From editor@telecom-digest.org Wed Sep 29 21:58:20 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p3/8.11.6) id i8U1wJG18253; Wed, 29 Sep 2004 21:58:20 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 21:58:20 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200409300158.i8U1wJG18253@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V23 #456 TELECOM Digest Wed, 29 Sep 2004 21:57:00 EDT Volume 23 : Issue 456 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Judge Rules Against Patriot Act Provision (Lisa Minter) Paper Tape Technology was What is the Name of #? (AES/newspost) Re: No Call Ref ID in SS7/C7 Why? (Thor Lancelot Simon) Re: What is the Name of #? How did # Get its Name? (Lisa Hancock) Re: Help Needed With Wireless NetGear 802.11b Device (jdj) Re: Movies/Documentaries That Feature Crossbar, Panel, SxS (S Dorsey) Re: Out of Area Calls (Truth) Terminals and 80 Column Cards (Julian Thomas) Re: Out of Area Calls (T. Sean Weintz) Touch Tone Decoders, Cell Phone Detectors, Jammers, More (007) Re: Any Old Mechanical Systems Still in Use in the US? (John McHarry) Cheap Prepaid Online Phone Cards For Sale (IDPCphonecards) All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson and the individual writers/correspondents. Articles may be used in other journals or newsgroups, provided the writer's name and the Digest are included in the fair use quote. By using -any name or email address- included herein for -any- reason other than responding to an article herein, you agree to pay a hundred dollars to the recipients of the email. =========================== Addresses herein are not to be added to any mailing list, nor to be sold or given away without explicit written consent. Chain letters, viruses, porn, spam, and miscellaneous junk are definitely unwelcome. We must fight spam for the same reason we fight crime: not because we are naive enough to believe that we will ever stamp it out, but because we do not want the kind of world that results when no one stands against crime. Geoffrey Welsh =========================== See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Lisa Minter Subject: Judge Rules Against Patriot Act Provision Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 20:35:57 EDT U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero, in the first decision against a surveillance portion of the act, ruled for the American Civil Liberties Union in its challenge against what it called "unchecked power" by the FBI to demand confidential customer records from communication companies, such as Internet service providers or telephone companies. Marrero, stating that "democracy abhors undue secrecy," found that the law violates constitutional prohibitions against unreasonable searches. He said it also violated free speech rights by barring those who received FBI demands from disclosing they had to turn over records. Because of this gag order, the ACLU initially had to file its suit against the Department of Justice under seal to avoid penalties for violation of the surveillance laws. Although the ACLU's suit was filed on behalf of AOL, TerraWorld and other internet service providers the ruling could apply to other entities that have received FBI secretive subpoenas, known as national security letters. The ACLU said that the Patriot Act provision was worded so broadly that it could effectively be used to obtain the names of customers of Web sites such as Amazon.com or eBay, or a political organization's membership list, or even the names of sources that a journalist has contacted by e-mail. "This is a landmark victory against the Ashcroft Justice Department's misguided attempt to intrude into the lives of innocent Americans in the name of national security," said ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero. "Even now, some in Congress are trying to pass additional intrusive law enforcement powers. This decision should put a halt to those efforts," he said. PATRIOT ACT He said the suit was one of the ACLU's legal battles to block certain sections of the Patriot Act that went "too far, too fast." The FBI has had power to issue national security letters demanding customers records from communication companies since 1986. These letters do not require court supervision, but the FBI could at first only seek such private information if the subject was suspected of being a foreign spy. In 1993, Congress expanded the powers further to include people who communicated with suspected spies or terrorists. But a section of the Patriot Act -- a controversial law the Bush administration pushed through Congress after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks to help it battle terrorism -- gave the FBI even more power to obtain information through these letters. In his ruling, Marrero prohibited the Department of Justice and the FBI from issuing the national security letters, but delayed enforcement of his judgment pending an expected appeal by the government. The Department of Justice said it was reviewing the ruling. The decision is the latest blow to the Bush administration's anti-terrorism policies. In June, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that terror suspects being held in U.S. facilities like Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, can use the American judicial system to challenge their confinement. That ruling was a defeat for the president's assertion of sweeping powers to hold "enemy combatants" indefinitely after the Sept. 11 attacks. *** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. This Internet discussion group is making it available without profit to group members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of literary, educational, political, and economic issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. I believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright owner, in this instance, Reuters News and Yahoo News. