
From telecom-request@delta.eecs.nwu.edu  Fri Oct 13 19:21:04 1995
by
1995
19:21:04 -0400
telecomlist-outbound; Fri, 13 Oct 1995 14:52:23 -0500
1995
14:52:20 -0500
To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 13 Oct 95 14:52:00 CDT    Volume 15 : Issue 436

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    EC Plans Encryption Rules For Internet in Europe (F. Denis)
    Re: AT&T Passageway CTI (John Romano)
    Re: A Auestion About Special Access Surcharge (Fred R. Goldstein)
    Re: What to Call the Three Parts of AT&T? (Edwin Green)
    Re: What to Call the Three Parts of AT&T? (Robert Schreibmaier)
    Re: What to Call the Three Parts of AT&T? (Paul C. Kocher)
    Re: What to Call the Three Parts of AT&T? (Mark J. Cuccia)
    Information Wanted For AIN on Cellular Phone (Jeehyun Paik)
    Information Wanted on Harris Dracon TS21 Butt Set (RadMan)
    Re: Connecting Modem to Multi-Line Phone (Bruce Wilson)
    Re: Legal Slamming (David Brod)

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.                                                 
*
************************************************************************
*

     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.

----------------------------------------------------------------------



This comes from {Nature}, a magazine in France. 
Vol 377  #6547   September 28, 1995

`EC PLANS ENCRYPTION RULES IN BID TO POLICE INFORMATION SUPERHIGHWAY'

Paris. The European Commission is to propose legislation to police the
information superhighway that will include powers to decrypt 
confidential 
telephone and computer communication.

   The commission's move follows concern over the perceived increase
in the `illegal' use of the Internet, including the proliferation of
pornography and the unauthorized release of classified documents.

   It also coincides with a similar proposal from the 34-nation-member
Council of Europe. The proposals would, if passed into law, effectively 
end the Internet's status in the 15 member states of the European
Union (EU) as an unregulated medium for the free flow of information.

   But they have also raised questions about the possible violation of
telephone and computer privacy, as well as the preferred choice of
encryption/decryption system.

   The proposal to introduce Europe-wide surveillance guidelines has
been confirmed by a senior official responsible for encryption and
data security in the French government.  He says that Brussels is
working closely with the Senior Officers Group for Information
Security Systems (SOGIS), a collection of experts from EU countries,
chaired by the commission itself.

   The commission is expected to publish its guidelines later this
autumn, detailing the powers of enforcement to be given to regulatory
authorities. as well as a preferred choice of decryption system. The
guidelines will then be considered by the EU's Council of Ministers
and the European Parliament.

   But a spokesman for the commission's telecommunications directorate
says that the decryption mechanism is likely to be based on a version
of the `key escrow system'. This refers to the policy under which
users of encryption systems give copies of their decryption keys
either to their government or to a third party that the government
trusts. The keys can be handed over if the government, on production
of a court order, wants to monitor encrypted information.

   The system being considered by the commission will enable EU
countries to monitor encrypted telephone and computer communications
in member states. Thus if someone in Germany makes a call to Italy,
agencies in both countries would possess the key enabling them to
decrypt the call.

   Siguificantly, the commission will also propose that member states
choose private `trusted third parties' rather than government
departments to regulate computer and telephone networks. it is thought
to believe that this move will secure greater public support for the
proposals.

    But civil liberties groups remain sceptical, and maintain that the
use of `third parties' to police the Internet raises its own
questions, one of which is deciding which party to trust and ensuring
they all remain trustworthy. `It is difficult to trust these third
parties," says Simon Davies from the organization Privacy
International. "There is no guarantee that the keys [to decryption]
will not be corruptly accessed within the `trusted' organization."

    Critics of the commission's proposals also include information
technology specialists, although their concerns are different. Ross
Anderson. a senior research associate in computer and communications
security at the University of Cambridge's Computer Laboratory says
that the Council of Ministers will need to iron out various issues
before the key escrow system is fit for use.

