TELECOM@Usc-Eclb (12/27/82)
TELECOM AM Digest Monday, 27 December 1982 Volume 2 : Issue 140
Today's Topics:
Registration Program And Party Lines
Legalities - Owning Long Cords Vs. Renting Them
Alternative Long Distance Carrier Question
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Friday, 17 Dec 1982 07:40:01-PST
From: RHEA::CASTOR::J_COVERT%Shasta at SU-Score
Subject: The registration program and party lines
The registration program does not permit installation of registered
sets by the user on party lines because the interface is not always a
simple two-wire interface.
On some party lines, the central office determines which party is
making the call (for billing purposes) by measuring the circuit
parameters of the phone at the end of the line. This can take several
forms, the most common of which is a ground test, to see whether the
bell is between ground and the ring or tip side of the line.
Since setting this sort of thing up properly requires the set to be
opened and wires to be moved, only the phone company is allowed to do
this.
------------------------------
Date: 17 Dec 82 9:12:40-PST (Fri)
From: Mark Wadsworth <mw%uci@USC-ECL>
Subject: Long curly cords
Chris Kent complains that the phone company won't let him have a long
handset cord. At the Pacific Telephone Phone Center stores here, they
sell curly cords in 6, 12, and 25 foot lengths. Something must have
changed, because about a year ago I asked for a replacement for a
replacement for a long wall cord and they told me they didn't supply
them any more, for the legal reasons mentioned by Chris. Maybe I take
responsibility for the hazard by owning it myself.
------------------------------
Date: 19 Dec 1982 2331-PST
From: ROODE at SRI-NIC (David Roode)
Subject: alternative long distance carrier question
Location: EJ296 Phone: (415) 859-2774
Who can tell me if Sprint and MCI enforce a ban on use of their
services for intrastate connections? I understand ITT City Call does
not .
[At least in Los Angeles, both Sprint and MCI don't enforce the ban.
Apparently, someone claimed that the call goes interstate physically,
and because of that dispite the fact that the destination and source
are in the state, it is an interstate call. ITT used to enforce it,
but now has stopped doing so. In Hartford, CT., you can call numbers
local to other Connecticut switches, but you can't use it to make
calls local to Hartford (my mother lives in a fringe area of the
Hartford Local Calling area, and wants to call a number which is local
to Hartford but toll for her. In LA you can make any call you want.
--JSol]
------------------------------
Date: 20 Dec 1982 1249-PST
Sender: GEOFF at SRI-CSL
Subject: Privacy of Cellular mobile phone service.
From: the tty of Geoffrey S. Goodfellow
Reply-To: Geoff at SRI-CSL
To: Gavan at MC
Your question is best answered by comparing the aspects of cellular
mobile phone service to the "traditional" mobile phone service(s) that
exist today:
--- Coverage area.
In today's mobile phone services, the object is to cover the widest
area possible on each channel/frequency. Hence, you can
"hear"/"listen in" on a conversation over a very wide area. This
makes for poor frequency reuse, as you might imagine.
However, with cellular, the object is high frequency reuse, where the
coverage area of any single channel will be between ~1 and ~8 miles.
So, in a sense, your conversation is being compartmentalized into
smaller coverage areas. If one wanted the ability to listen in on any
phone conversation, they would need to have a reciever placed within
the coverage area of each "cell" a given cellular service area might
cover.
--- Hand-Off.
In today's mobile phone service, there is no hand-off. When you get
on the channel, by the virtue that the high powered transmitter covers
a large area, you stay on it until you are done (or drop out of its
coverage area).
With cellular, however, depending on the coverage area of a given
"cell" and your mobility during a conversation, you can be
"handed-off" to another pair of frequencies in another cell any number
of times. In order for someone to follow your conversation, if they
were so inclined, they would firstly, have to have synthesized
recievers placed within the coverage areas of the cells they wished to
monitor. All of the synthesized recievers would then have to be
linked back to a central monitoring station. When a call of interest
is detected, they would have to listen in for the data burst the cell
sends out to direct the mobile to retune to a new pair of frequencies.
