telecom@ucbvax.ARPA (10/11/84)
From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@MIT-MC>
TELECOM Digest Thursday, 11 Oct 1984 Volume 4 : Issue 99
Today's Topics:
"false" alarm about telecom rates (for now)
AT&T's "Notes on the Network"
Re: Telecomm rates?
Secure military communications
Ref: Telecom 4-97 ..VLSI Ethernet Chip info
New Jersey dialing
British Break-up of the phone-monopoly
NSA concern over phone tapping
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sunday, 7 Oct 1984 21:05:53-PDT
From: falcone%erlang.DEC@decwrl.ARPA (Joe Falcone, HLO2-3/N03, dtn
From: 225-6059)
Subject: "false" alarm about telecom rates (for now)
CC:
I've gotten a few notes insisting that it wasn't possible for the
phone company to charge special rates for a phone line that was used
for data purposes for various reasons (regulatory and electronic).
Well, it was tried once, as described by this reposting from
net.followup. It is also true that carrier sensing is relatively
straightforward and could be tied in to a time-and-charges scheme, but
probably will never happen because of the new special digital data
networks. My thanks to ea!mwm for the SW Bell account.
Joe Falcone
>Newsgroups: net.followup >Path:
decwrl!amd!fortune!hpda!hplabs!pesnta!petsd!vax135!houxm!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!ea!mwm
>NSubject: Re: new twist on computer "crime" and la >Posted: Thu Sep
27 12:17:00 1984 > >Nf-ID: #R:decwrl:-371600:ea:4300008:000:1465
>Nf-From: ea!mwm Sep 27 14:17:00 1984
/***** ea:net.general / decwrl!falcone / 12:25 am Sep 25, 1984 */
Quite a while ago, some of the local telephone companies were
proposing changes to the tariffs which would consider any line used
for data transmission (modems) a BUSINESS line and therefore subject
to the business rate schedule. For most of us, this would result in
rather stiff rate increases. After an initial flurry of messages on
the net about this, I haven't heard a thing. Anyone following this?
Joe Falcone /* ---------- */
Much of that came from cases here in Oklahoma. A BBS had his phone
rate tripled, with no additional service, because the existing laws
made any store&forward device some sort of "information terminal."
After hassling the guy (Robert Braver, by name. His BBS is the USEMC,
phone number 405/360-3020), the phone company backed off. Something to
do with the new tariff associated with the divestiture on Jan. 1,
1984.
Currently, Southwestern Bell in Oklahoma will charge you a high rate
if you hook up a modem and plan on both incoming and outgoing calls
through the computer. If you are going to do just one or the other,
they only charge you the standard residential rate.
My understanding was that Oklahoma was a test case for Southwestern
Bell, and they were going to extend the high charge practice to other
states if it worked. Since they aren't charging all modem users a high
rate ($54/mo, as opposed to $10/mo), I suspect that they've given up.
------------------------------
Date: 8 Oct 1984 00:57-PDT
Sender: MHAMILL@SRI-CSL
Subject: AT&T's "Notes on the Network"
From: MHAMILL@SRI-CSL
Does any one have information on where I can order the book-
Notes on the Network by AT&T?
Thanx, Mark Mhamill@SRI-CSL
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 84 22:56:29 EDT
From: steveg@hammer.UUCP (Steve Glaser)
Subject: Re: Telecomm rates?
There is a thing on most phone lines (particularly long distance
trunks) called an echo supressor. Part of the 103/212/VA3400 modem
protocols is a magic tone to disable these beasties as they alter the
signal and echos aren't a big problem in full duplex modems anyway
(transmitting and receiving use different frequencies).
Steve Glaser (tektronix!steveg)
------------------------------
From: <bang!crash!frankb@Nosc>
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 84 23:56:16 pdt
Subject: Secure military communications
I don't know about communications in the civilian sector of
government, but I know that those of us in the military who had
security devices used them.
I was in a tactical military intelligence unit in Germany for two and
one-half years, from January 1982 to June 1984. During that time, I
witnessed the transition from the old voice encryption system (Nestor)
to the new (Vinson). We practiced both systems often, while in the
field and in garrison. This was necessary with Nestor, as it was a
cumbersome and somewhat unreliable (due, most likely, to its old age)
system, involving a lot of work setting little switches, and trying to
get the little "sandwiches" (as we called them) to fit in their slots.
Vinson is much better, being much more reliable (I never witnessed a
failure), providing a better level of security, and being a lot more
friendly to those using it.