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml ------------------------------ From: AES/newspost Subject: Paper Tape Technology Was: What is the Name of #? Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 10:07:17 -0700 In article , Wesrock@aol.com wrote: > The teletypewriter was in existence for several decades before > computers, and its punched-tape technology was also well established. > It was an ideal input-output device before punched cards and CRT > displays took over. Very similar punched tape technology was also used -- probably still is widely used -- in those traffic counting units that use a rubber hose tacked down across the roadway and a box by the side of the road. A classic clockwork mechanism inside the box (spring-wound or battery powered? -- I don't know, but I'd guess the former) slowly winds a paper tape from one reel to another. Each time a car runs over the hose the resulting pneumatic impulse pushes an arm which punches a hole in the paper. As an undergrad at Harvard, Bill Gates wrote software to read and count these punched holes (a task complicated slightly by the fact that they are randomly spaced along the paper tape) and set up a company ("Traf-O-Data", I believe) located in his dorm room which received these tapes, read them using bootlegged time on Aiken's early Harvard University computer facility, and sent back printed reports to traffic engineers all over the company. (Above is written from memory, so take cum grano salid, but I think it's basically a correct story -- corrections welcome.) ------------------------------ From: tls@panix.com (Thor Lancelot Simon) Subject: Re: No Call Ref ID in SS7/C7 Why? Date: 29 Sep 2004 13:18:52 -0400 Organization: PANIX -- Public Access Networks Corp. Reply-To: tls@rek.tjls.com In article , Ariel Burbaickij wrote: >> This is not rocket science. Telco personnel do it all the time, in >> busy networks. Students in Telcordia protocol classes do it _by >> hand_, which is tedious but entirely possible. > Yes, I have done it myself and know that it works in the majority > of the cases. Once again, are you sure that this mechanism always > works relaibly? By reliable I mean something you can present in the > court as the evidence should it be necessary. Given that time in telco networks is extremely tightly controlled, and that the order of trunk allocation on the switches at each hop is also known _a priori_ I think the answer is "yes". But that does not mean that it is necessarily _easy_. > Well, the question is: was ISUP something like gap stopper > or was it designed for years to come. If it was decided > to upgrade despite all the grumbling I would try to do > it right the first time (actually it was not first time > at all), so that further upgrades are at least less > painful. What I think we disagree about here is whether or not your definition of "right" was the one in use by the people who designed the protocol. In fact, I think their definition of "right" had a lot more to do with conserving link bandwidth than it did to do with the ease of following a call end-to-end through the network using diagnostic tools; and by _that_ definition, I think it is entirely understandable that they omitted the feature that by your definition is necessary in order to "do it right". Thor Lancelot Simon tls@rek.tjls.com But as he knew no bad language, he had called him all the names of common objects that he could think of, and had screamed: "You lamp! You towel! You plate!" and so on. --Sigmund Freud ------------------------------ From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com (Lisa Hancock) Subject: Re: What is the Name of #? How did # Get its Name? Date: 29 Sep 2004 10:54:10 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) wrote > Sorry, there is use that predates the personal computer -- with a > modem on a dial-up to a mainframe time-sharing service. 'Terminal' is > the correct word. Correct, they were called terminals, a word that included Teletypes that were used in the early days. > The point being that the cards were _designed_ to accommodate that > printing, One of the early IBM 'interpreters' (an O49 or was that a > sorter?) could only print 40 columns in a pass; had to change the > program on the plugboard to get the other 40 columns. And change > where the printing fell on the card, so it didn't write over the first > 40 characters. :) I'm not certain, but back in 1928 when the modern punch card was invented by IBM, I don't think there was any kind of printing mechanism for cards. Remember, initially the cards were numeric only and the upper field (the "zone") was used only for control characters. I suspect the uppermost space was just