[fa.telecom] TELECOM Digest V4 #156

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
******************************