TELECOM Digest     Thu, 22 Jul 94 00:13:30 CDT    Volume 14 : Issue 329

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Reading the TELECOM Digest May be a Crime (Steve Bunning)
    CWA Charges Sprint With Illegal Action (Phillip Dampier)
    Secret Life of Bank Machines: Simple Tech Explanations Sought (P.
Rukavina)
    Information on FiberOptics Requested (Matthew Scott Weisberg)
    Telephony Cards Other Than Dialogic - Recommendations? (Karyn German)
    LDDS Metromedia Calling Card Confusion (Dan Srebnick)
    Digital Telephone Systems (Robert Ambrose)
    Book Review: "Internet Public Access Guide" by Hughes (Rob Slade)
    Correction to 703 -> 540 Prefix List (Paul Robinson)
    International Math Olympiad Result (Cedric Hui)
    Conference Call Circuit? (Todd McLaughlin)
    Re: Last Laugh! Telephone Connections as Explained on Usenet
(bkron@netcom)

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

Date: Wed, 20 Jul 1994 01:42:14 EDT
From: Steve Bunning <sbunning@DGS.dgsys.com>
Subject: Reading the TELECOM Digest May Be a Crime


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: This time around dear readers, I decided
to save the best for first. Let's all have a good laugh to start this
issue at the expense of the Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Company
Security Department. They must really think they are hot stuff.   PAT]

                           -----------

In a recent issue of the TELECOM Digest, there was some joking about
it being a felony to read information about telecommunications.  This
reminded me of something that happened to me in the mid-70s.

At the time, I had subscribed to a newsletter out of California called
TEL or the Telephone Electronics Line published by the Teletronics
Company of America.  It was similar to 2600 magazine and the TAP
newletter having articles on telecommuncations topics, but with a
phone phreak flavor.  After receiving the publication for over a year,
it suddenly stopped coming.  Sometime thereafter I received a notice
from the Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Company Security Office.

The text of their notice read as follows:

"On March 25, 1976, the Superior Court of California, County of Los
Angeles, entered an injunction in favor of The Pacific Telephone and
Telegraph Company and against Teletronics Company of America, and
others.  Your name appeared on a list (provided under Court order) of
subscribers, or potential subscribers, to material previously published 
and distributed by Teletronics Company of America. Accordingly, for your 
protection and benefit, you are hereby given the following notice:

IT IS A VIOLATION OF STATE AND FEDERAL LAW TO USE ANY INSTRUMENT, DEVICE 
OR SCHEME TO OBTAIN ANY TELEPHONE SERVICE WITHOUT PAYMENT OF THE LAWFUL 
CHARGES THEREFOR.  IT IS ALSO A CRIME TO PROVIDE INFORMATION TO ANY 
PERSON WHICH IS USEFUL FOR SUCH PURPOSE.  IN MANY STATES, THE POSSESSION 
OF OR DISSEMINATION OF PLANS OR INSTRUCTIONS FOR SUCH DEVICES IS A 
CRIMINAL OFFENSE.

VIOLATIONS OF THESE LAWS ARE VIGOROUSLY INVESTIGATED AND PROSECUTED.  
ACCORDINGLY, YOU ARE URGED TO DESTROY ANY AND ALL WRITTEN MATERIAL OR 
DEVICE YOU MAY HAVE WHICH MAY VIOLATE ANY OF THESE LAWS.

THIS STATEMENT IS BEING SENT TO YOU BY ORDER OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF 
CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES."  End of notice.

So you see, subscribing to telecom publications may be riskier than
you imagined.  I wonder, does this mean I should burn any back issues
of the TELECOM Digest that I have?  Perhaps reading the Digest is only
a misdemeanor and not a felony :-)


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Isn't that precious! They want to fight,
maybe somone or more people should give them one. This reminds me of a
similar case here in the late 1970's when Channel 44 was operating in
many parts of the USA as 'pay television' with a scrambled signal. You
could watch their movies, but to do so you had to have one of their
decoding boxes, and of course you got one of those when you signed up
for the service. Purchase of a decoding box got to be a joke however, as
more and more pirates began building them and selling them out of the
back of their car. Everytime Channel 44 would change the system slightly
then the pirates would soon change their product to meet the new specs.

