian@his.com) Re: Two ISDN Devices on One Line (Carl Knoblock) Re: Two ISDN Devices on One Line (junk-2-junkies) Re: Hooking Up Two Computers to a Cable Modem? (Marc Baime) Re: Hooking Up Two Computers to a Cable Modem? (Dave Padgitt) Re: Hooking Up Two Computers to a Cable Modem? (Melvin Klassen) Sprint Billing Disagreement (Sylvia Caras) Help With Line Noise Please (Tony Ward) Re: Denver: Home Number Ringing on Mobile Phone (Gordon S. Hlavenka) US West Hype-O-Matic (was Re: Denver: Home Number ...) (Bill Levant) RBOCs Few at Telephony Conference (Eric Florack) Re: Radio Vigilantes (Paul Schmidt) Re: Radio Vigilantes (Tom Watson) 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@telecom-digest.org * 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: 847-727-5427 Fax: 773-539-4630 ** Article submission address: editor@telecom-digest.org ** Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is: http://telecom-digest.org They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to archives@telecom-digest.org to receive a help file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom Archives. ************************************************************************* * 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. * ************************************************************************* 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. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. 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: Sat, 27 Sep 1997 15:26:15 -0400 From: brian Subject: Re: Bell Atlantic CDMA Privacy Option fgoldstein@bbn.com (Fred R. Goldstein) replied to me: > In article , brian@his.com says: >> I've never heard of an IS-95 call being particulary tappable at the air >> interface ... what additional privacy is needed? > From my reading of the IS-95 summary at www.cdg.org, it appears that > in the "reverse" direction (mobile to base), the phone chooses a > spreading code based on among other things its ESN, which of course is > never sent in the clear. If you don't have the spreading code, it's > probably impossible or nearly-so to decode it. > In the forward direction, I'm not so sure about the security, since > it's not evident that there are unique codes for each "channel", just > separate phases of a common code. But I may be missing something. > Anybody know? If this is weak, then wireline-end echo might be enough > to make the reverse channel audio audible. > The keypad (not ESN) encryption method (CMEA) has been demonstrated to > be extremely weak, as it was one of those "NSA secret" developments > that left out the crypto community and turned out to be "hahaha" weak > encryption. But that doesn't encode the voice or the ESN, and in > practice may not be crackable off the air since the cyphertext blocks > are so short. Fred, You have missed the point of the thread. I was replying to a message about how Bell Atlantic Nynex Mobile doesn't seem to understand how their CDMA network works in certain regions and thus gives out erroneous information. I was continuing that topic by trying to make the point that BANM promised me one thing and delivered another. I wasn't commenting on the actual privacy option. It's like if when Caller-ID first came out and the phone company told you that they would provide Calling Number only but in a year they'd provide Caller-Name. So you go out and buy the more expensive Caller-ID Delux unit now instead of the Caller-ID unit on the promise that the service would be provided. You ended up wasting money because you didn't need the extra feature. I paid more for a phone with the promise of security now and super security later. Later apparently will never come. Brian And as always, please visit my home page at http://www.his.com/brian Find my PGP keys at http://keys.pgp.com:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=brian@his.com ------------------------------ From: Carl Knoblock Subject: Re: Two ISDN Devices on One Line Organization: Novia Internetworking - Omaha, NE Date: 28 Sep 97 00:07:46 GMT Stephen B. Kutzer wrote: > A quick ISDN question: I have ISDN to my house with RJ45 outlets in 4 > locations. To date, I've only connected to one of these at a > time. That will be changing in the near future when I will be > connecting 2 PCs. Can 2 NT-1's be connected to separate outlets? I > guess I'm a little confused on the "bonding" that takes place which > ends up, from my naive perspective, giving me dial tone on my two SPID > numbers. FWIW, I plan on connecting both PCs with external Motorola > Bitsurfer "modems". I understand that I can only have a dual-channel > connection from one PC at a time. But I'm wondering if (a) I can run > one PC across one SPID and the other on the second SPID, and (b) if I > can have phones and faxes connected to the external analog ports of > each of these modems (in other words, will both locations provide > dial-tone to both lines)? Your NT1 is an interface between the line (U interface) and teminal equipment that runs on the S/T interface. Only one NT1 can be connected to a line at one time. Several (up to 8) S/T devices can be connected to the NT1. As long as your