Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa22247; 4 Jan 95 0:30 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (4.1/SMI-4.0-proxy) id AA27151; Tue, 3 Jan 95 20:12:06 CST Return-Path: Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (4.1/SMI-4.0-proxy) id AA27144; Tue, 3 Jan 95 20:12:02 CST Date: Tue, 3 Jan 95 20:12:02 CST From: telecom@delta.eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson)) Message-Id: <9501040212.AA27144@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #1 TELECOM Digest Tue, 3 Jan 95 20:12:00 CST Volume 15 : Issue 1 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Happy New Year! Administrivia, et al ... (TELECOM Digest Editor) UC Berkely Short Courses on Broadband and Wireless Comm (Harvey Stern) 21 LEC's Violate Comm Act, Ordered To Pay Damages (Alan Boritz) Washington Telecom News (enews@access.digex.net) Need Some Basic Leased Line Information (William E. White) "High-End" Phone Products (Sohail Malik) Bell Atlanta-PA Insert Disclaimer (Peter M. Weiss) Memorized Area Codes (Stephen Denny) Direct Rate Negotiation (VN) (Glenn Foote) Finland Data Transmission (Jack Pestaner) Personal Communcications (Arndt Ritterbecks) Script Translation for TDD/TTY Use (primeperf@aol.com) Cell Phone Programming (Alex McPhail) 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: * telecom-request@eecs.nwu.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: 9457-D Niles Center Road Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 708-329-0571 Fax: 708-329-0572 ** Article submission address only: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu ** Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * 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. * ************************************************************************* Additionally, 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 3 Jan 95 19:36:57 CST From: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Subject: Happy New Year! Administrivia, et al ... First of all, happy new year to everyone. I hope 1995 is a good year for you, and I certainly hope it is better for me than 1994, which was not one I want to repeat anytime soon. To close out the old year in the style to which I seem to have become accustomed, I discovered that the program I use to update the mailing list was malfunctioning, and had been in a clever, devious and barely discernable way for about a month or more. Quite a few people who had requested addition to the mailing list had not been added, and folks who requested deletion were still getting copies. I spent quite a bit of time manually adding and deleting a few hundred entries over the past couple of days. I *think* everything is now up to date. If you are still getting copies of the Digest and have previously requested deletion, please advise me personally. If you have previously requested addition to the list and have not been added, also let me know. (I hear astute readers asking: if that was the case, then how would they see this message to know they were supposed to ask again? Well, they see it on Usenet in the telecom newsgroup, or one of the other various places where the Digest is distributed. We are getting former Usenetters in droves. Lots of folks there are going strictly with the privately maintained, moderated e-journals.) The Telecom Archives has also been updated. It was getting to be a mess with outdated files and it was very disorganized. A new section of the Archives is devoted to the dozens of book reviews which have appeared here in the Digest over the past couple of years. Suggestion: not all the reviews which appeared here have necessarily been ported to that directory. If you wrote a review or a book which was discussed here, check out the Archives and make sure you are included. If not, and you want to be, let me know. George Gilder has been established in a main directory at the Archives. Previously his writings were mixed in with other reports and essays. The index of authors and subjects in TELECOM Digest has been updated to include all of 1994. You can use these interactively via the Telecom Archives Email Information Service with the SEARCH command or you can pull the entire files, your choice. The index goes back only to 1989. I'd like to go back further, but I need some professional help in figuring out how to extract the desired information from those old files. By now you should have received a copy of the new 1995 Table of Contents/ Index which was distributed earlier Tuesday evening. If not, then ask for a copy. I am told we might have a newly revised telecom FAQ by the end of February, and we might have some updated area code and country code files soon also. In other news: I decided to bite the bullet and as of January 1, 1995 my official employer is The TELECOM Digest, a not-for-profit educational activity registered in Cook County, Illinois. Whether or not I get paid any salary depends upon you, my ultimate employers. I guess you know what that means without further elaboration. Let's get on with this, the first issue of the new year. