TELECOM Digest     Tue, 24 May 94 02:42:00 CDT    Volume 14 : Issue 247

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Problems With Call Return (Ed Ellers)
    Re: Problems With Call Return (Bob Schwartz)
    Re: Call Return is *Good* (Chris Cariffe)
    Re: Misdialed Numbers (Don Bontemps Jr.)
    Re: International Callback Services (Steve Cogorno)
    Re: Pac-Tel (PC) Communication Software (Ronald L. Wright)
    Re: How Can I Ring Up Myself? (David A. Cantor)
    Re: Cellular -> Analog Converter (Russell E. Sorber)
    Re: What is the Mercury Button? (Richard Cox)
    Re: What is the Mercury Button? (David Woolley)
    Re: Bellcore to Assign NPA 500 Codes (John R. Levine)
    LD Carrier's Message Delivery Service (Mark E. Daniel)
    Re: DTMF Decoding Help Needed (Daniel Finkler)
    Re: ANI by Calling 1 800 XXX XXXX (Glen Roberts)
    No 911 Available as Tot Drowns (Toronto Star via Dave Leibold)
    Do You Believe in Lauren? (Lauren Weinstein)
    New Long Distance Carrier is Advertising (Carl Moore)
    Re: 800 Number Billback (Steven Bradley)
    Re: Cellular Privacy? (Steven Bradley)

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 GEnie.
It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. 

Subscriptions are available at no charge 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: 708-329-0571
                        Fax: 708-329-0572
  ** Article submission address only: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu **

Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using
anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email
information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to
use the information service, just ask.

*************************************************************************
*   TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the              *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland    * 
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES)   * 
* project.  Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU.                                                 *
*************************************************************************

Additionally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such
as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help 
is important and appreciated.

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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Ed Ellers <edellers@delphi.com>
Subject: Re: Problems With Call Return
Date: Mon, 23 May 94 15:03:07 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)


<quixote@eskimo.com> writes:
 
> I thought that one purpose of "call return" was to be able to call
> back an "anonymous caller" without knowing his(her) number.  This was
> not clearly stated in the brochure about "caller id" services from
> Uswest, so I telephoned them, the lady who answered hesitated about my
> question, transferred me to another person who confirmed that
> "anonymous calls" can indeed be returned.  The problem was that in my
> area, Seattle, "last call return" has not been authorized, even though
> most other related services have been.
 
BellSouth is adding voice response systems to its COs and enhancing
Call Return so that, when you enter the code, you get a voice message
with the calling number (unless it's blocked or not available through
SS7) and can then press a key to place the call IF you still want to.
If it's a known number you can decide whether to call it or not; if
unknown you can call it or just write it down for later use.  Unlike
Caller ID, this works on all phones on your line; you don't have to
walk to a particular spot where you have added a box.  (You also don't
have to BUY the box ...)

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

Subject: Re: Problems With Call Return
From: bob@bci.nbn.com (Bob Schwartz)
Date: Mon, 23 May 94 17:22:06 PDT
Organization: Bill Correctors, Inc., Marin County, California


> My situation dictates that I make numerous calls to people who have
> answered an ad that I run: people I do not know: When I reach
> someone's answering machine I often choose to leave no message.

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The fact that she used it in an extreme way
> does not make Call Return a bad idea. And there is something to be said
about
> the writer's discourtesy in reaching an answering machine and simply hanging
> up without speaking, if even only to say that he did not wish to leave a
> message and would call again later. Ordinarily, Call Return is a good idea

Pat, there is something of an old code amongst those that solicit via
phone. It goes something like this: Don't leave a message on a cold call. 
Perhaps the greater courtesy is for those that seek contributions, answers 
to surveys, new relationships ... is for them to hang up on a machine. Such 
messages ane nearly as annoying as the calls themselves.


Bob Schwartz                                       bob@bci.nbn.com
Bill Correctors, Inc.   +1 415 488 9000   Marin County, California

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

From: chrys@netcom.com (Chris Cariffe)
Subject: Re: Call Return is *Good*
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
Date: Tue, 24 May 1994 00:47:21 GMT


Yeah, it's a great service. I caught an ex-girlfriend with it, giving
me prank phone calls.