We always used our encryption systems for communications, even those
of relatively minor importance. For this reason, my unit, as well as
many other tactical MI units, was never outsmarted due to a breach of
security. The same cannot be said of combat units. I do not know why
they have yet to being using encryption gear such as we had, but it
will be a problem in wartime. It was incredibly easy not only to find
US units in an exercise, but to jam and deceive them as well. Some US
combat units practice abhorrent security procedures; weaseling your
way into their nets was a simple matter. However, there were
(possibly) just as many units which had good radio discipline. This
means requiring proper authentication when sending a message, and
always questioning the security of your net when you have even the
faintest notion something funny is going on.
Incidentally, from what I saw during my time in the Army,
communications security (COMSEC) is getting better, along with many
other components of military operations. Perhaps, in a few years,
there won't even be any major COMSEC violations anymore. Perhaps...
Frank Boosman sdcsvax!bang!crash!frankb@nosc
------------------------------
Date: Tuesday, 9 Oct 1984 05:16:34-PDT
From: potucek%nisysg.DEC@decwrl.ARPA (John M. Potucek @261-3297)
Subject: Ref: Telecom 4-97 ..VLSI Ethernet Chip info
Date: Tues. 09-Oct-1984 @0818EDT From: John Potucek
In snswer to the request from Doug Braun on VLSI Ethernet Chips...
There is in the September 1984 issue of Computer Design a fairly good
article on the very same subject. Included is a listing of the
pertinent VLSI devices with part numbers which compose the various
manufacturers chips/chipsets. I hopr that this helps, doug
BCNU,
/jmp
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 84 15:17:01 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <cmoore@Brl-Vld.ARPA>
Subject: New Jersey dialing
Before New Jersey went to 1+ dialing, some points there required 1+ on
all toll calls. What becomes of 1+ on toll calls within an area code
there? (Also, how are local calls across area code boundary to be
dialed? Such calls in, say, NYC require 1+area code.)
(By the way: I was in NJ on Sunday 16 Sept., and saw the present
instructions on a pay phone, prefix 609-423 near Paulsboro along
I-295. As reported earlier in different words, the instructions are
just like those for NYC--but this pay phone's instructions did NOT
single out the home area code for 0+ calls!)
[You still have to dial 0-201-XXX-XXXX if you are within 201 and want
operator assistance in completing the call. Sigh. --JSol]
------------------------------
Date: Tue 9 Oct 84 15:21:52-CDT
From: Werner Uhrig <CMP.WERNER@UTEXAS-20.ARPA>
Subject: British Break-up of the phone-monopoly
[ the following information was extracted from an article in "The
Economist"
of Oct 6-12, 84, page 88. "The Economist" is the most informative
weekly
publication printed and is available by subscription in the US at a
weekly
cost of a little more than $1. You'll never touch Time and Newsweek
again.
Note: all monetary figures below are in Sterling, not dollars. -
Werner ]
British Telecom (BT), Britain's state-owned telecommunications
utility, will be sold to the public next month. The government hopes
that the 51% of BT being sold will fetch at least $3.5 billion (US$4.3
billion). The sale, the largest ever on the London stock exchange, is
both important to the treasury and the biggest test of the
Conservative government's determination to reduce the role of the
public sector by the "privatisation" of state assets. Will BT be a
greater success in the private sector than it has proved in the state
sector?
It will be hard for BT to fail completely. It controls the
fourth-largest telephone system in the world, after the US, Japan, and
West-Germany. It's network connects 29m telephones, roughly 5% of the
world's total. It handles 60m calls a day and employs around 241,000
people. Yet it's market is far from saturated: Britons each make 383
calls a year compared with 667 by the Danes and 1,441 by the Americans
[US only, probably]. Most important, in the first 5 years, it will be
almost as much a monopoly in the private sector as it has been in the
public ....
[it goes on describing how the Conservatives, after gaining power in
1979, seperated BT from the post-office, and prepared it for
privatisation. It discusses it's 5 divisions in some detail, it's
efforts to leap-frog from some VERY old equipment to the latest
technology, digital System X, optical fibres, X-stream, mobile
services, value-added services, etc. lots of figures and statistics.
It is really interesting how the Brits try to take care of the social
responsibilities in communications and at the same time encourage
competition and guarantee a profit. Competition is stiffled somewhat
and consumer interests are not served completely, as the following may
exemplify:]
Most important, BT will be allowed to increase its charges for a
"basket" of its services - all trunk and local calls and exchange line
rentals to business and residential subscribers - by a maximum of the
retail price index minus three. In other words, if inflation is 5%,
BT's maximum price increase will be 2%. This basket covers about half
of BT's revenues, but less of profits because it does not include the
highly profitable international services. BT can juggle the increase
between items in the basket (and is anxious to make residential
customers pay their way), but there is an understanding that increases
in line rentals will not exceed the RPI plus 2.