The answer from the pay-tv people was to stage raids at the homes of
the pirates and seize all the equipment, arrest them, etc. One aquaint-
ence of mine was 'in the business' (the pirate business that is) and
he got busted for selling decoders out of the back of his van in the
parking lot at 7/Eleven. They had several answers: if you claimed your
product was 'genuine' they got you on fraud charges; it obviously was
not the real thing. If you claimed it was type accepted by the FCC then
that was also fraud; in subscription television systems type acceptance
does not issue on decoders alone, only on entire systems including the
transmitter, etc. If you sold 'educational kits you assemble on your own'
with the circuit board already put together and maybe a single knob or
two which had to be screwed on in order to make it a 'kit you built
yourself' then you were an accomplice to the theft of services done
by the persons who purchased your 'kit'. They had it made, or so they
thought; they had an answer to every angle the pirates tried to use.

Thinking back to the days of Prohibition in the United States in the
1920's, I recalled how Anheiser-Busch (the makers of Budweiser Beer)
had survived during those lean years: They sold kits by mail order
which people could use at home to brew their own 'near beer', a con-
coction which *was* legal during prohibition. Anheiser-Busch sent the
nearly completed distillery (you had to screw in a couple of pieces)
along with 'brewing instructions for near-beer'. Every page of the 
very detailed instruction book cautioned against using certain ingred-
ients in certain quantities, i.e. 'do not use (ingredient x) and only
use the amount we tell you of (ingredient y), because if you put 'x'
in there in quantity 'y' you will manufacture beer, and that is not
legal!' Of course you know the purchasers of the little distillery and
brewing kits put in plenty of 'x' and 'y', but they had been warned
by Budweiser against doing it, so as not to violate Prohibition. 

With that in mind, the 'Radio Hobbyists Guild' was started. The Guild
had one project, and one project only in mind: to educate people in
the ways to *avoid breaking the law* where subscription television
decoder boxes were concerned. The Guild published a very detailed
instruction book complete with schematics showing how Channel 44 boxes
worked, so that whatever the reader happened to be building in the
way of electronic devices he could be sure to *not configure the
components in the way shown here* to avoid breaking any laws, etc.
Every page of the schematics was plainly noted "Caution, do not
put electronic components together in the way shown in these diagrams 
becase by doing so you might be breaking the law."  The reader was
frequently warned that 'in the event you are building some kind of
electronic device and *accidentally* (my emphasis) construct a decoder
box then you must be certain not to actually use it for that purpose
until you have (1) obtained type acceptance from the FCC, (2) notified
Channel 44 that you are in possession of it and agreed to pay their
monthly fees, and (3) gotten their permission in writing to do so.'
The little book published by the Radio Hobbyists Guild was given away
to anyone who sent a dollar or four postage stamps with a self addressed
large envelope to a certain post office box in downtown Chicago. I think
a couple thousand copies were sent out in all. Channel 44 knew it was
just a ploy -- thinly veiled BS -- but how do you go about making someone
quit urging others to obey the law?  PAT]

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

From: phil@rochgte.fidonet.org (Phillip Dampier)
Reply-To: phil@rochgte.fidonet.org
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 1994 13:30:05 -0500
Subject: CWA Charges Sprint With Illegal Action


CWA CHARGES SPRINT WITH ILLEGALLY SHUTTING LATINO SUBSIDIARY A WEEK
BEFORE UNION VOTE

Sprint Long Distance illegally shut down a San Francisco subsidiary
that markets services to the Spanish-speaking community just one week
before the 177 workers were set to vote on unionizing in a National
Labor Relations Board election, the Communications Workers of America
declared in charges filed with the NLRB.

CWA is requesting that the NLRB seek an injunction to re-open the
office under Section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act, and
also is calling for the labor board to proceed with a representative
election.  The unfair practice charges were formally filed against
Sprint late yesterday in San Francisco.

The union charged that Sprint abruptly closed the office on July 14 to
retaliate against the workers for seeking to organize -- approximately
70% had petitioned for an election -- and to block what portended to
be the first successful unionization campaign so far at the
aggressively anti-union long distance company.