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

From: dpbj@crash.cts.com (Don Bontemps Jr.)
Subject: Re: Misdialed Numbers
Organization: CTS Network Services (CTSNET/crash), San Diego, CA
Date: 23 May 94 18:55:17 PDT


My dad and brother live in Costa Mesa and their home phone number is
one digit off from a local department store.  They get so many
mis-dialed numbers that they now answer the phone using the store's
name.  Sometimes when I'm there visiting, they put the person on hold,
and say they will transfer them to the correct department.  They
answer the caller's questions and thank them for calling the store,
then politely hang up.

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

From: cogorno@netcom.com (Steve Cogorno)
Subject: Re: International Callback Services
Date: Mon, 23 May 1994 20:24:11 PDT


Said by: Peter Leif Rasmussen

> I would like to comment on the callback FAQ posted here by Bruce Hahne. 

> I read a version of that before and investigated various services and
> found that Globalcom 2000 looked very interesting. That is about a
> month ago. The representative I talked with, Scot Bundren was very
> quick to answer my questions about the services, until I had provided
> him with my credit card number!

> Then all questions have gone unanswered, for a period of now two weeks.
> The answers to questions before used to come within 24 hours. I also
> now notice that his email address has changed from before scb@netcom.com 
> to now scottb@cats.ucsc.edu.

> What I want to say is that I fear this might be a scam.

You might be right. Scott is a student at Crown College, University of
California, Santa Cruz.  I seriously doubt that he is an agent for a
call-back service.  His phone number is availible by finger, but that
is not a phone number in the Santa Cruz area.  Let me know if you have
problems; I can find out his campus mail address if you need it.


Steve   cogorno@netcom.com
#608 Merrill * 200 McLaughlin Drive * Santa Cruz, CA 95064-1015

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

From: ronwrigh@connected.com (Ronald L. Wright)
Subject: Re: Pac-Tel (PC) Communication Software
Date: 24 May 1994 00:21:04 GMT
Organization: Connected INC -- Internet Services


PRZEBIENDA@DELPHI.COM (przebien@news.delphi.com) wrote:

> We had a home grown telecommunication package that allowed us to send
> alphanumeric messages to our PAC-TEL pagers. We are interested in
> updating the software. We are interested in reasonably priced
> commercial software or in the protocol specs of the 800 number we
> communicate with the old package.
  
McCall Cellular has a product written for Windows called "Message
Flash."  It was written with Visual Basic, so it might seem a little
slow on older systems, but seems to work pretty well. It also allows
the sender to distribute group messages as well. I am not sure of the
cost of the commercial product, but they have a smaller version
available for the free use of your friends and aquaintances.


Ron Wright

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

From: cantor@mv.mv.com (David A. Cantor)
Subject: Re: How Can I Ring Up Myself?
Organization: MV Communications, Inc.
Date: Mon, 23 May 1994 13:17:15 GMT


In article <telecom14.236.10@eecs.nwu.edu>, Joseph Herl <jherl@uxa.cso.
uiuc.edu> wrote:

> Our family is moving to a new house next week, and we will have the
> same telephone number at both places for several days.  How can I call
> between them?

> Our phone company (Ameritech) representative doesn't think this is
> possible, but I remember that it used to be possible years ago to
> "call another party on the line," and this is similar.  We used to
> dial a code number, hang the phone up and wait for it to ring, then
> pick up the phone and talk when it stopped ringing.  Does anyone know
> whether this is still possible?

And TELECOM Digest Editor noted:

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: That's a great service that Illinois Bell
> provides, allowing a number to ring at multiple locations for simply the
> cost of two local services. Several years ago when I moved from one place
> to another I used that arrangement to keep my phone service intact during
> the move. After about a week, I had the old location discontinued. At
> least in the Chicago 312/708 area, ringbacks are accomplished thus:

[The Moderator went on to describe the actual method by which the
ringing of the calling number was accomplished.  DAC. ]

The service that the Moderator mentions used to be available in
Massachusetts (and it probably still is); I used it exactly as
described above several times over several moves within Massachusetts.
However, when I lived in San Diego, California, and moved within the
city, keeping the same telephone number, I found that I could not have
this service because in California it was not (and probably still is
not) tariffed.  The people at the phone company told me it was
impossible, and when I told them I didn't believe them because I used
to be able to have this done in Massachusetts, they said that it was
technically possible but _legally_ impossible because the tariff
didn't permit it.

Whether you can establish service in two different locations with the
same phone number depends not upon technical considerations, but upon
whether it is allowed by operating rules (tariffs, and perhaps local
office SOP).  If you can get the service, you should be able to get
the revertive dialing number, too.