   One factor, says Anderson. is that such a system ironically falls
victim to precisely what it is trying to protect - namely. national
security.  If you are a banker doing a politically sensitive deal -
such as renegotiating the Eurotunnel debt - then the UK government
will certainly not want the French to get that key."

   Similarly. the decryption key for a secure telephone bought in
Britain will be kept at the government's General Communications
Headquarters. But if it is taken into France and used to call someone
in Germany, the French government "will inevitably want a copy of the
key", says Anderson.

   This direct conflict of national security priorities, adds
Anderson. makes it hard to "specify a system which satisfies the
curiosity of intelligence agencies. while still providing meaningful
privacy to users".

   A parallel proposal for decryption was announced earlier this month
by the Council of Europe. Peter Csonka, head of the council's Crime
Problems Division, said its 18 suggestions were long overdue following
concern that "electronic information systems and electronic
information may also be used for committing criminal offences".

   The council's suggestions include giving investigating agencies the
right to search computer networks and seize offending, unauthorized or
illegal material. The proposals will also require providers of
telecommunication networks to "avail themselves of all necessary
technical measures that enable the interception of telecommunications
by investigating authorities".  


F Denis    denis@cnam.fr
indosuez bank, media consultant

------------------------------



ericgri@ix.netcom.com (Eric Griffith) wrote:

> Has anyone had any experience in using AT&Ts Passageway CTI boxes for
> interfacing G3I phonesets to computer RS 232 ports? I just bought ten
> of these units and although the device is impressive, the included
> software "Fastcall" is really not. Has anyone been able to access the
> unit outside of AT&T's own software?

> My application is to do database lookups based on ANI information
> passed to the phoneset, as well as some outbound calling for a
> customer service application running under Lotus Notes.

There is a API available for the Passageway desktop unit which the last
time I saw it.  It had a set of C function calls you could build on.  
Should 
be available through your account exec (make sure they get you the 
version
for Definity, there's also an API for the Passageway for Merlin and the 
two
are not interchangable).

Caller-ID and ANI are something we had a hard time pulling out with the 
API.
We could find no way to access what would be in the DCP world analagous 
to 
the Q.931 calling party information element.  Basically all you could 
get was
any info routed to the display, which in some cases meant the number was
missing or incomplete (example:  If the call was forwarded the number 
would
get cut off).

I wonder if any other Third Party software houses has done Fastcall one
better ...


Good luck,

John Romano   Telecommunications Engineer
JHU/Applied Physics Laboratory
Eyes:  smiley@aplcomm.jhuapl.edu
Ears:  (301) 953-6061

------------------------------



Jingshong Xie asks in V15 I433, According to FCC Tariff:
 
> "The Special Access Surcharge will apply to each interstate Special
> Access Service that terminates on an end user's PBX or other device
> where, through a function of the device, the Special Access Service
> interconnects to the local exchange network.  Interconnection
> functions include but are not limited to wiring and software
> functions, bridging, switching or patching of calls or stations."

> Could gurus out there explain how to read this?  Does "interstate"
> mean "between two States (i.e. Maryland, Virginia)"?  And what is
> considered as "Special Access Service"?

"Special Access" is FCC jargon for leased lines.  ("Switched access"
refers to circuits within the switched telephone network.)

The tariff means that IF you have a leased line that crosses a state
boundary (note: LATAs are NOT relevant) that carries telephone calls
INTO the local exchange network in one state from callers in another
state, THEN you are subject to a surcharge.  This is sometimes called
the "leaky PBX", where for instance you have a tie line (special access) 
between a PBX in New York and a PBX in New Jersey, and in addition to
sending calls between PBX users, you allow users in New Jersey to make
calls that are local to New York via the tie line.  So the NJ PBX routes
calls to the NY PBX and the NY PBX routes them to the public network.
Voila, you're "leaking", or carrying interstate local exchange traffic
across a special access facility.  This tie line is thus "contaminated"
and subject to a surcharge of $25/64k channel/month.

