telecom@ucbvax.ARPA (02/09/85)
From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@BBNCCA> TELECOM Digest Fri, 8 Feb 85 16:03:14 EST Volume 4 : Issue 156 Today's Topics: Re: Residential PABX System SWB test of Call-Tracing, etc, now in Austin, TX Providing Attack Warnings to the Public Re: TELECOM Digest V4 #153 Cheep ringers ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 7 Feb 1985 18:31 PST From: Lars Poulsen <LARS@ACC> Subject: Re: Residential PABX System To: TELECOM@MIT-MC My immediate reaction to this remarkable story is that this would seem to make the building owner a local TELCO, and telephone companies are supposed to be regulated by the local PUC. To wit, this business entity has an exclusive right to supply telephone service to residences in a defined geographical area. Now, on second thought, some ladlords in office buildings have already done similar things, and this has turned into a vehicle for providing BYPASS service, and apparently TELCOs have not been able to succesfully challenge this. Where does the limit go ? Is the local telco industry really deregulated into a free-for-all ? Can I band up with the adjoining homeowners and form the "San Rogue Gardens Telephone Company" and go shop around for the best deal from long-distance providers ? (maybe setting up a microwave link to that office building down the street that has a bypass link to San Francisco ?) Please, someone, explain this. / Lars Poulsen <Lars@ACC> ------ ------------------------------ Date: Fri 8 Feb 85 03:15:23-CST From: Werner Uhrig <CMP.WERNER@UTEXAS-20.ARPA> Subject: SWB test of Call-Tracing, etc, now in Austin, TX To: telecom@UTEXAS-20.ARPA in recent days, the same services earlier described as being offered in Orlando, Fla, are now being test-marketed by SouthWesternBell here in Austin. There are also other developments of new $$$-requests i have not found the time yet to tell you about. More later (I hope to find time). ------- ------------------------------ From: Kurt F. Sauer <mtxinu!ea!uokvax!emks@Berkeley> Date: 6 Feb 1985 03:44-CST (Wednesday) To: ARPANET Telecom Digest <ea!mtxinu!ucbvax!telecom@Berkeley> Subject: Providing Attack Warnings to the Public What about warning systems? Attack warning is a complicated matter. As I understand it, the process is very closely tied with existing C^3IS systems. Currently, the means of warning the public consist of a. The National Warning System, or NAWAS, a dedicated voice circuit which connects to the National and Alternate National Warning Centers at CMC, Colorado, and Olney, Maryland. Manned on a 24-hour basis, NAWAS is the primary means of disseminating an attack warning to thousands of regional, state, and local warning points. While currently a leased-line system, it is currently in upgrade to MB technology circuits. b. The Emergency Broadcast System, or EBS, a coordinated (?) system of commercial broadcast systems. Under FCC regulations, almost all AM and FM broadcast stations with output > 25W is required to par- ticipate in the EBS, with its cascade alerting and weekly tests. The President can broadcast on the EBS through the White House Communications System, controlled from a classified location in Washington DC. c. Local warning systems, such as public address speakers, the more traditional sirens, and air-horns. d. AP/UPI (and some other major news systems) participate in US-wide tests on a weekly basis. The President can make broadcasts using the same means as in (b), above. ABC, NBC, and CBS (possibly others, but I don't know) has direct video/audio feeds, as well. As certainly as it seems that this confederation of communications systems would be enough to get the "word" to the public, I believe that it isn't. The "word" could range from an official statement that a crisis existed to the worst-case "BOOB"-style attack warning. Although I'm reasonably con- vinced that the latter isn't really in the cards, we've got to be prepared to operate in that condition. What other warning systems can we use or devise? The federal government suggested CHAT-TV in the 60's, but it was cancelled; I don't think that people would want "Big Brother" "controlling" their T.V. these days. While some would say that having advanced public warning systems is simply a way of fostering the nuclear war survival strategies, these systems would also provide a simple, single way for local governments to warn their populus of *any* impending emergency. We in Oklahoma **still** have problems letting people know of impending tornadic activity. People don't listen to the radio! Please restrict your responses to the technical aspects of this. kurt ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Feb 85 07:46:54 pst From: hplabs!sdcrdcf!darrelj@Berkeley (Darrel VanBuer) To: telecom@Berkeley Subject: Re: TELECOM Digest V4 #153 Cc: From part 68 FCC rules: the following jacks are all the same physical object with different wiring: RJ-11 one line on pins 3-4 RJ-12 one line plus A/A1 signalling on 2-5 for keysystem (but line is connected before the keysystem due to incompatibility) RJ-13 one line plus A/A1 signalling on 2-5; esentially a single line keysystem phone RJ-14 two line phone, line 1 on 3-4, line 2 on 4-5 Some intermixing will work, but not all (e.g. an RJ-13 phone in an RJ-14 jack will short out line 2 when off hook, an RJ-11 phone in an RJ-12 or RJ-13 will fail to "inform" the keysystem the phone line is in use, thus not light the line lamp). Darrel J. Van Buer, PhD System Development Corp. 2500 Colorado Ave Santa Monica, CA 90406 (213)820-4111 x5449 ...{allegra,burdvax,cbosgd,hplabs,ihnp4,orstcs,sdcsvax,ucla-cs,akgua} !sdcrdcf!darrelj VANBUER@USC-ECL.ARPA ------------------------------ Date: 8 Feb 85 12:14:54 EST From: *Hobbit* <AWalker@RUTGERS.ARPA> Subject: Cheep ringers To: telecom@RUTGERS.ARPA Did you ever call someone who has a crossbar line and a $5 phone? You can *hear* the little feeper down the connection, since you're actually connected to his line while ringing. Then you can amaze your callee by asking him which particular brand of $5 telephone he bought.... _H* ------- ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ******************************