The central monitoring station would then have to slurp up this data
burst, and also "know" which cell they belonged to and tune into the
new pair in that cell. Messy & complicated as you an see.
--- No manual units.
Today's mobile phones (usually) have two operating modes. One is
"automatic" (Direct-Dial) and the other is "manual" (Operator places
call). Hence, even when operating in an automatic, direct-dial
system, where you do not "listen in" on the channel to see if it is
not in use (as you would in a "manual system"), you can just flip a
switch and change your unit from operating in "automatic" mode to
operate in "manual" mode, which then allows you to "listen in" and
monitor conversations.
However, with cellular, there is no such thing as manual placed calls
or service. Everything is directly dialed, and hence, the mobile
units, both car mounted and portable, are only capable of
automatic/direct-dial operation and there is no provision/capability,
to change the unit to operate in a "manual mode" and listen in on any
channel as.
--- Current scanners.
800 MHz is a bit more private than 450 or 150 MHz in that the scanners
available today for around $300, at least that I have seen, haven't
had an 800 MHz capability (YET!).
--- Summary.
If you have a scanner which can pick up 800 MHz, then you can listen
in on cellular phone conversations. However, any given phone
conversation would have to stay within the coverage area of the cell
you are in (i.e. not hand-off) in order for you to listen to it from
beginning to end. Second, given the smaller coverage area of a given
cell and the greater number of channels, listening in on calls is
going to be harder. And finally, given the fact that the mobile units
themselves will not have a "manual" capability, users will be
prevented from evesdropping via their mobile sets.
------------------------------
Date: Wednesday, 22 Dec 1982 14:36:28-PST
From: ELROND::C_STRUTT
Reply-to: "ELROND::C_STRUTT c/o" <RHEA::CASTOR::J_COVERT%Shasta at Sumex-Aim>
Subject: More phone overcharging. Both Disney and New England Telephone
Hi John, I saw a copy of your note on phone charges at Disneyland, and
I thought I'd let you know what I noticed. One of the calls I made
was to Pasadena, and I had checked the phone book - it told me I would
get charged $0.24. I assumed I would get charged $1.24 or thereabouts
because of the hotel surcharge. Boy, was I surprised when I checked
my bill and found the charge listed as $3 .96!!! I haven't complained
to the hotel (I have already paid the bill of course) but I would be
interested to know if you have found out anything more.
Another thing - you mentioned that you got charged for a 3 minute call
that never answered. This is interesting, because on my last home
phone bill, I was charged for 5 separate one minute calls to
California in November - my wife phones here brother from time to
time. In each case, the phone was not answered - we complained to the
telephone company and they agreed without question to drop the
disputed charges. However, given what happened to you I am beginning
to wonder if the the phone company (or maybe just Pacific Bell) have a
good thing going - after all, who usually checks their whole bill. I
would like to hear your views on this.
Colin
------------------------------
Date: Wednesday, 22 Dec 1982 14:40:37-PST
From: CASTOR::D_DONCHIN
Reply-to: "CASTOR::D_DONCHIN c/o" <RHEA::CASTOR::J_COVERT%Shasta at Sumex-Aim>
Subject: N. E. Tel in New Hampshire won't allow mixed flat/message service
For your interest, just got into a little squabble with the phone
company. I have two phone numbers in my house for which I get two
distinct bills. One phone I use for personal calls, while the other
is used for the modem. Because I use the modem heavily, I have the
regular billing on that phone line, where I get unlimited local calls
for a flat fee. However I noticed that I don't use the other number
much, and in fact I received a brochure with my last bill that spoke
about the advantages of message unit billing. So I asked the phone
company to change the billing of one number to message units, which
they refused to do if I kept the other number without that same type
of billing. Thus they are forcing me to pay for service I don't need
or want on one of my numbers, for which I receive a separate bill
anyway. Sometimes you can get very frustrated dealing with those
people.
Thanks for listening,
Dale
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest
**********************
-------