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ From: southbay@garnet.berkeley.edu Subject: UC Berkely Short Courses on Broadband and Wireless Communications Date: 4 Jan 1995 01:18:38 GMT Organization: University of California, Berkeley U.C. Berkeley Continuing Education in Engineering Announces 3 Short Courses on Broadband Communications, Wireless Networks MODERN TELECOMMUNICATIONS: Wide Area Networks, Personal Communication Systems, Network Management and Control, and Multimedia Applications (March 2-3, 1995) This course is designed as a gentle but comprehensive overview of telecommunications including current status and future directions. This course traces the evolution of telecommunications, starting from its voice roots and progressing through local, metropolitan, and wide area networks, narrowband ISDN, asynchronous transfer mode, broadband ISDN, satellite systems, optical communications, cellular radio, personal communication systems, all-optical networks, and multimedia services. Lecturer: Anthony S. Acampora, Ph.D., Professor, Electrical Engineering, Columbia University. He is Director, Center for Telecommunications Research. He became a professor following a 20 year career at AT&T Bell Laboratories, is an IEEE Fellow, and is a former member of the IEEE Communications Society Board of Governors. SONET/ATM-BASED BROADBAND NETWORKS: Systems, Architectures and Designs (March 29-31, 1995) It is widely accepted that future broadband networks will be based on the SONET (Synchronous Optical Network) standards and the ATM (Asynchronous transfer Mode) technique. This course is an in-depth examination of the fundamental concepts and the implementation issues for development of future high-speed networks. Topics include: Broadband ISDN Transfer Protocol, high speed computer/network interface (HiPPI), ATM switch architectures, ATM network congestion/flow control, VLSI designs in SONET/ATM networks. This course is intended for engineers who are currently active or anticipate future involvement in this field. Lecturer: H. Jonathan Chao, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Brooklyn Polytechnic University. Dr. Chao holds more than a dozen patents and has authored over 40 technical publications in the areas of ATM switches, high-speed computer communications, and congestion/flow control in ATM networks. NETWORKS FOR DIGITAL WIRELESS ACCESS: Cellular, Voice, Data, Packet, and Personal Communication Systems (March 6-8, 1995) This comprehensive course is focused on the principles, technologies, system architectures, standards, and market forces driving wireless access. At the core of this course are the cellular/microcellular/ frequency reuse concepts needed to enable adequate wireless access capacity for Personal Communication Services (PCS). Presented are both the physical-level issues associated with wireless access and the network-level issues arising from the inherent mobility of the subscriber. Standards are fully treated including GSM (TDMA), IS-54 (North American TDMA), IS-95 (CDMA), CT2, DCT 900/CT3, IEEE 802.11, DCS 1800, and Iridium. Emerging concepts for wireless ATM are also developed. This course is intended for engineers who are currently active or anticipate future involvement in this field. Lecturer: Anthony S. Acampora, Ph.D., Professor, Electrical Engineering, Columbia University. He is Director, Center for Telecommunications Research. He became a professor following a 20 year career at AT&T Bell Laboratories, is an IEEE Fellow, and is a former member of the IEEE Communications Society Board of Governors. For more information (complete course descriptions, outlines, instructor bios, etc.) send your postal address or fax to: Harvey Stern or Loretta Lindley U.C. Berkeley Extension/Southbay 800 El Camino Real Ste. 150 Menlo Park, CA 94025 Tel: (415) 323-8141 Fax: (415) 323-1438 ------------------------------ Subject: 21 LEC's Violate Comm Act, Ordered To Pay Damages From: drharry!aboritz@uunet.uu.net (Alan Boritz) Date: Tue, 03 Jan 95 16:28:13 EST Organization: Harry's Place - Mahwah NJ - +1 201 934 0861 From ftp.fcc.gov: NEWS Report No. DC-594 COMMON CARRIER ACTION December 23, 1994 DAMAGES AWARDED FOR LEC VIOLATIONS OF RATE OF RETURN PRESCRIPTION In response to complaints filed by several long distance carriers, the Commission has determined that 21 local exchange carriers (LECs) have violated the Communications Act by earning in excess of the rate of return for interstate access services prescribed by the Commission for the period January 1, 1989, through December 31, 1990. The complainants, with the LECs about whom they complained in parenthesis, are American Network Exchange et al. (Pacific