It is possible to order Feature Group A (POTS lines under interstate
tariff) lines to your PBX for the exclusive use of interstate calls.
If you route ALL interstate calls to the FGA trunks, and don't "leak"
onto the state-tariffed local exchange trunks, then the special access
surcharge doesn't apply.  And if you don't do this "tail-end hop off"
at all, the surcharge doesn't apply.  You just certify to the phone
company that there is no surchargeable leakage, and you don't pay the
$25/channel.


Fred R. Goldstein      fgoldstein@bbn.com  
Bolt Beranek & Newman Inc.  Cambridge MA  USA +1 617 873 3850

------------------------------



In article <telecom15.434.10@eecs.nwu.edu> is written:

> bud@kentrox.com (Bud Couch) wrote:

>> After all "Bell Labs/Western Electric" was good enough for the first 
eighty

>> years or so.

> If you'll recall, part of the consent decree was that AT&T could not
> use the Bell name.  The one exception was Bell Labs, and the reason
> had to do more with national prestige than any business reason.  If
> you will remember, right after the breakup, AT&T changed it's name to
> the name it had prior to becoming AT&T - American Bell.  This was the
> name used in the late 1800s.  I still have a 9-track tape of UNIX
> Version 7 for the 3B15 at home, with stickers all over it saying
> (paraphrased) "Please note that all instances of the name American
> Bell should be construed to be American Telephone and Telegraph
> Company."  An acquaintance who worked for AT&T Computer Systems even
> saved the name sign off the building.  "American Bell Computer
> Systems."  Maybe now that time has passed and so many of the "Baby
> Bells" have dropped the Bell name, AT&T will be allowed to adopt it
> again for one of more of their divisions, but I doubt it.

Actually AT&T never changed its name to American Bell.  American Bell
was formed in 1983 as a fully-separated subsidiary of AT&T.  Its
purpose was to allow AT&T to sell phones, PBXs, etc. on the open
market.  To do that, AT&T had to have a separate set of books so it
could prove that there was no cross-subsidizing from network revenues.
The icon for American Bell was the Death Star which was adopted by
AT&T in 1984 after it divested itself of the local operating
companies.  American Bell lived on for a year or so.  I don't remember
when the name was dropped completely.


Edwin G. Green                egg@inuxs.att.com
<space available> Laboratories     317-845-3659
6612 E 75th Street  Indianapolis, IN 46250-2856

------------------------------



bud@kentrox.com (Bud Couch) wrote:

>> After all "Bell Labs/Western Electric" was good enough for the first 
eighty

>> years or so.

> If you'll recall, part of the consent decree was that AT&T could not
> use the Bell name.  The one exception was Bell Labs, and the reason
> had to do more with national prestige than any business reason.  If
> you will remember, right after the breakup, AT&T changed it's name to
> the name it had prior to becoming AT&T - American Bell.  This was the
> name used in the late 1800s.  I still have a 9-track tape of UNIX
> Version 7 for the 3B15 at home, with stickers all over it saying
> (paraphrased) "Please note that all instances of the name American
> Bell should be construed to be American Telephone and Telegraph
> Company."  An acquaintance who worked for AT&T Computer Systems even
> saved the name sign off the building.  "American Bell Computer
> Systems."  Maybe now that time has passed and so many of the "Baby
> Bells" have dropped the Bell name, AT&T will be allowed to adopt it
> again for one of more of their divisions, but I doubt it.

I know I'll be sorry, but...  8^{)

The joke going around these parts is that they'll bring back John Mayo
to be President of the new firm, called Bell Laboratories Technologies.
Yes, that would be BLT with Mayo.

Sorry.


Bob Schreibmaier K2PH          | AT&T Bell Laboratories
Internet: bob@mtdcr.mt.att.com | Middletown, N.J. 07748

------------------------------



In article <telecom15.434.9@eecs.nwu.edu>, Daryl R. Gibson <DRG@du1.byu.
edu> wrote:

> Since the stock ticker designator for AT&T is "T", I thought we could 
always

> call them "T2" and "T3"

> Those of you who haven't heard of "Terminator 2" will no doubt not get 
this 
> joke ...

