Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id AAA01579; Thu, 3 Apr 1997 00:21:30 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 3 Apr 1997 00:21:30 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Message-Id: <199704030521.AAA01579@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #81 TELECOM Digest Thu, 3 Apr 97 00:21:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 81 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson SBC Communications Completes Pacific Telesis Merger (Mike King) Book Review: "Broadband Telecommunications Technology" (Rob Slade) NJ BPU Partially Reverses 201, 908 Splits (John Cropper) Florida PSC to Revisit 904 Split (John Cropper) Re: Administration to Confirm Domestic Crypto (Steve Smith) The Zimmermann Telegram (Monty Solomon) 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 America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.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: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 847-329-0571 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu. The URL is: http://hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to tel-archives@massis.lcs.mit.edu to receive a help file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom Archives. ************************************************************************* * 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. * ************************************************************************* Finally, 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. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mike King Subject: SBC Communications Completes Pacific Telesis Merger Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 21:30:03 PST [No fool!] ----- Forwarded Message ----- Date: Tue, 01 Apr 1997 08:15:49 -0800 From: sqlgate@sf-ptg-fw.pactel.com Subject: SBC Communications Completes Pacific Telesis Merger RELATED DOCUMENTS: * Additional Merger Information FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: April 1, 1997 FOR MORE INFORMATION: Larry L. Solomon (415) 394-2950 or (210) 351-3990 solomonl@corp.sbc.com SBC Communications Completes Pacific Telesis Merger Company Poised to Meet Exploding Global Growth; New Company Pledges More Than $50 Million to Help Underserved in California SAN ANTONIO -- SBC Communications Inc . said it completed its merger involving Pacific Telesis Group following yesterday's ruling by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) approving the merger, action by the two companies' boards of directors and the subsequent filing of articles of merger effective today. The merger creates a company with a market value of $47.9 billion and annual revenues of $23.5 billion, and a formidable new player in the increasingly competitive telecommunications industry. The $16.5 billion merger ranks as the third largest ever completed in U.S. history, surpassed only by RJR Nabisco-Kohlberg, Kravis Roberts (1989) and Walt Disney-Capital Cities/ABC (1996). The new SBC will serve the nation's most populous states -- California and Texas -- as well as seven of the country's top 10 markets, and 16 of the top 50, and selected markets outside the U.S., including Mexico, Chile, South Korea, Taiwan, France, South Africa and Israel. The combined company serves over 31 million access lines in high-growth areas and reaches more than 87 million potential wireless customers across the country. "Growth prospects for our business are outstanding," said Edward E. Whitacre Jr., chairman and chief executive officer. "Exploding demand for Internet access and high-speed data services, strong growth in wireless services, increased demand for basic wireline service, and tremendous opportunities in long-distance and in markets outside the United States -- all point to an exciting future for the new SBC. This historic merger unites two great companies to seize these opportunities for our customers, employees and shareowners." SBC's Board of Directors will consist of: Edward E. Whitacre Jr.; Philip J. Quigley; Clarence C. Barksdale, vice chairman, Board of Trustees, Washington University; James E. Barnes, chairman of the board, president and chief executive officer, MAPCO, Inc.; August A. Busch III, chairman of the board and president, Anheuser-Busch Companies, Inc.; Royce S. Caldwell, president, Southwestern Bell Operations; Ruben R. Cardenas, partner, Cardenas, Whitis & Stephen, L.L. P.; William P. Clark, chief executive officer, Clark Companies; Martin K. Eby Jr., chairman of the board and chief executive officer and president, The Eby Corporation; Herman E. Gallegos, independent management consultant; Jess T. Hay, chairman, Texas Foundation for Higher Education, HCB Enterprises Inc; Admiral Bobby R. Inman, United States Navy, retired; Charles F. Knight, chairman, president and chief executive officer, Emerson Electric Co.; Mary S. Metz, dean, University Extension, University of California, Berkeley; Dr. Haskell M. Monroe Jr., professor of history, The University of Missouri-Columbia; S. Donley Ritchey, managing partner, Alpine Partners; Richard M. Rosenberg, chairman of the board and CEO (Retired), BankAmerica Corporation; Ing. Carlos Slim Helu, chairman of the board, Grupo Carso, S.A. de C.V.; and Patricia P. Upton, president and chief executive officer, Aromatique, Inc. SBC Advisory Board members include: Gilbert F. Amelio, chairman of the board and chief executive