Bitsurfers can use the S/T interface, you can do what you want to do. If they have built-in NT1 interfaces that cannot be bypassed, you'd better look for something else. Carl G. Knoblock Metro Apple Computer Hobbyists cknoblo@oasis.novia.net Follow the Yellow Brick Road to cknoblo@delphi.com KansasFest 10, July 22-26, 1998 ------------------------------ From: junk-2-junkies@sdem1.surplusdirect.com Subject: Re: Two ISDN Devices on One Line Date: Sat, 27 Sep 1997 10:22:16 -0400 Organization: Erol's Internet Services This will better be answered in the ISDN newsgroup, but here is what I know: Stephen B. Kutzer wrote: > Can 2 NT-1's be connected to separate outlets? No. The U interface (that is the 2-wire ISDN line that comes to the demark box in your house) can only connect to one NT-1. If you want to connect multiple devices, you have to do that on the S/T side of the NT-1. In the USA, most ISDN devices come with builtin NT-1, and no S/T bus interface, that does limit what one can do. > But I'm wondering if (a) I can run one PC across one SPID and the > other on the second SPID, and There are only a few ISDN TAs that let you do that. I think there is an ADTRAN 2x64. The way you describe your setup -- no you can't. > (b) if I can have phones and faxes connected to the external analog > ports of each of these modems (in other words, will both locations > provide dial-tone to both lines)? Again, possible, but you would need a diffrent setup, where you have an NT-1, connected to TAs (or routers, or...) that have an S/T interface on one "side" and analog ports on the "other side" There are some great ISDN web-pages, see www.ccg4isdn.com or www.isdn.ocn.com (and there are more...) ------------------------------ From: Marc Baime Subject: Re: Hooking Up Two Computers to a Cable Modem? Date: Sat, 27 Sep 1997 12:11:35 -0400 Organization: Road Runner Here's a response I received which wasn't posted here but which, I believe, will work: It is relatively easy to add computer to Cable Modem. You need to buy a 4 port 10BaseT Hub with uplink, another ethernet card for the second computer and 2 pieces of UTP RJ45 cable. I have a 3 com ISA ethernet card in the original computer. I bought a Netgear PCI ethernet card for the second computer. I bought Netgear 4 port hub and a 3 foot UTP and a 50 foot UTP cable. The 10baseT that currently plugs from cable modem to ethernet card gets moved to the uplink port of the hub. Push button in for uplink. I have the short 3 foot cable going from Port 1 of the hub to the first computer. I have the 50 foot cable in port 2 of the hub to the second ethernet card on the second computer. That is all the hook-up. Now you need to configure your account on roadrunner and add a sub account. You assign ID and password. The second user will log in and change his password. You will need to add a line to: in Control Panel/Internet/Connection/Advanced-Exceptions [ams-server;login-server:8080;ftp://;gopher://] without brackets. The master computer will have port 8080 or what ever you have now. The second computer will have 8081. Add the exceptions line to all systems. Change all proxy port numbers on sub-computers. Their, now you have two or more computers that can access Road Runner at the same time with out speed loss. Mine works great. I'll never go back to modem ISP's. ------------------------------ From: Dave Padgitt Subject: Re: Hooking Up Two Computers to a Cable Modem? Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 20:57:29 -0500 Organization: EnterAct L.L.C. Turbo-Elite News Server Reply-To: dp@enteract.com On a related note, I have heard of networks that can distribute info around the house over phone lines instead of coax. Does anyone know where I can find such a product? Any thoughts as to quality, reliability, cost, etc? ------------------------------ From: klassen@UVic.CA (Melvin Klassen) Subject: Re: Hooking Up Two Computers to a Cable Modem? Date: 26 Sep 1997 16:34:30 -0700 Organization: University of Victoria Marc Baime writes: > If possible, I would appreciate some detailed direction on what to get > and how to setup for a second computer on a single cable modem. > Any literature on the web? For the IBM OS/2 Warp environment, see "My Little LAN"; the URL is: http://www.iinet.net.au/~summer/OS2/MyLan.html > Can both machines run at the same time? > Do I need a multiplexer? A hub? > Where does the cable need to be split? > Before coming into the cable modem? > Coming out of the cable modem? Yes. No. No. Not physically, but "electronically" inside the first machine. ------------------------------ From: sylviac@netcom.com (Sylvia Caras) Subject: Sprint Billing Disagreement Organization: Netcom On-Line Services Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 19:19:40 GMT Sprint Unclear on Billing Practices I'd like to show Sprint that I have some who agree with me. I was referred here by one of the members of the spam-l list. Please telephone, in the U S, 1 800 877 4646, and press enough voice mail menu buttons to get to a live operator. I don't know the Canadian service number; it may be the same. Or email, if you know a good address. All I could find that didn't bounce