CWA also charged that the action was intended to intimidate employees
at other Sprint facilities who have been seeking to organize despite
fierce management opposition as laid out in Sprint's "Union-Free
Management Guide."

Sprint bought La Conexion Familiar ("The Family Connection") in 1992
after contracting with the company for several years to sell Sprint
long distance service and provide Spanish language customer service to
the Latino community throughout the west and mid-west.  La Conexion's
total workforce numbers 235, mostly women of Latin American origin.

La Conexion's business represents about seven percent of the Latino
market niche in long distance nationwide, which is growing 2 1/2 times
the rate of the market overall.

In what CWA President Morton Bahr described as "a brutal mass
execution," Sprint management suddenly secured the La Conexion offices
the afternoon of July 14, and told the workers to collect their
belongings and leave the facility after first submitting to body
searches by the security force.

"Workers burst into tears, at least one woman fainted, and paramedics
were summoned," the San Francisco Examiner reported of the scene.
Captain Philip Harvey, who led the paramedic team, said: "There was a
point where we were going to offer the services of a psychological
counseling team because we feared they might start calling 911 and
overwhelm the system."  One female worker was taken to the hospital
for further treatment for what was described as a "psycho-social
crisis."

Shortly after the closing took place on July 14, a top Sprint official
who was briefing several CWA officials on the action disparaged La
Conexion workers as mainly "illegal immigrants" who spoke "Hispanic"
and who had "bought" their $7 an hour jobs with bribes.

While Sprint claimed that it closed the operation for economic
reasons, in fact this past March the company general manager told the
{San Francisco Chronicle} that La Conexion had been growing as much as
20% a month for the past two years and that he projected a tripling of
annual revenues by 1996.  As recently as last month, a Sprint national
newsletter featured La Conexion as a unique and "very successful"
marketing enterprise.

"They told us that the reason they're closing is they were losing
money but that's a lie," said one of the fired workers Argelia Ardon.
"They closed us because we were organizing."

Threats that Sprint would pull the plug on La Conexion if the workers
voted to unionize had been widely rumored, drawing letters of concern
from telecommunication union leaders in Germany and France, where
Sprint is seeking a partnership with the national phone companies.

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

Date: Wed, 20 Jul 1994 15:33:58 +0100
From: Peter Rukavina <peter@crafts-council.pe.ca>
Subject: Secret Life of Bank Machines: Simple Tech Explanations Sought


I'm looking for simple technical explanations of how bank machines and
bank machine networks work for a radio series on "everyday technology"
I'm working on.  Specifically:

(1) How is my "PIN Number" kept secret from everyone but me?  Is it 
stored on the magnetic stripe on my "bank card" or in some form in the 
bank's "central computer?"  Or somewhere else?

(2) How is the security of tranmissions between bank machines and the 
"central computers" ensured?  I have an old "Discover" magazine article 
which talks about a 64-bit digital key generated by "white noise" which 
is placed in both bank machine and central computer and used to DES 
encrypt everything that passes between the two... is this accurate?

(3) How is the traffic between different banks' networks (and different 
"networks of networks" like Cirrus and Plus and, here in Canada, Interac) 
handled?  Do all banks' computer speak "the same language" in the same 
way that all Internet computers speak TCP/IP?

(4) I'm assuming the process of, say, withdrawing $20 from a machine goes 
something like this:

 - I stick my card in, card reader gets my "client number"
   from the magnetic stripe, asks me for my PIN Number,
   somehow verifies that I entered the right one (or not)

 - the local computer in the bank machine presents me with a 
   menu of possible transactions (perhaps based on information
          it got about my various accounts from the "central
    computer"?) and takes me through a series of questions...
   Withdraw... Savings... $20.00

 - the bank machine computer the packages up the request
   and sends it off to "central" which verifies (a) that I
   have enough money in my account and (b) that I haven't
   gone over my "daily limit" and, if everything's okay,
   sends a signal to this effect back to the bank machine,

 - the bank machine, having received an "okay to dispense"
   signal, spits out $20 and sends back a "debit $20 from
   his account" message to "central."

(5) How do bank machines "count money?"  This would seem like a hard
sort of thing to pull off, especially given that you have to be right
pretty near well 100% of the time.