Bell); Cable&Wireless et al. (GTE California, GTE Florida, GTE North - Indiana, Michigan, Missouri and Wisconsin, GTE Northwest, Contel West Rate Group, Contel East/South Rate Group, New York Telephone, BellSouth, Ameritech, US WEST); Call-America (US WEST); LDDSMetromedia Communications (United Telephone Company of Florida, United Telephone System - Midwest, Centel - Texas, Centel - Virginia, Cincinnati Bell); MCI Telecommunications Corp. et al. (New York Telephone, BellSouth, Ameritech, East Ascension Telephone Co., Cincinnati Bell, Southwestern Bell); and WilTel, Inc. (Pacific Bell). The Commission awarded monetary damages, plus interest, for the defendants' violations but allowed the defendants to offset the complainants' damages to the extent that the complainants purchased access services from the defendants during the period in question at rates that produced earnings below the Commission's prescribed levels. After taking into account these offsets, the Commission has ordered the LECs to pay monetary damages amounting to $3,435,968, exclusive of interest. The highest single damages award is against US West in the amount of $926,779. US West is also liable in the aggregate for $1,236,709, the highest aggregate damages awarded against any defendant in this proceeding. Action by the December 23, 1994, by Memorandum Opinion and Order (FCC 94-339). Chairman Hundt, Commissioners Quello, Barrett, Ness and Chong. - FCC - News Media contact: Susan Lewis Sallet and Maureen Peratino at (202) 418-0500. Common Carrier Bureau contacts: Donna N. Lampert at (202) 418-1500 and Colleen Heitkamp at (202) 418-0960. ----------------- aboritz%drharry@uunet.uu.net or uunet!drharry!aboritz Harry's Place (drharry.UUCP) - Mahwah NJ USA - +1-201-934-0861 ------------------------------ From: enews@access.digex.net (enews) Subject: Washington Telecom News Date: 3 Jan 1995 11:42:55 -0500 Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA The featured article from the December 26 issue of WASHINGTON TELECOM NEWS looks at the market problems faced by American telecom companies. Here is an excerpt from "THE `ALLURING PARADOX' OF U.S. TELCOS AND FOREIGN MARKETS." According to the Economic Strategy Institute's (ESI) Crossed Wires: How Foreign Regulations and U.S. Policies Are Holding Back the U.S. Telecommuni-cations Services Industry, "The dearth of U.S. participation in key foreign markets can be explained by prohibitive government regulations that restrict U.S. firms from exploiting their competitive advantage in telecommunications services." The report's principal author, ESI Managing Director Larry Chimerine, added that foreign barriers have resulted in a $4 billion trade deficit in phone services and lost opportunities to pursue more that $288 billion in potential revenues. Although some of the deficit may be attributed to the fact that there is more traffic originating in the United States resulting in more access charges to foreign telco providers, more than half of that deficit -- $2.1 billion -- is because of overpayments for that access. "Foreign [companies] use this mechanism to overcharge U.S. consumers and discriminate against the U.S. by charging significantly more for terminating calls from the United States than for calls originating in other countries, despite small cost differentials," said the report's co-author, research associate Erik Olbeter. ESI's Recommendations to Remedy the Situation To rectify the situation, the ESI recommends that the United States complete the deregulation of the domestic market, which would place pressure on foreign governments to liberalize their own under threat of reciprocal restricted market access. In addition, the government must adopt a proactive, incentive- based strategy to open foreign markets. "The U.S. already has one of the most open telecommunications markets in the world, allowing foreign competitors to pursue cellular properties and partnerships," Chimerine said. "If progress is not made, the FCC should consider the home of a carrier when reviewing applica-tions." This approach probably would not hurt U.S. companies in the long run. "We don't have much to lose because we're not there anyway," Chimerine said. "At some point, we have to stand up and do what's right for the U.S. economy." Finally, ESI's Olbeter suggested instituting a cost-based, non- discriminatory international settlement system to determine settlement rates on international phone traffic. -------------- So begins this issue's featured article from WASHINGTON TELECOM NEWS. This article and others from WASHINGTON TELECOM NEWS and additional publications can be viewed at no charge on The Electronic Newsstand, a service which collects articles, editorials, and table of contents from over 220 magazines and provides them to the Global Internet community. Access to The Electronic Newsstand