David A. Cantor           +1 203-444-7268 (203-444-RANT)
453 Bayonet St., #16      Internet:  cantor@mv.mv.com
New London, CT  06320     Foxwoods blackjack and craps dealer

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

From: sorbrrse@wildcat.cig.mot.com (Russell E. Sorber)
Subject: Re: Cellular -> Analog Converter
Date: 23 May 1994 13:55:59 GMT
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group


In article <telecom14.240.2@eecs.nwu.edu> burner@iia.org writes:

> Does anyone know of an adapter/converter that connects to a cellular
> phone (most likely in place of the handset) and provides an analog
> RJ-11 jack?  

Motorola sells several of these boxes depending on the type of
subscriber cellular unit you have.  One of the boxes simulates a
dialtone for use with a regular landline.  For a microtac, I think you
want part number S3027.  For more info contact the Motorola Cellular
information center: 1-800-331-6456.


Russ Sorber   Software Contractor 
Motorola, Cellular Division  Arlington Hts., IL (708) 632-4047

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

Date: Mon, 23 May 1994 13:56:13 -0700
From: richard@mandarin.com
Subject: Re: What is the Mercury Button


Clive D.W. Feather <clive@sco.COM> said:

>>  even if the phone has a display, the contents of the blue Mercury
>>  button are not displayed during dialling or by any "display memory"

And the audio to the earpiece or loudspeaker should either be muted,
or replaced with confidence tones, when the contents of that memory
are being sent to line -- so that they cannot be tape-recorded by
users.


Richard D G Cox

Mandarin Technology, P.O. Box 111, Penarth, South Glamorgan, Wales:  CF64 3YG
Voice: 0956 700111 Fax: 0956 700110  VoiceMail: 0941 151515 Pager 0941 115555
E-mail address: richard@mandarin.com - PGP2.3 public key available on request

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

From: david@djwhome.demon.co.uk (David Woolley)
Subject: Re: What is the Mercury Button?
Date: Mon, 23 May 94 10:07:19  GMT


In article <telecom14.222.3@eecs.nwu.edu> was written:

[ Various descriptions of the Mercury button as a deep memory button, with
  LD to MF switching and pause capabilities deleted]
[ Reference to new 132 access code deleted ]

As I understand it, a true Mercury button is supposed to only be
useable as the first button dialed, to make it more difficult to
capture the account code.  But mainly it is a marketing gimmick.


David Woolley, London, England                     david@djwhome.demon.co.uk
Demon is an IP/SMTP/NNTP Provider.  *.demon hosts are independently managed.

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

Date: Mon, 23 May 94 17:44 EDT
From: johnl@iecc.com (John R Levine)
Subject: Re: Bellcore to Assign NPA 500 codes
Organization: I.E.C.C., Cambridge, Mass.


[In NPA 500 and 800, why not assign numbers of the form 1XX-XXXX and
0XX-XXXX]

Numbers in the 1XX and 0XX ranges have been used for a long time for
various sorts of dedicated and non-dialable circuits in regular area
codes, so I suppose they may be useful for those purposes in 500.

More practically, a lot of phone exchanges are programmed to trap
NXX-1XX and NXX-0XX and route them directly to an intercept.  Making
sure that they are all programmed to special case 500 and 800 seems
like a losing battle.


Regards,

John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, jlevine@delphi.com, 1037498@mcimail.com

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

Date: Mon, 23 May 1994 16:29:22 GMT
From: mark@legend.akron.oh.us (Mark E Daniel)
Subject: LD Carrier's Message Delivery Service


The person writing about this prompted me to try an experament.  I
believe it might be a nice idea if the LD carriers offering this
service automaticly detected the busy signal and offered me the option
of leaving a message or hanging up or dialing another number.  Sprint
offers a similar service to AT&T's costing the same as far as I can
tell.  At least delivery in the US is at the same price.  I was
unable to use AT&T's service.  I received a message stating that all
representatives were busy and that I should try my call again later.