(6) Besides the recent "Chemical Bank computer error results in double
withdrawls from 100,000 accounts" problem in February, are there other
large-scale problems which have occured with banking machine networks?

(7) A 1992 New Scientist article talks about how the process of
"shouldering" people when they're entering their PIN, then collecting
their carelessly discarded receipt and, using the card number printed
on the receipt, using "readily available equipment which costs less
that $1600" to crank out a duplicate card using "published documents"
as a guide.  Is such equipment still "readily available" and what
would the "published documents" be?  Is this a widespread problem in
the U.S.?

Many thanks for any and all information.


Peter

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

From: moodyblu@umcc.umcc.umich.edu (Matthew Scott Weisberg)
Subject: Information on FiberOptics Requested
Date: 20 Jul 1994 08:15:31 -0400
Organization: UMCC, Ann Arbor, MI


Recently, I posted a request for information on WANs for a project I
was researching for the City of Novi, Michigan.

Well, it turns out that the cable company here, MetroVision, is under
an agreement to the city to provide Fiberoptics cable to every single
municipal building!

MetroVision is wiring the entire Oakland County with FiberOptics,
expected to be completed by the end of 95. They have a very impressive
network already it seems. Many of the schools here have something
called INET, basically, the schools are using MetroVisions "B" cable
to "share" classes on video and such. Supposedly, the original
agreement was that Metrovisoin was to run two cables of 56 channels
each to provide 112 channels to subscribers, however, they only run
one cable, the "A" cable, to subscribers.  I saw some maps of their
current network, and they apparently have 750Mhz(?) of bandwith
available in the Novi area.

Anyway, what I need to know is what equipment would I need to attach
to their fiber to our 10BASET ethernet networks in each building?  How
many strands would we need?  They are running at least 12 strands to
each building I think ... it could be more.

I also need to know some places to order the equipment from, as I need to
get pricing ideas.

The engineer from Metrovision that came said it is not cost effective
to run fiber between "campus" buildings.  They said there is already a
"shadow" cable (coax) running between the buildings and we could use
that and get like 1.54Mbps of bandwith.  I disagree and don't feel
this is enough bandwith, especially with IPX/SPX being the bandwith
hog it is. I also thought that costs were coming way down on fiber. Am
I mistaken?

As usual, any information you can provide would be greatly appreciated!


Matt Weisberg, CNE         MILLIWAYS - Computer and Network Consulting 
PP-ASEL                                21650 West Eleven Mile Road #202
Amateur Radio: KF8OH                   Southfield, MI 48076            
Internet: moodyblu@umcc.umich.edu (810)350-0503 x11  Fax:(810)350-0504 

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

From: kmgerman@netcom.com (Karyn German)
Subject: Telephony Cards Other Than Dialogic - Recommendations? 
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login:
guest)
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 1994 21:14:12 GMT


Could someone recommend telephony cards other than those by Dialogic?

I know that Dialogic is the defacto industry standard for call processing
applications, but we need an option that has drivers for BSDI Unix.

I would be interested in any alternatives, even if you don't know about
the BSDI support -- I'll research this myself.

Please email me at kgerman@marketplace.com.


Thanks ever so much!

Karyn German   Cyberspace Development, Inc.
kgerman@marketplace.com  Specialists in Internet Commerce
303-759-1289             http://marketplace.com

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

From: dan@islenet.com
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 94 11:10:54 EDST
Subject: LDDS Metromedia Calling Card Confusion
Organization: Isle-Net Telecommunications (BBS +1 908 495 6996)


I use an LDDS/Metromedia calling card to call New Jersey from my
workplace in NYC by dialing their 800 274 1234 number.  The reason I
normally use them is that they offer a no surchage calling card.
Anyway, for the last couple of days, after I enter my calling card
number, I get an "MCI Operator" who asks me what number I am calling
 from and what my calling card number is.  It appears that Metromedia
is having some kind of switch problem in the NY area and is routing
calls via MCI.  I declined to complete the calls without knowing who
would bill me and for how much.  No one at LDDS/Metromedia or MCI
could provide an explanation for this rerouting of calls via an
alternate carrier.  When I tried to report the problem to
LDDS/Metromedia, I was place on hold for about fifteen minutes and
gave up.