is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week via Gopher, an information navigation and retrieval technology from the University of Minnesota. For those without a local Gopher client program, The Electronic Newsstand provides a telnet account which will allow you to use a text based Gopher client to access our service. To access The Electronic Newsstand, via Local Gopher Client: Hostname: gopher.enews.com Port: 2100 via the Gopher Home Menu at U of Minn: Other Gopher and Information Servers/ North America/ USA/ General/ The Electronic Newsstand (tm) via Gopher Link Information: Name=The Electronic Newsstand Type=1 Port=2100 Path=1/ Host=gopher.enews.com via Telnet: Hostname: gopher.enews.com Loginname: enews Password: via World Wide Web: URL: http://www.enews.com via electronic mail: Send a blank email message to gophermail@enews.com to retrieve files. We are also available for America Online users in the Gopher area under Literature and Books. If you have any suggestions on how we might improve this service, or need more information, please email staff@enews.com. --The Electronic Newsstand Staff [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: This is a really great service which I have always been happy to help publicize. They've gone to a lot of effort and work to prepare a very nice system. Check it out. PAT] ------------------------------ From: bwhite@oucsace.cs.ohiou.edu (William E. White) Subject: Need Some Basic Leased Line Information Organization: Ohio University, Computer Science Department Date: Tue, 03 Jan 1995 21:45:27 GMT A friend and I are interested in getting a leased line to a commercial internet service provider, and have some basic questions that we haven't found decent answers to yet. Specifically, we've contacted OARNet, and received information on ISDN, 56Kb, LVT1, and T1 connections. However, our understanding is that we need to provide the local loop to the nearest OARNet site -- in our case Columbus (we're in Athens, about 100 miles from Columbus). Specifically, what do we *do* to provide this local loop? I'm assuming it's done through our local telco (GTE -- ugh!), but are the costs based on how far it is to Columbus, or how far it is from our site to the phone company? And if the latter is true, would it make sense to find a cheaper provider than OARNet that might be further away? Thank you for your suggestions; my knowledge of telecom stuff is very limited. Heck, I'm not even sure what a T1 line *is*, other than 1.5MBps and around $2.5K per month from OARnet. Bill White +1-614-594-3434 | bwhite@oucsace.cs.ohiou.edu 44 Canterbury, Athens OH 45701 | finger for PGP2.2 block http://oucsace.cs.ohiou.edu/personal/bwhite.html (check it out!) ------------------------------ From: malik@access.digex.net (Sohail Malik) Subject: "High-end" Phone Products Date: 3 Jan 1995 03:20:23 -0500 Organization: Alif International I'm looking to purchase a telephone with the following features: 2 or 3 lines Conference facility Speaker phone capability Hangable on the wall Cordless I have not found too many of these on the market, at least not from my favorite manufacturers (AT&T and Motorola). In particular, the confer- ence facility needs to be high quality (many I've tried make it hard for the conferenced parties to hear each other). Would anyone be able to recommend particular brands/models that fit these requirements? Also, are there any mail-order places or magazines that specialize in these types of things that I should look at? Thanks in advance, Sohail ------------------------------ Organization: Penn State University Date: Tue, 3 Jan 1995 10:06:52 EST From: Peter M. Weiss Subject: Bell Atlanta-PA Insert Disclaimer Found in my Bell Atlantic-PA December bill: "You cannot use Caller ID blocking to block your number when you call an 800 or 900 number. The number goes to the company who provides this service. We do not have a way to block your number when you call an 800 or 900 number. You should know that some companies use your number for marketing and other reasons. However, after April 12, 1995 the FCC has said that they must first ask you if they can use this information for other purposes." Pete-Weiss@psu.edu (Penn State U) ------------------------------ From: sdenny@spd.dsccc.com (Stephen Denny) Subject: Memorized Area Codes Date: 3 Jan 1995 19:15:07 GMT Organization: DSC Communications Corporation, Plano, Texas USA In the small tourist town of Pigeon Forge, Tennessee, located at the foothills of the Great Smoky Mountains, is an amusement park named Dollywood. It is owned by the well-known singer Dolly Parton who originated from Pigeon Forge. At one of the large theatres at the park, there is a fellow who does an audience warm-up act for a show. As part of his act he has the audience call out their favorite area codes and he tells them their location. He is quite good and is virtually never stumped. I