[it is really interesting, even educational, how the Conservatives try
to make the change to privatisation survive the next
Labour-government, who is sure to come and sure to be tempted to roll
back these changes. It is also most interesting to speculate what
will happen, when significant work-force reductions will be the result
of modernisation. Remember, this is the country where the change to
electric trains did not mean the man shovelling the coal was out of a
job. ]
As BT gets more efficient (around 15,000 people will have left the
workforce in the three years to next March) it could reap considerable
rewards: one more local call a week at cheap rate per residential
subscriber adds $44m to annual revenues; one more trunk call over 35
miles each week adds $354m to revenues. Almost all of this would flow
through to profits. This is in contrast to American regulation, which
imposes a limit on the rate of return
- and so limits the incentive to improve.
The government is rigging things as far as it dares in BT's favour.
It plans to restructure the utility's balance sheet for privatisation
so that debt as a proportion of equity will fall from 92% in 1983-84
to 45%. No network competitor other than Mercury wil be permitted
until at least 1990. Until July, 1989, it will not be possible for
independent companies to buy capacity in bulk, and so at a discount,
from BT and then re-sell the lines to subscribers at a price lower
than BT's.
[ and now the trick to survive the next Labour government, a real
cutie ]
All employees on privatisation will be given $70-worth of free shares
- and will get two free shares for each one bought up to a limit of
$100. In other words, each employee could own shares with a face
value of $370 for an outlay of only $100.
Similarly, each telephone subscriber who buys shares of $250 (payable
in three calls) will qualify for an $18 rebate on his quarterly
telephone bill. The aim is no secret: the more people become
shareholders, the more difficult it will be for a Labour government to
re-nationalise BT.
[ now IF those shares are really WORTH $250, this is a steal and a
truely significant example, how a public utility could be financed and
owned by the general public. I, for one, would like to see telephone
and cable-TV owned by the members of the local community, and paid for
as part of the house-mortgage payments. In this manner, the physical
plant would be TRUELY owned AND paid for, by the public, and it's
administration would have to be responsive to the public, as everyone
has the power of a share-holder, which is a totally different
ball-game from the government running it which often seems to get away
with ignoring it's "share-holders". Schools and hospitals should be
run the same way, with Federal guide-lines to guarantee a certain
quality and national minimal standards, but responsive to local
superior or special demands. The reason, I name these 2 areas, is the
fact that after health, housing, education, and personal freedom, I
consider communication and transportation the next most significant
items on my list of communal interests, where cost and profit and
control should be shared by all, as well as certain losses due to
providing a certain amount of basic services to everyone to guarantee
opportunity for growth to the disadvantaged
-- sorry, guys, about the quasi-philosophical/political
side-tracking; I got carried away. hope you reward my typing-efforts
by some typing of your own - telecommunications-topics, including
social, economic and political implications, of course. Flames and
insults directly to me, please. I will collect them and post
noteworthies, edited (censored ??) for public consumption. ]
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 84 23:54:18 pdt
From: sun!gnu@Berkeley (John Gilmore)
Subject: NSA concern over phone tapping
What a joke! The NSA-designed phones will of course use DES chips
(where else will you get 500,000 chips capable of "secure" speech
encryption in 2 years) which they can read but few others can.
Putting half a million cheap, *truly* secure phones on the US/world
market would make it possible for all countries and interested parties
to keep their information safe from the NSA. Somehow I think they're
sharper than that -- so what's the hidden purpose?
Maybe this means they have recently developed hardware and/or software
for relatively cheap (eg non-Cray) breaking of DES. They can now
affort to decrypt on a large scale (eg at point of interception, for
filtering before transmission to NSA), while nobody else can. DES is
used so little these days that encrypted traffic stands out from the
usual cleartext and can be singled out for attention by interceptors
with limited decrypting capability. (The gov't under Carter only had
150 DES phones??? Who could you call?) With these new phones, lots
of who-cares stuff will be encrypted, making it harder for people
without their new algorithms to decide what to decrypt.
The other half of the joke is that the NSA's job throughout the world
is to do exactly what they accuse other countries of doing. They are
suspected of doing it in the US too. They had the law rewritten
several years ago to permit interception of "envelope" information, as
long as they don't listen to the people talking (or sending computer
data, etc). This allows them to legally intercept domestic microwave
traffic and analyze the touchtones therein to determine who is calling
to/from numbers they are interested in (eg foreign embassies,
suspected drug dealers). This "envelope" loophole also allows them to
install interception equipment which is capable of full undetectable
wiretapping, but of course they don't exceed their legal charter.
Right.
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest
*********************