officer, Apple Computer, Inc.; Jack S. Blanton, chairman, Houston Endowment, Inc. and president and chief executive officer, Eddy Refining Company; Tom C. Frost, senior chairman of the board and chief executive officer, Cullen/Frost Bankers, Inc. and Toni Rembe, partner in the law firm of Pillsbury Madison and Sutro. The combined company will offer products and services under some of the strongest brands in the industry. The Pacific Bell and Nevada Bell brands will continue to be used in California and Nevada, the Southwestern Bell brand in Texas, Oklahoma, Missouri, Arkansas and Kansas, and the Cellular One brand in Illinois, Massachusetts, Baltimore, Washington, D.C. and New York. Locations served include attractive and growing markets such as Boston, Chicago, Dallas, Houston, Austin, San Antonio, Los Angeles, St. Louis, San Diego, San Francisco and Washington, D.C. The combined company has nearly 110,000 employees, operating cash flow of nearly $10 billion, net income of more than $3 billion and a market value of over $47.9 billion. "This merger better positions SBC to be the telecommunications provider of choice at a time when all markets are opening to competition," said Phil Quigley, SBC vice chairman. "We're ready to enter the long-distance business to give consumers from San Antonio to San Francisco more competitive prices and honest, quality customer service -- which is what people expect from us." Whitacre added, "Our strong leadership, hometown presence and significant investment in the communities we serve, along with our customer-focused employee team, will be the keys to our success as competition heats up." SBC's proven strength in product development, marketing and sales, and solid international investments, complement Pacific Telesis' efficiency in process management and cost containment, Whitacre said. Consumers will benefit from the merger through the integration of the two companies' resources and skills which will promote competition and enhance the development of new, competitively priced telecommunications, entertainment, information and interactive products and services. SBC Communications has modified its logo to incorporate the well-known starburst from the Pacific Telesis Group logo. While the corporate headquarters will be in San Antonio, Texas, the company will maintain headquarters of Pacific Bell and Nevada Bell in California and Nevada. The combined company will create at least 1,000 jobs in California over what would have been the case if the merger had not occurred. Also, four new company headquarters will be located in California: Internet; international; long distance; and administration. As part of the merger approval process, Pacific Bell committed to provide $50 million over the next 10 years to fund efforts to expand telecommuncations services to the state's underserved. This commitment, which builds on SBC's well documented record of community support, was endorsed by a broad coalition of more than 100 California community and consumer groups. The merger is the latest in a series of bold moves by SBC since its formation as an independent company in 1984. The 1987 acquisition of Metromedia put SBC squarely at the forefront of wireless communications just before that segment of the telecommunications industry began growing rapidly. Today, SBC, one of the largest wireless communications companies in the world, is acknowledged to be among the best managed, and has the best market penetration rate in the industry, approaching 11 percent. In 1990, SBC bought a substantial stake in Telefonos de Mexico (Telmex), an investment that has more than doubled in value since and continues to grow along with the Mexican economy. Some of the strategic advantages of the combined company pertain directly to international business -- especially Latin American and Asian markets. More than 50 percent of all international calls to Mexico and 20 percent of all international calls to Asia, originate in locations where the newly combined company has network facilities. The merger involves an exchange of stock with current Pacific Telesis stockholders receiving SBC stock. Each Pacific Telesis shareowner will receive .73145 shares of SBC for each share of Pacific Telesis they own. For example, a Pacific Telesis shareowner holding 1,000 shares of stock will receive 731.45 shares of SBC stock. After the tax-free exchange, approximately 66 percent of the combined company's stock will be retained by SBC shareowners and 34 percent held by Pacific Telesis investors. Pacific Telesis Group is now a subsidiary of SBC Communications. Previously, the merger received approval from shareholders of both SBC and Pacific Telesis, and was cleared by the U.S. Department of Justice, the Federal Communications Commission, the Nevada Public Service Commission, and received support from California Governor Pete Wilson and the California Trade and Commerce Agency, and the Communications Workers of America. Earlier this year, SBC was ranked America's "most admired" telecommunications company by Fortune magazine for the second consecutive year. SBC Communications Inc. is now the nation's second largest telecommunications company and a leading company in the global telecom industry. Through its subsidiaries, it provides innovative communications including local and long-distance telephone, wireless, paging, Internet access, cable TV and messaging services, as well as telecommunications equipment, and directory advertising and publishing. SBC (www.sbc.com) and Pacific Telesis Group reported combined 1996 revenues of $23.5 billion. --------- Mike King * Oakland, CA, USA * mk@wco.