a margin to give a punched card strength or a place for handwritten notes. In the 1930s IBM developed a more sophisticated line of tab machines. Included was an printing alpha key punch. The 1948 line of interpreters were NOT intended to print one character per column -- the width of the printed character was slightly wider than a column. Only 60 characters would fit on the top and 20 would have to go on the next line. In practice, the interpreters were programmed by the plug panel to print selected fields in certain places, and could do so all over the card. They could also print a big number sideways on the side edge so the card could be filed vertically. Also, most IBM lines of keypunches included printing and non printing models, and the non-printers were cheaper. BTW, one advtg of the punched card system was that it was easy and cheap to have "on-line" file access. They'd just punch out and interpret and sort a deck of cards containing key data. Clerks would receive phone requests and pull up the cards in a tube file. Changes would be processed through the tab system. It should be noted that until the 1980s, the above was cheaper and faster than developing a "modern" CICS solution on a real computer. >> So did IBM, later, around the S/34 or S/36 IIRC, not too long before >> punch cards passed out of mainstream usage altogether. IBM's System/32,34,36 did not use cards at all. The mini cards were used on the IBM System/3. As an aside, the language used on IBM's System/3x through the present day AS/400 is RPG, which dates back to 1960 and the IBM 1401. The language was intended to mimic the wiring of a tab machine control panel so tab operators could make the transition to programming. > The 3270 was a 'smart' terminal -- necessitated by IBM's "block mode" > architecture -- and used 16 bits per displayed character. 1 byte for > the character itself, and one byte for the 'attributes'. things like > 'bright', 'blank', 'input', 'protected', etc. It's funny how today we call 3270-type terminals (still in very wide use) "dumb terminals" when in fact they were not. A Teletype was more "dumb" since it basically transmitted or received upon a keystroke, while the 3270 network had buffers, could erase and insert characters, and as mentioned had different appearances. [There were advanced Teletypes that could do some fancy stuff. Some 3270 functions were handled by the controller unit that was required and supported a group of terminals.] The Bell System had a heck of a lot of private lines serving business data communications. A big difference was that IBM liked synchornous transmission while many other computers, including common PC transmissions used asynchronous transmission. I don't know which is superior. We had 3rd party imitation IBM 3270 units but IMHO they weren't as good as real IBM units. However, they were a lot cheaper. I don't see any "dumb terminals" anymore, it seems almost everyone now has a PC with an emulation program/card imitating a 3270 terminal. In the early days of PCs, I refused to use a PC with a CGA screen as a 3270 terminal since it was so fuzzy compared to a real terminal. (Actually, I shied away from CGA PCs altogether.) Over time, the cost of 3270-type units and controllers dropped quite a bit in price while modem speed increased. ------------------------------ From: jdj Subject: Re: Help Needed With Wireless NetGear 802.11b Device Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 11:56:37 -0700 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com I found the link for opening the MA401: http://www.nodomainname.co.uk/ma401/ma401.htm The Intersil link at the bottom is dead. Another page with interesting wireless links: http://www.nodomainname.co.uk/cantenna/cantenna.htm They filed themselves with the MSDS collection somehow. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: While that link is very good, and quite illustrative, it involves something I do not do these days; use solder and microscopic parts. I just get too nervous and likely botch things up. For me, its *not* like before my brain aneurysm. However I did see something I want to ask the experts about: When you first 'set up' the base unit (combination router and wireless stuff) you are asked "what country will this be used in?" and you get a drop down menu of choices including USA, Canada, a few countries in Europe, Asia, etc. Then whichever choice you make, you are warned it had better be the right choice. I wondered why NetGear is so picky about your choice of countries. Surely it would not have to do with the frequency the base was operating on, would it? More than likely it would be the *power you were permitted to use* while on the same frequencies, wouldn't it? So if I moved to Asia I would be entitled legally to use that setting on the 'set up' menu of the router. To test it, and see what I could expect when I move to Asia, I tried setting the base on that spot and it did seem to have a wee, little bit more reliability when I sat in my parlor rocking chair or went out in the back yard. That 'Asia setting' along with the tin foil reflector I built *seems to* make it less cranky and contrary. Advice from the experts, please? PAT] ------------------------------ From: kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) Subject: Re: Movies/Documentaries That Feature Crossbar, Panel, or SxS? Date: 29 Sep 2004 15:59:30 -0400 Organization: Former users of Netcom shell (1989-2000) Gene S. Berkowitz wrote: >In article , jdj@now.here says: >> On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 23:14:25 -0700, vu huong wrote: >>> Hello, >>> Does anyone know of any movies or documentaries that show footage of old >>> telco technology? >> "Three Days of the Condor" with Robert Redford. The Condor enters a >> switch to call up the CIA and diddles the switch to keep his call from >> being traced. The CIA scene shows automated tracing in use. >> There are some espionage-thriller B movies from the 1950's with footage >> where the G-men enter switches and get the techs to trace calls. Nothing >> but loud background music can be heard in those scenes. > THX-1138, which is now in theatrical re-release, contains a scene with > Robert Duvall wandering through a very large switch. As well as a nice video post suite. Can anyone tell me what the scenes of the computer Alpha, in the film Alphaville really are? They look like the remains of a half-destroyed switch. --scott "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." ------------------------------ From: Truth Organization: http://www.xxx.com Subject: Re: Out of Area Calls Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 21:00:00 GMT >> It's much better to require the companies to provide their REAL phone >> number in the Caller ID than some fictitious number. > Agreed. What's wrong with honesty? Look, up to recently, all telemarketers came in as "out of area" or "unknown caller" (same thing depending on your caller ID box manufacturer). You could purchase caller ID boxes or phones that would not allow any calls with this marker through, could forward them to digital messages telling them not to call back, divert them to fax noises, SIT tones, whatever. Now that the government makes them identify with numbers, all telemarketers come through differently and you can't block them before they call, because you don't know what number they will be using. At least making a new caller ID code (private, out of area, TELEMARKETER) that all phone companies would be forced to have telemarketers lines send out, would make them again easy to intercept with home caller ID equipment. > But it would be better yet to ban telemarketing altogether. NOW you got it! > The telephone is not a broadcast medium. Correct. I can chose not to listen to any broadcasts I find offensive or don't want to listen to, yet the government is more concerned with getting Howard Stern off the air, then stopping telemarketers, which just makes no sense at all. Howard Stern doesn't bother you in your home when you are eating, can't wake you up when you are sleeping by ringing your phone, he can only enter your home if you take the time to tune him in on a radio and choose to hear him. Telemarketers can invade your home without your permission, without you WANTING to hear them and they are hundreds of times more offensive. Yet which does the government try to stop? > Does *anybody* actually *want* to receive telemarketing calls? Of course not. The record amount of people registering on the DO NOT CALL lists proved this. Yet instead of having a list in which the one or two people who like to receive calls could be put on for telemarketers to have permission to call, the government does it backwards and makes the majority of people have to register, then after all that, makes most telemarketers EXEMPT from the DO NOT CALL law anyway, making the entire thing a big joke and enormous waste of time and tax dollars. > The do-not-call list is based on the fiction that not everybody > wants telemarketers blocked. Let's make a DO NOT MURDER list so that everyone that doesn't want to be murdered could register for, then allow murderers to go ahead and kill anyone that is not on the list. What we do, is just make murder illegal, and forget about a ridiculous list. Let's do the same for telemarketing. ------------------------------ From: Julian Thomas Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 17:24:11 -0400 Subject: Terminals and 80 Column Cards Pat - please obscure my email address as usual - thanks. Robert Bonomi wrote about Subject: Re: What is the Name of #? How did # Get its Name? on Tue, 28 Sep 2004 07:02:35 GMT > The point being that the cards were _designed_ to accommodate that > printing, One of the early IBM 'interpreters' (an O49 or was that a > sorter?) could only print 40 columns in a pass; had to change the > program on the plugboard to get the other 40 columns. And change where > the printing fell on the card, so it didn't write over the first 40 > characters. :) Close (I'm not sure about the machine model number), but it actually printed 60 columns in a pass. Only machine that fed 12 edge first face up. Julian Thomas: http://jt-mj.net In the beautiful Finger Lakes Wine Country of New York State! Boardmember of POSSI.org - Phoenix OS/2 Society, Inc http://www.possi.org "I wish to God these calculations had been executed by steam!" - C. Babbage ------------------------------ From: T. Sean Weintz Subject: Re: Out of Area Calls Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 17:54:45 -0400 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: However, teleco is required as a common > carrier to provide service to every qualified applicant. 