Apparently, AT&T's service is handled by humans. *Hopefully* they
don't require me to *REENTER* the number to which I wish to have my
message delivered after disconnecting from a BUSY number and entering
the message system.  Again, I suppose that they have to make it
universal, since you can dial into at least Sprint's messaging system
by dialing +1 800 877 8000 and entering the #22 or #25 at the prompt
tone and then entering your FONCARD number, making it possible to have
messages automatically delivered to people when you won't be around a
phone to call them personally.  But the software ought to be written
to automatically detect BUSY signals in the appropriate situations,
and it could also give users the option of delivering the message to
the last number they dialed.  After all it is time consuming to have
to reenter a sting of digits that you just got done entering not ten
seconds ago. :)

I believe that I have seen *one* service that automatically detected
BUSY and that was Telesphere I believe, equal access code might have
been 10555 or somesuch.  But that service has disappeared.


Mark E Daniel                   (Loving SysOp of The Legend BBS)
Inet: mark@legend.akron.oh.us   medaniel@delphi.com (Direct INet)
                                
------------------------------

From: dfinkler@world.std.com (DANIEL FINKLER)
Subject: Re: DTMF Decoding Help Needed
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Mon, 23 May 1994 23:59:35 GMT


west_c212@orion.crc.monroecc.edu writes:

> I am writing a program that needs to decode telephone touch tone
> signals.  The problem is that I am having trouble finding a DTMF
> decoder.  If anyone know where I can get ahold of one I would
> appreciate it.

You can use USRobotics courier modems' touch tone recognition feature.
They can recognize DTMF tones, including A,B,C,D.

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

From: glr@rci.ripco.com (Glen Roberts)
Subject: Re: ANI by Calling 1 800 XXX XXXX
Organization: Ripco Internet BBS Chicago
Date: Mon, 23 May 1994 21:03:32 GMT


1-800-235-1414 was setup by Private Lines, Inc (of Beverly Hills), the
operator of 1-900-STOPPER (no record, no trace calling service) and Full 
Disclosure.

It was a tremendous success. That is, except for paying the bill ... it
was generating some 600-1000 calls a day. I have a Caller-ID version setup 
now on (708) 356-9646 (Only a few percent of non-Chicagoland calls
get a number ... maybe that will change between now and next April).

Incidentially, there was an AT&T 1-800 ANI number, but they shut it
down due to an `over indulgence of hackers.'


Glen L. Roberts, author, How To Spy On Anyone Without Getting Caught
Host Full Disclosure Live (WWCR 5,810 khz - Sundays 7pm central)
Box 734, Antioch, Illinois 60002      Fax: (708) 838-0316
Surveillance Hotline: (708) 356-9646  Bust the Bureaucrats: (708) 356-6726

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

From: Dave.Leibold@f730.n250.z1.fidonet.org (Dave Leibold)
Date: 23 May 94 14:25:20 -0500
Subject: No 911 Available as Tot Drowns
Organization: FidoNet Nameserver/Gateway


{The Toronto Star} reports of a 14-month-old boy in Barrie, Ontario
who drowned while his mother attempted to dial 911. Unlike many
centres in Canada, Barrie does not have a 911 service, thus calls to
911 are usually completed to a not-in-service recording. The family
recently moved to Barrie and didn't realise that local emergency
numbers needed to be dialed direct.

Barrie Mayor Janice Laking did not feel an inquest into why there was
no 911 service in Barrie, but rather advised residents to keep lists
of emergency numbers or to program them into phones. Some complications 
also exist with respect to surrounding communities, considering that
any 911 implementation would need to consider that exchange boundaries
and political boundaries do not necessarily coincide, not to mention
the need for accurate location maps from all communities involved.

Bell Canada intends to provide 911 throughout its entire service territory 
over the next several years. Barrie is slated to get 911 in 1996.


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I suspect that a lot of Digest readers
are like myself and are sharing the grief the parents must be feeling
at this time. My first reaction on reading your article was one of
horror; I know how *I* would feel if anything -- anything at all --
happened to my little four year old nephew. But still, why in the $%*@!
didn't the parents -- immediatly on moving into their new community --
investigate such things as local emergency services and procedures. When
we first moved here to Skokie, one of the first things I did was check
out a phone directory for numbers and pay a visit to the Village Hall
to ask about emergency procedures. No one ever seems to think that a
tragedy will happen in their family; it is always someone else, and
that is simply not true as we sadly come to realize.  