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 02 Apr 1997 10:51:53 EST From: Rob Slade Subject:Book Review: "Broadband Telecommunications Technology" by Lee/Kang BKBBTLTC.RVW 961201 "Broadband Telecommunications Technology", Byeong Gi Lee/Minho Kang/Jonghee Lee, 1996, 0-89006-866-6, U$89.00 %A Byeong Gi Lee %A Minho Kang %A Jonghee Lee %C 685 Canton St., Norwood, MA 02062 %D 1996 %G 0-89006-866-6 %I Artech House/Horizon %O U$89.00 617-769-9750 800-225-9977 fax: 617-769-6334 artech@world.std.com %P 658 %T "Broadband Telecommunications Technology, 2nd ed." This work is an overview of many high speed telecommunications technologies, particularly in regard to "to the curb" situations. Because of the breadth of coverage, it is hard to define or determine a specific area of topic of primary emphasis. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1996 BKBBTLTC.RVW 961201 ====================== roberts@decus.ca rslade@vcn.bc.ca rslade@vanisl.decus.ca ------------------------------ From: John Cropper Subject: NJ BPU Partially Reverses 201, 908 Splits Date: Wed, 02 Apr 1997 16:26:41 -0500 Organization: lincs.net Reply-To: jcropper@NOSPAM.lincs.net April 2: The NJ BPU has partially reversed portions of the 201 and 908 NPA splits, allowing cellular users to retain their 201/908 NXXs. While this will prove more convenient for cellular users, it is expected to shave 3-6 months of the life of the reconfigured 201 & 908 NPA, and will create discontiguous pockets of 908 and 201 NXXs within certain 732 and 973 cities. Should 609 end up being a split, expect cellular phones to be grandfathered in as well with THAT split ... John Cropper, Webmaster voice: 888.NPA.NFO2 Legacy IS, Networking & Comm. Solutions 609.637.9434 P.O. Box 277 fax: 609.637.9430 Pennington, NJ 08534-0277 Unsolicited commercial e-mail is subject mailto:jcropper@lincs.net to a fee as outlined in the agreement at http://www.lincs.net/ http://www.lincs.net/spamoff.htm ------------------------------ From: John Cropper Subject: Florida PSC to Revisit 904 Split Date: Wed, 02 Apr 1997 18:38:18 -0500 Organization: lincs.net Reply-To: jcropper@NOSPAM.lincs.net From the Tallahassee Democrat... Signals are switched in battle for 904 area code Tallahassee and Big Bend residents may have to change those familiar numbers after all. By Gary Fineout DEMOCRAT STAFF WRITER Just when you thought it was safe for your business cards, fax lines and phone numbers, the battle over North Florida's area code has returned. Tallahassee and Big Bend residents may wind up losing the 904 area code after all. That's because national groups and federal regulators have questioned a proposal to split Tallahassee, Jacksonville and Daytona Beach into three different area codes. Florida's Public Service Commission, the panel that regulates utilities, voted Tuesday to review its January decision to keep Tallahassee, Pensacola and Panama City in the 904 area code. "That's a surprise," said Tallahassee Mayor Scott Maddox. "I thought this issue was decided. I will urge them to keep 904. If you look at the expense to our local businesses, as well as state and local government, it will be tremendous." The PSC will hold a hearing on April 16 when commissioners could stick with their earlier decision or order a new area code for Tallahassee. "Once we have heard that new evidence, our options are wide open," said PSC Chairman Julia Johnson. "I thought it necessary to the extent we had received information, we should see and hear what their concerns might be." A new area code is needed for North Florida because the 904 area code will run out of 7.6 million possible numbers in 1998 due to growth in the number of telephones, cellular phones, fax machines and computers. BellSouth Telecommunications wanted a new area code selected for North Florida last year. But disputes over which region would receive the new code forced the issue before commissioners. While most phone companies favored keeping 904 for Jacksonville and switching the Panhandle, state officials predicted changing Tallahassee's area code would cost taxpayers $2.48 million. Commissioners voted 3-2 to keep the Panhandle in 904, while assigning a new area code to the Jacksonville area and an additional area code to Daytona Beach. The decision to create two new area codes is what has been questioned by those at the federal level. The problem is that as more and more states scramble to add new area codes, national groups responsible for handing out area codes are trying to stick to a process that conserves the remaining numbers. What has been proposed in Florida also has been proposed in Utah and California, causing one advisory group to write to the Federal Communications Commission to tell them of the looming problems. That advisory group, the North American Numbering Council, wrote to PSC officials and pointed out that giving 386 to Daytona Beach and 234 to Jacksonville didn't follow industry guidelines. While the area code for Daytona Beach would last more than 30 years, Tallahassee and Jacksonville will run out of numbers by 2006. Industry guidelines call for area codes adjoining each other to run out of numbers at roughly the same time. Plus, with the continued