Does anyone know what and where the problem is?


Dan Srebnick

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

From: ambrose1@netcom.com (Robert Ambrose)
Subject: Digital Telephone Systems
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 1994 22:07:37 GMT


I am acting as a non-paid volunteer in an attempt to put a well known
disability service organization on line.  The problem I am facing has
to do with their present telephone system in relation to the fact that
they do not have an overabundance of spare cash on hand at the moment.
They had an SRX digital phone network installed three or four years
ago and as I am sure all of you well know modems operate on analogue
systems.  On each desk in this organization there sits a phone with
three incoming digital lines which we can't access.

Somehow we have to be able to grab one of those lines to use with the
modem.  Installing new dedicated lines is cost prohibitive. SRX has
offered the solution of an analog station cards for the box in the
basement which will service six people each, at a cost of $1800 per
card.  There are over 90 people within this agency that could use
communications, so forget the cards.  What would Thomas Edison have
said? "Damn the torpedoes, Let's find a solution", maybe.

I need a solution, they need a solution.


robert ambrose  508-362-3456
or email either your solution or number

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

Date: Wed, 20 Jul 1994 12:44:03 MDT
From: Rob Slade <roberts@decus.ca>
Subject: Book Review: "Internet Public Access Guide" by Hughes


BKINTPAG.RVW  940427
 
SSC
P.O. Box 55549
Seattle, WA 94155
206/527-3385
FAX: 206/527-2806
sales@ssc.com
"Internet Public Access Guide", Hughes, 1994, 0-916151-70-0, U$2.95
 
This book (pamphlet) is a quick, and very cheap, introduction to the
Internet.  On the other hand, it doesn't explain much, and a lot of it
is not about the Internet.
 
It can't be considered a reference guide since it isn't easy to find
the information, and there isn't a lot there.  The book mentions that
the best place to get information about the Internet is on the
Internet, but very few sources are mentioned.
 
Given the brevity of the book, it is surprising that two pages are
spent selling other SSC books, and twelve more in a brief introduction
to UNIX.  However, the basics are here, particulary if the user is
either working from, or dialling into, a UNIX service.  In that case,
sysadmins may find this a very handy "first step" for users.  Service
providers running strictly UNIX systems may find it much cheaper to
buy these starter pamphlets (available in boxes of 240, apparently)
rather than build documentation from scratch.
 
For those providing Internet access from a UNIX platform, this would
be a handy and inexpensive first guide to users.  For those on other
platforms, or with proprietary interfaces, it would be less useful.

copyright Robert M. Slade, 1994   BKINTPAG.RVW  940427. Distribution
permitted in TELECOM Digest and associated newsgroups/mailing lists.


Vancouver      ROBERTS@decus.ca   
Institute for  Robert_Slade@sfu.ca
Research into  rslade@cue.bc.ca   
User           p1@CyberStore.ca   
Security       Canada V7K 2G6     

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

Date: Wed, 20 Jul 1994 15:17:24 EDT
From: Paul Robinson <PAUL@TDR.COM>
Reply-To: Paul Robinson <PAUL@TDR.COM>
Subject: Correction to 703 -> 540 Prefix List
Organization: Tansin A. Darcos & Company, Silver Spring, MD USA 


In a prior message I posted the list of prefixes changing from Area
Code 703 to area code 540 effective July 15, 1995.  In transcribing
that list from the list in the paper, I missed a line by typing in the
first three or four entries, then accidentally moving down to the next
line and starting at entry number four or five there.  My apologies
for this error.  The corrected list, which I have checked, is as
follows:

The following prefixes in the 703 area code will change to 
area code 540, effective July 15, 1995:

220 223 224 225 226 228 230 231 232 234 236 238 245 248 249 251 253 254 
258 259 261 262 265 268 269 270 279 286 289 291 297 298 320 322 326 328 
332 333 334 336 337 338 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 362
363 364 365 366 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 380 381 382 383 384 386 387
388 389 390 395 396 398 399 420 423 427 429 432 432 433 434 436 439 443
445 452 456 459 460 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 470 472 472 474 475 477
479 480 483 489 495 496 498 499 520 523 529 530 531 542 543 544 546 547
552 554 559 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 570 574 576 579 580 582 586
587 592 593 597 599 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 632 633 634 635
636 637 638 639 645 646 647 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 662 663 665 666
667 668 669 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 682 686 687 688 694 699 721
722 723 726 727 728 729 731 732 738 740 743 744 745 747 752 755 762 763
766 770 771 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 782 783 785 786 788 789 794
796 822 825 828 829 831 832 833 835 837 839 840 852 853 854 856 857 858 
859 861 862 863 864 865 867 868 869 870 871 872 873 877 879 880 881 882
884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 894 895 896 897 898 899 921 923 925 926
928 929 930 932 933 935 937 939 940 942 943 944 945 946 947 948 949 951
952 953 955 956 957 961 962 963 964 965 966 967 969 972 973 977 980 981 
982 983 984 985 986 987 988 989 991 992 994 995 996 997 999

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

From: chui@netcom.com (Cedric Hui)
Subject: International Math Olympiad Result
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 1994 05:47:51 GMT


Not a telecom news from Hong Kong, but I think some people may like to
know.

Subject: USA Kids Score In Math Race
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 94 6:20:12 PDT

 HONG KONG (AP) -- Six high school students from the United
States achieved a historic first at the 35th International
Mathematical Olympiad in Hong Kong today -- they all had perfect
scores.

 Officials said never in the history of the competition have
all members of a team managed to score the maximum 42-point score in
geometry and other mathematical tests.

 "I am very proud of the performance of our team," said
Professor Walter Mientka of the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, leader
of the U.S. team. "Each member demonstrated great mathematical
creativity and was an outstanding representative of the United
States."

 More than 600 students from 70 countries and territories
competed in the contest, organized by London's International
Mathematical Olympiad Advisory Committee and the Hong Kong
Mathematical Society.

 A total of 192 medals were awarded with golds going to
students who scored at least 40 points, silver to those who had at
least 30 points and bronze for those with at least 20 points.

 China finished second with three golds and three silvers, and
Russia was third with three golds, two silvers and one bronze.

 The American team members were: Jeremy Bem of Ithaca High
School in New York, Aleksandr Khazanov of Stuyvesant High School in
New York City, Jacob Lurie of Montgomery Blair High School in
Maryland, Noam Shazeer of Swampscott High School in Massachusetts,
Stephen Wang of Illinois Mathematics and Science Academy, and Jonathan
Weinstein of Lexington High School in Massachusetts.

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

From: Todd McLaughlin <toddm@rahul.net>
Subject: Conference Call Circuit?
Organization: a2i network
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 1994 06:08:32 GMT


I've made a simple circuit between my two phone lines so I can host a
conference call.  The sound quality is rather disappointing, though.
The second call that is made sounds very distant.  I'm guessing a
simple amplifier would fix the problem.  A friend said I needed to get
a phone transformer, but he didn't seem to know much about it.  Has
anyone else done this with promising results?  Or if someone can tell
me a bit about the phone transformer ...


Thanks!

Todd McLaughlin <toddm@rahul.net>

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

From: bkron@netcom.com (Kronos)
Subject: Re: Last Laugh! Telephone Connections as Explained on Usenet
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 1994 05:55:14 GMT


jlundgre@ohlone.kn.PacBell.COM (John Lundgren) writes:

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: John Lundgren found this gem of wisdom
> on some Usenet group somewhere and passed it along ...

Aw, come on.  Based on the grammar and spelling, I'd say its just some
young kids.  But, maybe not!  I'm hearing "Dueling Banjos!"

I remember picking up the phone on our old Western SXS when I was a
kid (or was it my friend's Automatic GTE SXS?) and noticing that there
would appear to be no voltage for just a moment because there was no
sidetone.  Immediately upon going off hook, there was sidetone, then
no sidetone, then dialtone.  I never thought this was because they
were "switching batteries."  (That was pretty funny) I just assumed
that the line was momentarily open while the line finder worked.  But
maybe the guy authoring the posted opinions drew the wrong conclusion.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V14 #329
******************************