Throughout all of northern Illinois, we have the same hodge-podge
where police, fire and emergency medical assistance is concerned that
exist there in the Barrie area. Due to overlapping telephone exchange
boundaries and community political boundaries some communities have
911 for their village alone while others share 911 with a neighboring
village. For example, Skokie shares dispatch services with Lincolnwood, 
while Evanston to our east does their own thing.  Where community bound-
aries and telephone exchange boundaries are not in synch, it becomes
necessary either for telco to create a database which successfully sorts
out calls or for the involved communities to reach an agreement with
each other. The trouble is, no one seems willing to let some other town
handle their emergency calls.  They seem to be afraid that if something
goes wrong, they'll be the ones to catch hell, and if something goes
right then someone else will be the ones to get the praise. As a result,
lots of communities here have 911 while the towns on either side of them
may require seven digit dialing to reach the police. Since community
boundaries are not always obvious in large metro areas, one might think
they were in Skokie while actually being in Wilmette. For example, where
I live is in Skokie, but merely three blocks south of Wilmette and about
the same distance west of the northwestern edge of Evanston. All three
of us have 911 service, but via different dispatchers and agencies. 

A peculiar situation exists in an area south of us where a small area
of land is completely surrounded by the City of Chicago (on three
sides, and a couple other villages on the fourth side) but yet is not
part of any of them; it is an 'unincorporated' area of Cook County. It
looks like Chicago; it looks like Norridge/Harwood Heights, the towns
on one side of it. There are houses, stores, etc and driving through it
one cannot tell that one left Chicago or came back into Chicago a couple
blocks later driving down the same street, but Norwood Township is not 
part of Chicago, nor is it part of anything else; it is just there.

Phone service there comes from the Chicago-Newcastle exchange, but it
has to be on its own prefix that no one else gets except the people in
that little tiny slice of land. Why? Well you see, 911 has to be blocked 
out of it. If those people dial 911 it goes to intercept.  They have
to dial the seven digit number for the Cook County Sheriff, and he
does not have 911 yet.  Across the street (or sometimes the house next
door or across the alley!) *is* politically in Chicago, and they dial
911 successfully. Make sure *you and your kids* know the proper number
for emergencies in your town; how to report emergencies and *exactly*
what address is required, etc.  Your kid's life depends on it.   PAT] 

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

Subject: Do You Believe in Lauren?
Date: Mon, 23 May 94 20:47:54 PDT
From: Lauren Weinstein <lauren@vortex.com>


Responding to messages about my participation in the net during the
very early days in the middle to late 1970's:

The net was indeed a different place back then.  When you telnet'd to
SAIL (SU-AI) at Stanford, if you didn't have an account, it would ask
you if you wanted to create one -- on the spot.  Little by little of
course, all over the net, things tightened up -- as they had to, given
the influx of users.  A different era entirely.
 
When I tell people I was at UCLA when we were site 1 (one) on ARPANET,
they look at me like I had been using punched cards (well, actually, I
*had* been using punched cards too -- but that's a (//SYSIN DD *)
different story).
 
The incident regarding speculation about whether I was human or
machine occurred on HUMAN-NETS, one of the pioneering widely-read
digests back in the 70's.  My response to the public messages on the
topic went something like this:
 
   "I read with interest the various senders' messages speculating 
   on my mode of existence.  You humans really amuse me sometimes."

 --Lauren--

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

Date: Mon, 23 May 94 13:56:36 EDT
From: Carl Moore <cmoore@brl.mil>
Subject: New Long Distance Company is Advertising


Recently, I have heard occasional ads for Commonwealth Long Distance.
The number to call for information is given as 1-800-7000-CLD (which
translates to 1-800-700-0253) or "one 800 seven thousand CLD".

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

From: steven@sgb.oau.org (Steven Bradley)
Subject: Re: 800 Number Billback
Organization: The Forest City Exchange, Forest City, Florida
Date: Tue, 24 May 1994 01:09:03 GMT


Well, here is my two cents worth ... if you really want to aggravate
these legal con-artists, do this:

Call the service as much as you want and as often as you can from PAY
PHONES and see how easily they (don't) get their money then!  Someone
DOES have to pay the carriage of the call to the 800 line and that
same person will not be able to recover the charges to their service,
resulting in them taking a loss by using the 800 number approach.
Since pay phones permit 800 number calls without charge and the phone
companies see fit to permit them to go through since they are free,
there is no reason to prevent it passing.