I thought it was funny but didn't get the Terminator 2 reference -- I
thought you were talking about T1s and T3s in the telephone sense ...
(I think I need to spend more time in the real world ...)


Cheers,

Paul C. Kocher              Independent cryptography/data security 
consultant
E-mail: pck@netcom.com             Voicemail: 415-354-8004, FAX: 415-321-
1483



                                    

------------------------------



David Breneman <dbrenema@attws.com> wrote:

> If you'll recall, part of the consent decree was that AT&T could not
> use the Bell name.  The one exception was Bell Labs, and the reason
> had to do more with national prestige than any business reason.  If
> you will remember, right after the breakup, AT&T changed it's name to
> the name it had prior to becoming AT&T - American Bell.  This was the
> name used in the late 1800s.

(snip)

> "Please note that all instances of the name American Bell should be
> construed to be American Telephone and Telegraph Company."  An 
> acquaintance who worked for AT&T Computer Systems even saved the name
> sign off the building.  "American Bell Computer Systems."  Maybe now
> that time has passed and so many of the "Baby Bells" have dropped the
> Bell name, AT&T will be allowed to adopt it again for one of more of
> their divisions, but I doubt it.

If I remember right, the 'recent' usage of the name "American Bell"
began in January 1983, one year *before* the effective date of the
breakup. I remember seeing large fullpage newspaper ads in January
1983 for American Bell's computers and business telephone systems.
American Bell's logo was the current *fried-brain* of today's AT&T
rather than the post-1970 blue Bell logo.

I don't remember whether it was in 1982 or 1983 when the 'good Judge'
<ha ha> restricted the 'new' AT&T from using the Bell name or logo
after the breakup, but if I'm not mistaken, Greene did allow AT&T to
continue using the Bell name (and logo?) in its (new/developing)
overseas operations (AT&T International). I think I'd seen the name
"American Bell International" back in 1983. This name did *not* apply
to AT&T's marketing of international toll calls (011+/01+) from within
the US, but rather AT&T's holdings and operations within other
countries.

The 'recent' use of American Bell disappeared rather quickly, even for
American Bell International. Bell Labs seems to be the *only* present-
day 
usage of the Bell name within AT&T, and they call it "AT&T Bell Labs".
I have never seen any present day usage of the traditional Bell logo
anywhere within AT&T. Even the IDDD instruction booklets published in
1983 with the Bell logo and the inscription "Bell System" had this
identification pasted over with the *fried-brain* logo and the letters
"AT&T" when being distributed beginning in late 1983.

As for "All AT&T is Divided into Three Parts":

Many competing oil companies all are officially known as "Standard
Oil" - with a state's name following. As for GIS, they should simply
go back to NCR, but the other two companies should continue to have
AT&T as part of their name. Equipment should be known (IMHO) as "AT&T
Western Electric" and Long Distance & Cellular should be known as
"AT&T Long Lines". (How about a fourth company being spun off- not to
be known as AT&T Cellular or AT&T Wireless, but calling it McCaw <g>).

As for the Regional (formerly Bell) holding companies dropping the
'Bell' name, let's not forget that New York state's BOC telco was
*not* known by a 'Bell' name - it was "New York Telephone Company".
What I *do* find ironic is that California was "Pacific Telephone &
Telegraph" under the Bell System, using the Bell logo but not the
name. When Pacific*Telesis corporation was 'created' for the CA & NV
BOC's, they changed CA's to Pacific*Bell, but they dropped the Bell
logo in favor of the touchtone star!?!?

And prior to the divestiture, how many average Joe six-packs referred
to long distance as "AT&T". Even AT&T promoted itself as "The Bell
System".  Yes, people who owned stock or worked for Long Lines
frequently used the name AT&T, but most of us referred to telephone
service as "The Telephone Company", "The Bell System" or the actual
name of our local Bell or independent telco! And while I would like to
see the name "Western Electric" come into official use again, most
people didn't use that name on a daily basis, even tho' (except for
people with 'foreign-attatchments' or those who lived in independent
telco territory) we *used* WECO phones every day- and EVERY one of
those phones have Western's name stamped in every handset and most
have Western Electric stamped somewhere on the phone's base-housing as
well. BTW, as late as the 1920's, WECO made electric fans, lamps,
vacuum cleaners, etc. as well as AT&T/Bell's telephones. Western
Electric dates back *prior* to the invention of the telephone!