was webmaster@www.sprint.com Please let them know you are calling/writing in reference to Cust # 182448994, 408 426 5335, and that you read about the controversy here on the Internet. And I hope you will suggest to them they should adjust my bill. Sprint changed me to their Sprint Cents plan a few months ago on their own initiative. While I did later find out about the change, I never received any written details. What I thought I knew is that from 7 PM to 7 AM, calls to "1 area code prefix four digits" (1 xxx xxx xxxx) were 10 cents a minute. One evening after 7 PM, I made a call that lasted 73 minutes and was startled yesterday to receive a bill for $73, $1 a minute instead of 10 cents. Sprint told me, when I questioned the charge, that I should have known I was making an international call to Canada, that the international rates applied here and were different and that despite there being no different country code for Canada and despite the number format being the same 10 digits as for within the United States, that it was up to me to have known the charge I was incurring. Are they right? They won't bend and have already billed my credit card (because that was how I had authorized the billing duh!). I've cancelled Sprint and am planning to call the card company and protest. As well, I'd like Sprint to know that I am not alone in thinking what they have done is wrong and hardly furthers relations between the United States and Canada. Goodness - open borders and closed telecommunication! I've been with Sprint for about 15 years. Bills have always been paid timely and average $50 a month. Calls have always been at prudent times. They don't even seem to care that I cancelled. I'd like it if you'd call, and or e mail to webmaster@www.sprint.com Thanks, Sylvia Caras, owner, MADNESS coordinator, the family of mad lists on LISTSERV@maelstrom.stjohns.edu and at www.madnation.org SylviaC@netcom.com 1 408 426 5335 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: No Sylvia, they really don't care that you cancelled after fifteen years. To their way of thinking, a new sucker is born every minute. We've had lots of discussions here in the past about Sprint making changes in their programs without bother- ing to tell anyone, and flat out simply violating their own contracts in the middle of a promotion when they decided it was not to their advantage to continue as it was written. Even if ten cents per minute to Canada was not the established rate, a dollar per minute seems rather excessive, but Sprint has used 'bait and switch' tactics like that for as many years as we have written about them here. Good luck in getting an adjustment. My suggestion is you handle it by telling your credit card company not to pay it rather than by trying to get an adjustment from Sprint. What would you like to wager that if anyone reading the Digest did call, Sprint would either refuse to discuss it or claim that no such customer number existed, etc? PAT] ------------------------------ From: Tony Ward Subject: Help With Line Noise Please Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 18:17:48 -0500 Organization: StarNet Communications, Inc I currently have two phone lines, one for voice and one for my modem. My question is this: I have line noise on both lines (local radio station). I have installed a noise supressor on both lines (close to modem and phone). I currently have a 28,8 modem (connect at 26,4 or 24) and was wondering wether the supressor inhibits modem connection speed (actually I can not connect without the supressor being there). Is there anything else I can realistically do to stop the interference and is it worth my while getting a k56flex modem? Would it be better to put a line supressor where my telco box comes into the house (if so how?). Many MANY thanks for your help. Tony Ward tonyeo@black-hole.com ------------------------------ From: Gordon S. Hlavenka Subject: Re: Denver: Home Number Ringing on Mobile Phone Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 16:42:00 -0500 Organization: Crash Electronics, Inc. Reply-To: gordon@crashelex.com Donald M. Heiberg wrote: > From the "Rocky Mountain News", Denver, September 24, 1997 > http://www.denver-rmn.com/business/0924west2.htm > Customers can choose their existing home or small-business office > numbers as their PCS number, and incoming calls to that number can be > routed directly to the mobile phone for $4.95 a month. Or customers can > use the separate number assigned to the PCS phone. > After arriving at the museum, Mannetti explained that the technology > allowing customers to use one number for both wireless and regular > phones was developed at US West's Advanced Technology Center in Boulder. > Major rivals were unimpressed. And so am I. I've been doing this for a couple of years now, on a plain old analog AMPS cellphone, for $1.20 a month; I just ordered "Busy Line Transfer" and "Alternate Answering" from Ameritech. These services cost 60 cents each, per month. (Actually, it was an Ameritech rep who turned me on to this.) People can call me on the landline number and if I don't answer, after 4 or 5 rings the call goes to the