suspect that with all the area code splits, he is going to have his hands full keeping up! Stephen Denny sdenny@sun004.cpdsc.com DSC Communications Corp. Plano, TX, USA **Standard Disclaimer** ------------------------------ From: glnfoote@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Glenn Foote) Subject: Direct Rate Negotiation (VN) Date: 3 Jan 1995 01:13:34 -0500 Organization: The Greater Columbus Freenet I need to find out how major telecom providers are charging for High Volume Services. For example, if a company is (or is thinking of) using a Virtual Network (or the like) and is generating well in excess of 150,000 long distance (48 states only) network hours per month, (plus another 20,000 hours of inbound 800) can that company reasonably expect to negotiate rates with the common carriers? If not, at what point, in your opinion, would direct rate negotiations be considered? Does it make any difference in any negotiations if the general types of calls are short, ie; less than 90 seconds for about 80% of the calls. And to what extent does the Time of Day enter into the picture. In general, what cost per minute should any discussion ask for? Is $0.125 too high, is $0.085 too low? Also, What starts the timer? Initial Dial Tone (assuming direct access to LD carrier), End Of Dialing Sequence, Start of Ringing, or Answer by the Called Party. And, what ends the timer? Hang up of Called Party, Central Office indication to Common Carrier, Hang Up of Calling Party, or some combination thereof. Feel free to use E-mail to respond to this one .... Thanks, Glenn L Foote ...... glnfoote@freenet.columbus.oh.us ------------------------------ From: jackp@telecomm.admin.ogi.edu (Jack Pestaner) Subject: Finland Data Transmission Date: 3 Jan 1995 03:48:44 GMT Organization: Oregon Graduate Institute We have been communicating to a site in Finland with autoranging 14.4k modems. On a good day we can run at 9600, but typically at 2400. We have tried AT&T, MCI, and IDB (all are direct digital connections through our PBX), but all seem to be extremely variable. We use NetBlazer modems, same model, on each end. This is really expensive, and we want to move to a more reliable service, as we expect to have longer hold times of three to five hours a day. I checked on a 56k DDS, but cost was about $9K per month. Are there any satellite solutions, or packet solutions that anybody knows of? BTW, we also tried x.25 from Sprint, but service went down often, and Sprint just has the WORST customer service for problem solving. Thanks, Jack ------------------------------ From: eedari@aachen.eed.ericsson.se (Arndt Ritterbecks) Subject: Personal Communcications Date: 3 Jan 1995 19:15:24 GMT Organization: Ericsson Eurolab Deutschland GmbH Reply-To: eedari@aachen.eed.ericsson.se Hello out there! I'm a diploma student at the Ericsson Eurolab in Germany. My final thesis' topic is: "Adaption And Implementation Of UMTS DDB Concepts For PSCS". The goal of the third generation telecommunication system UMTS is the integration of all telecommunication networks taking into account user and terminal mobility. PSCS is a service concept wherein a service provider offers personal communication to an end user. That means: users are able to organize communication to their own preferences. PSCS can be seen as an improvement and continuation of the UPT ideas (UPT: Universal Personal Telecommunication). Both, UMTS and PSCS, are parts of research projects of the European Community. One of my tasks is to develop a database concept for PSCS. For it I have to find all required data to realize PSCS, e.g. data necessary to support the capabilities of different terminals. One of my points of interest is: are there any conventions or standards holding data of users or terminals in a database? Because information about these and related topics is hard to find I would be very pleased about anybody helping me to find newsgroups, mailinglists, ftp servers, WWW URLs, institutes or email-addresses of persons occupied with one of the following topics: UMTS, UPT, PCS, intelligent networks, personal communications, terminal data. Thank you for any help!!! Arndt ------------------------------ From: primeperf@aol.com (Prime perf) Subject: Script Translation for TDD/TTY Use Date: 03 Jan 1995 10:35:31 -0500 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: primeperf@aol.com (Prime perf) Could someone direct me to a script translation service, preferably in the Washington-Baltimore-Richmond area, that can translate information scripts for use on an automated information line accessed by TDD/TTY users? Obviously, I would prefer it if you can recommend a service provider that you have used. Please email direct. ------------------------------ From: amcphail@hookup.net (Alex McPhail) Subject: Cell Phone Programming Date: Tue, 3 Jan 1995 04:45:27 GMT Organization: TeraScope Research Does anyone have information about how to program your cell phone to change your phone number, etc. Thanks in advance, Alex McPhail TeraScope Research amcphail@hookup.net Voice: +1 (613) 730-1416 Fax: +1 (613) 730-1408 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Oh, I'm sure we have all that information among the various readers here. It would help if you would tell us the kind of phone you have. You might also check out the Motorola programming file in the Telecom Archives and the other articles in the cellular sub-directory there. And let's keep it on the up and up, please. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V15 #1 **************************** Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa22648; 4 Jan 95 1:10 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (4.1/SMI-4.0-proxy) id AA28198; Tue, 3 Jan 95 21:04:04 CST Return-Path: Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (4.1/SMI-4.0-proxy) id AA28191; Tue, 3 Jan 95 21:04:01 CST Date: Tue, 3 Jan 95 21:04:01 CST From: telecom@delta.eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson)) Message-Id: <9501040304.AA28191@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #2 TELECOM Digest Tue, 3 Jan 95 21:04:00 CST Volume 15 : Issue 2 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Protest of New Compuserve-Unisys GIF Usage Tax (Pat Clawson) Pinouts on RS232 and Echoed Back Characters (Dave Thompson) Erlang Capacit (ERU.ERUDYG@memo4.ericsson.se) Phone Fraud - PBXs (Paul Murray) Phillipines Service Downtime (Al Niven) Netcom in Boston Brea (Vidur Kapoor) Cellular Direct Number (Sanjay Hiranandani) It's Not Tenex Anymore ... (Chris Cappuccio) Noise Introduced by Bit-Robbing? (Christian Weisgerber) How Can I Encrypt a T-1? (Quinn Lanus) Where Does ISDN Fit In? (Daniel Ritsma) Need Information on IS-54 (Dharshana P. Jayasuriya) What Magazines do You Read? (Patrick Sukhu) Information Wanted on Munich32 Chip (Matthew P. Downs) 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: * telecom-request@eecs.nwu.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: 9457-D Niles Center Road Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 708-329-0571 Fax: 708-329-0572 ** Article submission address only: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu ** Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * 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. * ************************************************************************* Additionally, 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: Pat Clawson Subject: Protest of New Compuserve-Unisys GIF Usage Tax Date: Mon, 2 Jan 95 21:00:58 -0500 Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice) January 2, 1995 An Open Letter to Our Colleagues In the Online Communications Community: The announcement by CompuServe and Unisys that users of the GIF image format must register by January 10 and pay a royalty or face lawsuits for their past usage, is the online communications community's equivalent of the sneak attack at Pearl Harbor. The announcement of the CompuServe-Unisys GIF Tax on December 29, during the lull between Christmas and New Year's Day, was clearly timed to cause maximum damage while an unsuspecting public celebrated the holidays. We at TeleGrafix Communications have no quarrel with those who seek to protect their intellectual property and profit from it. Indeed, we are in business to do the same. We believe those who develop software are entitled to reap financial rewards from their labors. But in our opinion, the timing and circumstances of the CompuServe- Unisys action indicates this is a shakedown of the online communications community by two powerful corporations, rather than a reasonable effort to protect intellectual property. The GIF format has been in widespread public use since 1987. Its widespread use and royalty-free licensing has been encouraged by CompuServe for years. Neither CompuServe or Unisys have made any significant improvements to GIF or its underlying LZW algorithm and compression process to justify charging for what has been free. Giving GIF users only 14 days to comply with sudden, unexpected demands to pay the private CompuServe-Unisys GIF Tax or face prosecution for past usage of what had been promoted for seven years as free, open standard software is unconscionable. It is especially outrageous since CompuServe and Unisys admit in writing that they decided to require licensing SIX MONTHS AGO in June, and didn't announce it to the public until now. According to the CompuServe-Unisys GIF licensing agreement, the settlement of the patent dispute was executed on June 21, 1994. CompuServe agreed to implement the agreement "as soon as reasonably practicable and in no case later than six (6) months after the date this Agreement is executed..." That six month period ended on December 21, 1994 -- but CompuServe did not make the licensing terms public until December 28. Indeed, CompuServe appears to have violated the terms of its own settlement agreement with Unisys. While many of the messages we have read online in reaction to the CompuServe-Unisys GIF Tax decree express both dismay and disbelief, virtually none have analyzed the actual provisions of the licensing agreement. It is in this area that TeleGrafix Communications wishes to contribute to the dialogue. In our opinion, the CompuServe-Unisys licensing agreement is both illogical and overly broad. Let's examine some of its key provisions. All quotes cited are directly from the agreement. 