'Qualified > applicant' is defined under the tariff as any person or organization > who has demonstrated an ability and willingness to pay for the service. > What do you want telco to do, ask you upon your application for > service what you intend to talk about on the phone? Then if you state > that you intend to sell things, refuse to give you the service? PAT] If they pass a law making telemarketing illegal, of course they must: Simply change the tariff definition of 'qualified applicant" from those who have demonstrated an ability to pay to those who can pay and will not use the service for illegal purposes. And yes, have the person who takes the new service orders ask if they intend to use the line for telemarketing, and deny service if they answer "yes". Better yet, make them sign an acceptable use policy as ISP's do. ------------------------------ From: info@infopro.tv (007) Subject: Touch Tone Decoders, Cell Phone Detectors, Jammers, etc. Date: 29 Sep 2004 15:20:06 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Portable Touch-Tone Decorder. Decodes And Displays Telephone Number From Tape Recorded Calls. The new hand-held 16 digit touch-tone Decorder with built-in microphone, decodes touch-tones from any on-air source, scanner or cassette tape. The resulting tape from your Telephone Recording System has many touch-tones that sometimes need to be identified. With the Portable Decorder, simply play the tape ... and the numbers will immediately appear on the LCD. What makes this decoder unique is the built-in microphone. Any "on- the-air" tone will be immediately decoded and displayed on the LCD. No connections are necessary! Should you need to decode via patch cord, an input is provided. Powered by a 9-volt battery. (not included). Dimensions: 6" x 2 1/4" x 1". We accept paypal, Money Gram and United States postal money orders. Free shipping in USA. Contact me by email if you want a free price quote. You don't have to be 007 to own what I have to offer. To see everything I offer please visit both of my web stores. The Pros Investigative Information Service And Spy Gadgets. http://www.ioffer.com/selling/infopros The Pros Spy Gadgets Shop. http://www.ioffer.com/selling/infopro ------------------------------ From: John McHarry Subject: Re: Any Old Mechanical Systems Still in Use in the US? Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 23:09:16 GMT Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net Tony P. wrote: > I wonder -- how often do the reed relays on the #1ESS need to be > replaced? They are technically a mechanical device. Yes. It is architecturaly a computer driven crossbar, although the reed switches replace the traditional crosspoints. > We didn't get true digital until the #4ESS tandem and then the #5ESS > gave us pure digital switch fabric for POTS services. Interestingly a > properly configured #5ESS can also be a tandem too, as can the DMS > switches by Nortel. The Nortel DMS-10 and DMS-100 preceded at least the 5ESS. I think the DMS-200, the tandem, preceded the 4ESS, but I am not certain. ------------------------------ From: IDPCphonecards@hotmail.com (IDPCphonecards) Subject: Cheap Prepaid Online Phone Cards For Sale Date: 29 Sep 2004 17:41:27 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com We have Cheap Prepaid Phone cards for sale $4.6 for $5 phone cards: www.idpcphonecards.com ------------------------------ 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 networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, Yahoo Groups, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copyrighted. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occasional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 50 Independence, KS 67301 Phone: 620-402-0134 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 530-309-7234 Fax 3: 208-692-5145 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe: telecom-subscribe@telecom-digest.org Unsubscribe:telecom-unsubscribe@telecom-digest.org This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the oldest e-zine/mailing list on the internet in any category! URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives/ (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from * * Judith Oppenheimer, President of ICB Inc. and purveyor of accurate * * 800 & Dot Com News, Intelligence, Analysis, and Consulting. * * http://ICBTollFree.com, http://1800TheExpert.com * * Views expressed herein should not be construed as representing * * views of Judith Oppenheimer or ICB Inc. * ************************************************************************* ICB Toll Free News. Contact information is not sold, rented or leased. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Copyright 2004 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. ************************ DIRECTORY ASSISTANCE JUST 65 CENTS ONE OR TWO INQUIRIES CHARGED TO YOUR CREDIT CARD! REAL TIME, UP TO DATE! SPONSORED BY TELECOM DIGEST AND EASY411.COM SIGN UP AT http://www.easy411.com/telecomdigest ! ************************ --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 fifty 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. End of TELECOM Digest V23 #457 ******************************