And as for WUTCO, sometime in the early years of this century, I think
that AT&T owned the controlling stock of Western Union Telegraph Co.
It was in 1912 with the Kingsbury Committment (which also established
the 'current, traditional' relationship between AT&T/Bell and the
'independents') which required AT&T to divest itself of Telegraph
operations. Of course AT&T and WUTCO had a friendly relationship for
many many decades after that - but a somewhat rocky one. AT&T/Bell had
numerous involvements into telegraphy and data all along, in
competition with WUTCO- TWX, Dataphone, etc.

Just my thoughts for today.


MARK J. CUCCIA   PHONE/WRITE/WIRE:     HOME:  (USA)    Tel: CHestnut 1-
2497
WORK: mcuccia@law.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

------------------------------



jpaik@mobile.kmt.re.kr wrote:

I'm looking for AIN platforms for cellular phone.  Before starting
project, I need some information about SSP.  I need to get some
information about basic call model which can be adapted to cellular
phone. Can anybody give me this information?


Thanks,

Jeehyun Paik    | e-mail: jpaik@mobile.kmt.re.kr
Address : KMT Research Centre.  | Tel : 82-42-865-0594
   Research Division I.  | Fax : 82-42-865-0620
   58-4, Hwaam-Dong, Yuseong-Gu  | 
   Taejon City, Republic of Korea| 

------------------------------



I need some simple tech specs on HARRIS DRACON TS21 BUTT Test Set,
namely, I need someone to open their unit and tell me where the two
wires from both RECEIVER and SENDER carbons get connected on the main
PCB. I called HARRIS DRACON at the 800 number and they were helping to
an extent but wanted me to send it into REPAIRS @ $80 for the shot.
This is really a no - brainer and I am qualified to do something this
simple. I bought this unit at a swap meet and some gorilla tried to
rewire it I guess, but never made notes and now I am stuck. I got some
WIN CARDFILES with valuable Canadian Interconnect data in a database
plus a very cool vendor information and grey market PBX/KEY CPE
contacts I can share as INFO payment.

HARRIS DRACON TS21 -020 model, mfr 8250 date board assy # 021-721848-
001, 
all the silkscreen contacts start with "E" (ie E10 and E11...)


John R 613-224-2922 but email back to radcom@ottawa.net. 
See what I do at http://www.ottawa.net/~radcom 

Thanx a bunch, the RadMan, in Ottawa, Ontario.

------------------------------



In article <telecom15.433.2@eecs.nwu.edu>, tjspiel@maroon.tc.umn.edu
(Tom Spielman) writes:

> I've had trouble getting a modem to work on a multi-line phone system.
> The jack seems to be the same, but the modem doesn't get a dial tone.
> I've seen some modems that have multi-line features.  Do I need one of
> these?  Can I do it at all?

Do you have the modem's manual?  If you do, does it say anything about
a jumper or dip switch setting for operation such as this?  Most
probably, you'll need a SLT port on the key system or a way to tap a
single pair coming directly from the demarc.

------------------------------



> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Three dollars?  Three dollars??? I 
would
> never let anyone do it to me for three dollars. What a bunch of 
cheapskates
> they are. This is not a 'fresh approach to slamming' by any means. It
> has been around for years, but the checks are usually a lot more. 
Fifteen,
> twenty or thirty dollars are much more common offers. They must not 
think
> much of your business relationship with them Fred; otherwise they 
would
> have offered you more also. 

This is true. I have several phone lines. I am offered (and accept) 
$50.00
checks all the time to switch the LD's on these lines. I actually do not
care who the carrier is on those lines, as I do not call out on them 
anyway.
It is a second income for me!

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #436
******************************

                                                                   