cellphone. If I don't answer _there_, it goes to the cellular voicemail. Having the Busy Transfer feature as well makes the whole thing work as if I had landline voicemail. But I don't bother with voicemail on the landline; I use the cellular voicemail exclusively. Details in the "free advice" section of my website. Gordon S. Hlavenka www.crashelex.com gordon@crashelex.com Grammar and spelling flames welcome. Some of us still think it's important. ------------------------------ From: Wlevant@aol.com (Bill Levant) Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 20:49:59 EDT Subject: US West Hype-O-Matic (was Re: Denver: Home Number ...) In issue 260, Donald Heiberg posted an article from the __Rocky Mountain News__ that said, in part ... > ...US West Communications turned up its new wireless service in the Denver > area Tuesday with a twist the company says is a national first: A > customer's home number can be programmed to ring on the mobile phone. The company may SAY it's a "national first", but to this hype-impaired reader, it sure sounds like "call-forwarding variable" on the home number. Period. Now, if they meant to say that incoming calls ring in BOTH places simultaneously, well that's a horse of a different color, but if so, their flacks did a lousy job of getting the word out, because this story DOESN'T SAY THAT ! Bill ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 06:47:33 PDT From: Eric Florack Subject: RBOCs Few at Telephony Conference From TIPWORLD.COM: ** RBOCs few at telephony conference Regional Bell telephone operating companies were conspicuous by their absence at this week's Voice on the Net show at Boston's World Trade Center. Bell Atlantic registered just one representative, U.S. West also sent one, a source told Internet Daily. New media consultant Vin Crosbie said "the telephone companies are here in one-sies and two-sies, while the long distance companies, like AT&T, MCI and Lucent are here with armies." The 30 exhibitors were primarily technology- focused. Show awards went to Selsius Systems, Inc. for a LAN-based PBX system allowing just one network to be used for data and voice Internet transfers, and Voxware, for its VIPSuite software tools designed to improve the speech quality of Internet-carried calls. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 27 Sep 1997 20:42:30 -0500 From: Paul Schmidt Organization: pschmidt at viaduct.custom.net Subject: Re: Radio Vigilantes TELECOM Digest Editor noted: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Back in the 1970's there were a lot of > guys with the knowledge and equipment to convert CB radios into ten- > meter transceivers. Then there were those of us who did it *LEGALLY*. Those boards made by Cybernet (with numbers in the corners like PTBM039AOX) were lots of fun for those of us on limited budgets during the sunspot peak of the late '70s. I remember the thrill of working stations in England and Russia on AM just below 29 MHz; of adding an FM detector chip and tossing some audio onto the VCO to use one on 29.6 MHz FM; of turning on the transmit oscillator to (kind of) demodulate SSB signals ... Sure, I knew how to run them all over the illegal frequencies; but I was in my late teens, with both amateur and commercial FCC licenses, and was going for an EE degree, I saw no reason to risk my future.. (although no doubt it would have probably been very profitable). There are still some of us who believe in right and wrong. I made enough money working on legal CB's when I was in high school, then working in the repair shop for a ham equipment dealer when I was in college. I got the degree a couple of years after that, and now spend my days making computers talk to each other... It's nice to remember some of the low-budget fun of those days -- and I don't regret passing up the opportunity to make some quick (illegal) bucks. Paul Schmidt Bloomfield, IN USA Amateur Radio K9PS http://viaduct.custom.net/pschmidt ARRL Life Member PGP fingerprint: 24 9F D3 BD AE E3 50 72 QCWA Life Member 26711 Linux 2.0.pre-31 23 AB A0 64 BB 9E 2B 8D Cnhy Fpuzvqg : rot13 for SpamBots! ------------------------------ From: tsw@cagent.com (Tom Watson) Subject: Re: Radio Vigilantes Date: Sat, 27 Sep 1997 18:26:59 -0700 Organization: CagEnt, Inc. In article , James Bellaire wrote: <<>> > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: <<>> > once the general public found out about CB radio then shortly after > that (with Johnny Cash's song) it was ruined for everyone. PAT] It wasn't Johnny Cash, it was "C.W. McCall". "The rubber duck". tsw@cagent.com (Home: tsw@johana.com) Please forward spam to: annagram@hr.house.gov (my Congressman), I do. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Thank you, and I stand corrected. But as we have noted here in the past, accuracy of the details is not all that important ... anyway, it was that very popular song in the middle/late 1970's about the convoy of truckers running through the toll-plaza without stopping to pay the toll which caught the ear of so many people and made CB very popular. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #264 ******************************