Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request
From: gnu@toad.com (John Gilmore)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: BAD Digital Cellular Standard Under Development
Message-ID: <8372@accuvax.nwu.edu>
Date: 29 May 90 04:59:43 GMT
Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu
Organization: TELECOM Digest
Lines: 18
Approved: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 394, Message 7 of 10


One of the engineers I spoke with about the digital cellular stuff
wants it made clear that his opinions are only opinions, not word from
on high.  My statement that I spoke with "engineers" make him think
that people will believe they're facts.  Alas, if only people took my
pronouncements as fact because I'm an engineer...

So far nobody is claiming that the privacy of IS 54's digital cellular
system is really great, just that it's slightly better than analog
cellular.  What burns me is that they could have made it *really
great* with relatively trivial spec and software changes (encryption)
but didn't bother.  (Yes, the changes are "relatively" trivial if you
examine the protocol they are running here.)

He also wants a chance to retract the comment about Dynabooks and
driving; given that a large majority of the cellular phones are
currently sold for cars (my guess -- anyone have figures?), I can see
why he would have equated cellular with car.