Internet:        steven@sgb.oau.org         Steven G. Bradley
                 steven@gate.net            
GEnie:           s.bradley6@genie.geis.com  
CompuServe:      73232.505@compuserve.com   
America Online:  sgbradley@aol.com          


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: What actually happens is that the 
Information Provider has a database of pay telephone numbers and
yes, you will waste ten cents of his money dialing him and getting
him to answer but you certainly will not get him to part with any
of his valuable 'information'. In the event the payphone you use for
this is somehow not listed in his database (for example it might be
a COCOT using regular line service instead of being listed with the
telco as a coin line; all of those are in the database) then a call
might slip through a couple times. I think we (the Digest readers)
all tried this with the Astrologers down in Florida a couple years
ago when mention was first made of 800-chargeback calls in the
Digest. They got hit for a few grand in uncollectibles from pay phones
but bingo! ... a month or two later their database was brought up to
date and that was the end of it.  Actually, I am not sure the Astrology
people lost anything at all; I think through the intercompany billing
process the bills went to the local telcos as the 'subscriber' of the
phones used. No matter ... don't bother now, it won't work.    PAT]

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

From: steven@sgb.oau.org (Steven Bradley)
Subject: Re: Cellular Privacy?
Organization: The Forest City Exchange, Forest City, Florida
Date: Tue, 24 May 1994 00:21:41 GMT


> Scott Townley (nx7u@delphi.com) wrote:

> political background.  As of April 26, 1994 (if I got that date
> right), it became illegal to manufacture in the US, or to import, a
> radio *capable* of receiving the cellular phone frequencies.  This
> includes radios that can be easily modified (e.g.  certain scanners
> that simply needed a diode clipped).

However there is no enforcement of the importation ban, since U.S.
customs are not an authority to pass judgement of the technical
capabilities of a receiver, that is the FCC's job.  But with the use
of FCC form 740, the FCC does not even need to see or certify a
receiver, hence there is no problem with importing these units.  That
includes receivers which directly receive cellular -and- units which
can be modified easily.

It is also legal to import receivers for the purpose of exporting
them.  Companies -can- import them and sell them to others in the U.S.
and stamp the invoice or have printed on the invoice the sale is for
export purposes.  If the purchaser fails to export it, the purchase
may be breaking the law, but the company that sold it with the
understanding the sale was for export would -not- be breaking the law.
If that person who was intending to "export" it fails to, no-one's
going to notice!

It is also legal to import or resell domestically the CPU/MPUs and
other components to rebuild and restore the sections since the FCC
does not regulate raw components.  If the design is considered not
modifiable or restorable where the CPU/MPU blocks it and that same
company can sell the parts to restore it as a separate item/package
since the parts do not need FCC approval.  Since the international
versions do not have this limitation, the parts should be readily
available.

Since we are talking MPU/CPU (since we are talking of two blocks in
the 800 mhz band), no re-tuning is needed.  In theory, if they made
the EPROM replacable for purpose of field upgrades, and sold the
cellular full access EPROM as an after-market item, it would certainly
get around the dumb restriction.  It does not stop you from getting
the scanners, nor does it stop the modifications, merely makes it more
difficult, but does not stop it.


Steven

Internet:        steven@sgb.oau.org         |  Steven G. Bradley
                 steven@gate.net            |----------------------------
GEnie:           s.bradley6@genie.geis.com  |  Don't you think it's about
CompuServe:      73232.505@compuserve.com   |  time we FIRED the Federal
America Online:  sgbradley@aol.com          |  Communications Commission?


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Ah yes, 'for export only' ... what a
laugh.  Years ago when CB radios were the latest rage, all the guys
would go to this one popular radio repair shop where they could buy
linear amplifiers which had been tuned for ten/eleven meters; an area
of the radio frequency spectrum where excessive power is expressly
forbidden. The guy running the shop always made the purchaser sign a
'declaration' which said the 'foot warmers' or 'pair of shoes' (as
they were called by their street name) were being purchased only for
resale and exportation outside the United States.  An examination by
federal agents of the shop records at one point showed all these
'declarations' signed in illegible scrawls which under close examination
appeared to be the name John Smith or similar. 

No one ever could locate John Smith (or any of them, for that matter!)
but you sure could hear them out there every night, splattering their
signal all over the entire eleven meter territory. The feds finally
put the shop owner in the can, under the legal theory that he knew or
should have known what the purchasers were actually doing; he was
indicted as a co-conspirator with other co-conspirators as yet uniden-
tified to the government. After a day or two of virtual radio silence 
here as everyone hid their linears in a secret place and stayed off the
air, things soon went back to 'normal'.  You're right ... a lot of worth-
less, unenforceable laws.  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V14 #247
******************************