proliferation of telecommunications services, there is a desire to make sure new area codes are handed out only when truly needed. Utah and California regulators, like those in Florida, have proposed creating area codes that would last 30 years. "The gist of the letters is that you're not using the codes in an efficient manner," said Stan Greer, carrier-service supervisor for the PSC. John Cropper, Webmaster voice: 888.NPA.NFO2 Legacy IS, Networking & Comm. Solutions 609.637.9434 P.O. Box 277 fax: 609.637.9430 Pennington, NJ 08534-0277 Unsolicited commercial e-mail is subject mailto:jcropper@lincs.net to a fee as outlined in the agreement at http://www.lincs.net/ http://www.lincs.net/spamoff.htm ------------------------------ From: sgs@access.digex.net (Steve Smith) Subject: Re: Administration to Confirm Domestic Crypto Date: Wed, 02 Apr 97 23:55:49 GMT Organization: Agincourt Computing In article , david@sternlight.com wrote: > In connection with a news item today about the cracking of digital > cellular phone keypad encoding, ClariNews reports that a senior > Commerce Department official said Wednesday the Clinton administration > plans to introduce a bill soon that would clearly affirm that > encryption users in the US can use any type or strength of encryption > technology. We need to read it *very* carefully ... > (Thanks to ClariNews for the above item -- the article is copyright > and the info above represents a fair use abstract). > Comment: > It is reported that the reason digital cellular encryption was > breakable was that the industry deliberately weakened the key length > at NSA request. If so, this is a scandal, and the assertion (we'll see > what happens) that the administration will introduce such a bill seems > to me to be a clear attempt at damage control. > Despite the industry's attempt at damage control ("we're already > working on a fix" says the trade association), a Qualcomm spokesman > says that the fix will be extraordinarily difficult and expensive, and > require modifying both everyone's digital cellular phone and the cell > site or head end equipment. Qualcomm is the inventor of CDMA and ought > to know what they are talking about. The cellphone industry has consistantly sought legal remedies for things that they should have fixed in their own technology. This is no different. Remember the "cloning" fuss? > I must say that if the assertion is correct about the reasons for the > weak keys, I can no longer support any government policy that would > make law enforcement's job easier at the expense of the entire > population. This is not a police state, and it is high time the FBI, > NSA, and CIA faced up to the fact that when the rights of the rest of > us are concerned, they must do their job the old fashioned way, and > not by seeking shortcuts at the expense of the public's security. It's been obvious for a long time that the Powers that Be have been resisting cellphone security because (in theory) it cuts down on their opportunity to do legal, warrantless phone taps. If they have a warrant, they can simply put their taps in at the switch. The encryption applies only to the RF portion of the link. I say "in theory", because in practice, it turns out to be much harder than it looks. Here in the Washington, DC area, drug dealers are using a combination of pagers, cellphones, and public telephones. When these "insecure" media are combined with rapidly shifting slang and codewords, they give the effect of a secure communications system. (source -- Washington Post article a couple of weeks ago) As to making things easier for law enforcement, the argument came up a year or so ago, "If your daughter were kidnapped, wouldn't you want the police to be able to break the kidnappers' encrypted communication?" My answer is "Yes. And I would also be willing and eager to take a pair of Visegrips and crush the finger joints, one by one, of anybody I suspected of holding out information". We have laws against torture. Several thousand years of bad experience shows us that they're necessary. I suspect that communications security is in the same class. The "fixes" to make things a bit easier for law enforcement seem to muck up the rest of the system for everybody else. The US Government's ham-fisted attempts at "infowar" (tapping Japanese communications during trade negotiations and computer breakins at the European Parliamant) do not give me a warm fuzzy feeling about either the Government's intentions or its competence. Steve Smith sgs@access.digex.net Agincourt Computing +1 (301) 681 7395 "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler." ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 01:25:17 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: The Zimmermann Telegram Reply-To: monty@roscom.COM Begin forwarded message: Date: Mon, 31 Mar 1997 13:04:45 -0800 (PST) From: Phil Agre Subject: The Zimmermann Telegram =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= This message was forwarded through the Red Rock Eater News Service (RRE). Send any replies to the original author, listed in the From: field below. You are welcome to send the message along to others but please do not use the "redirect" command. For information on RRE, including instructions for (un)subscribing, send an empty message to rre-help@weber.ucsd.edu =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= From: Dave Del Torto [SMTP:ddt@pgp.com] Sent: Monday, March 31, 1997 12:00 PM To: telegram-request@pgp.com Subject: The Zimmermann Telegram Ladies, Gentlemen & Cryptographers, I'm pleased to announce the imminent release of the premier issue of the new "Zimmermann Telegram" newsletter. The Zimmermann Telegram will be a regularly-published, paper-based, English-language technical update newsletter from PGP's engineering staff, and will cover a variety of cryptographic and other lighthearted topics which we may otherwise be restricted from discussing via electronic media. The newsletter will be sent, in compliance with US law, by regular postal mail to anyone interested in technical information about PGP -- anywhere in the world. If you are now developing PGP-related freeware, shareware, commercial or academic cryptographic software, or you plan in future to become a registered PGP Developer or PGP World Partner (those programs are currently under construction and will be formally announced later) or if you are just interested in technical information about cryptography, we think you'll enjoy reading our newsletter. In the premier issue, along with important updates regarding changes to the PGP packet format, CRC security problems and new extensions to the PGP key format which are not available through any other medium, you'll learn about the significance of the "Zimmermann Telegram" name. Meanwhile, visit this page: . Scheduled to be mailed imminently, the premier issue will be sent free to anyone who provides us with a postal mail address. After that, regular subscriptions will require a modest fee (to be announced) to cover our mailing costs, but we've committed to offering a limited number of free one-year subscriptions to interested members of the cryptography community. To request your free subscription, please send email to me at: In the body of your request, please include the form below (items between the cut-lines ONLY, and preferably PGP-signed), and replace the lines with your complete postal mail address info as indicated. We'll put an HTML subscription form on our website, but for the premier issue, we're managing the subscription process via email. Thank you for your patience as we deploy rapidly. :) ............................. form begins here ............................. The Zimmermann Telegram PGP's Technical Newsletter - Premier Issue & One-Year Free Subscription Request - Subscription Information (Premier Issue): name (optional, but appreciated) title (optional) organization/dept (optional, as appropriate) street address mailstop (optional) city/state/province zip-/postal-code country Free Subscription Category: (please [x] only one) [ ] academic [ ] public library [ ] media maven [ ] human-rights/privacy activist [ ] corporate security [ ] impoverished cypherpunk [ ] software analyst [ ] law enforcement [ ] freedom-fighter [ ] intelligence agency [ ] freeware developer .............................. form ends here .............................. Privacy Lock: If you are concerned about the privacy of your personal information when sent over unsecured public networks, please feel free to encrypt your subscription request to my key, which can be found at: . Pretty Good Privacy Inc will take all reasonable precautions to protect this information and will not use it for any other purpose without first asking your permission. Also, PGP will not sell or give the information to another entity and will store the list securely between mailings. Please feel free to circulate/forward this message (with PGP-signature) among your friends and colleagues (remember: the free subscription offer expires on 30 April 1997). We look forward to your comments on The Zimmermann Telegram and thank you for your continued support of PGP. dave Dave Del Torto +1.415.524.6231 tel Senior Technical Evangelist +1.415.572.1932 fax Pretty Good Privacy, Inc. http://www.pgp.com web X-PGP header key ........................ "The Zimmermann Telegram" ........................ Copyright (c) 1997 Pretty Good Privacy, Inc. All Rights Reserved. PGP and Pretty Good Privacy are registered trademarks of Pretty Good Privacy, Inc. Permission is granted to the reader to reproduce and distribute exact copies of this document, in physical or electronic form, on a non-commercial basis (i.e., at no direct or indirect charge). This document has been made available in hard copy on a subscription basis and is available in public libraries in the United States. Accordingly, and solely for purposes of U.S. Export Control laws and regulations (but not copyright or other intellectual property laws), this document is considered in the "public domain." The information in this document is of an exploratory or experimental nature. As such, it is subject to change without notice and is provided "AS IS." No guarantee is made that it is free of errors or that it will meet your requirements. While we welcome your feedback on this document, we are unable to provide any technical support for its contents. ............................................................................ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPmail 5.0 beta Charset: noconv iQCVAwUBM0ANsaHBOF9KrwDlAQG0bAQA17mtcxR860pFRPPdcw4LYL1pEecEoTXW tzBCq0M84aKgv9qamZQeOkyHaxXkHGgyChaHwlsea3Q46avFvJrJfHysz/YGrvy1 qIIDrEQCqVU6emLuOvziiNLefNcj0qv2YLAfLuSy78sCTfOtfmX6IrXf7D3PDwhP oICHxH1iR4E= =gI03 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #81 *****************************