1. CompuServe will license Developers who want to use GIF technology. The term "developer" is defined as "the other undersigned party to the agreement," and it seems to apply to ANYONE who contemplates distributing any product that uses the GIF format. 2. Developers will be licensed to sell or distribute "Products" that "use and exploit GIF ... solely within the Field of Use." The term "Field of Use" is defined as "primarily for accessing the CompuServe Information Service and for manipulating and viewing data received through the CompuServe Information Service." The licensing agreement further defines the term "Products" as being "software that is developed or distributed ... which is designed for and used primarily for accessing the CompuServe Information Service and for manipulating and viewing data received through the CompuServe Information Service." IT APPEARS THAT THE ONLY LAWFUL USE OF GIF WILL BE FOR COMPUSERVE-RELATED PRODUCTS. Using GIF images in any other manner, such as on CD-ROMs or bulletin board systems, is prohibited. Most of the thousands of products that have used GIF in some manner are henceforth contraband. 3. Developers may no longer "use, copy, modify or distribute the GIF specification, except as expressly permitted by CompuServe." This states that the GIF specification can no longer be shared, published or uploaded in any manner without the express consent of CompuServe. 4. Members of the public are prohibited from using any software product containing GIF until they have become a REGISTERED user of the product. The customer also must agree to use the product "primarily for accessing the CompuServe Information Service and for manipulating and viewing data received through the CompuServe Information Service." This virtually eliminates the concept of freeware or shareware containing GIF capabilities, since prospective customers can no longer try out these software products without registering them first. 5. Software developers must pay $1.00 for a license to use GIF, PLUS a fee equal to the GREATER of 1.5% of the selling price of the product, or $0.15 per "Disposition." Disposition is defined as "the sale, lease or license or any other grant of rights to a Product or any new Product." All royalties must be paid quarterly. Noncommercial and freeware usage of GIF technology is NOT exempted from the royalty requirement. Because the royalty provisions and definition of "Disposition" are so broad in scope, it appears that a GIF Tax payment may be due to CompuServe-Unisys each time a GIF image is transmitted via BBS or Internet. The operators of a BBS or World Wide Web site with hundreds or thousands of GIF images online could easily be bankrupted by these licensing requirements. 6. CompuServe must be notified of ANY new product using GIF when it is first offered to customers. 7. Persons using GIF must keep records of its use, and CompuServe has the right to audit those records every year upon seven days notice. Persons using GIF must pay the cost of the audit if a royalty underpayment of 10% or more is discovered, along with 12% interest on any underpaid royalties. 8. Even if the patent is later found by the courts or the U.S. Patent Office to be invalid and unenforcable, or if the patent expires, any developer must "return all copies of the GIF specification and any confidential information of CompuServe then in its possession or control to CompuServe, (ii) stop using the Licensed Technology, and (iii) stop distributing Products." This states that EVEN IF THE PATENT IS OVERTURNED OR EXPIRES, YOU MUST STOP USING OR DISTRIBUTING GIF. 9. Even though CompuServe has publicly disseminated the text of the agreement it wants GIF users to sign, the terms of the agreement are to remain confidential. This is illogical, to say the least, since they have posted it for public download on their own system. 10. Developers have to indemnify and hold CompuServe harmless for any damages if their CUSTOMERS somehow use GIF technology in a way not permitted by the licensing agreement. 11. Unisys has the right to enforce the agreement, as well as CompuServe. Further, Unisys has the right to pursue legal action or seek damages against Developers even after the agreement has terminated. TeleGrafix Communicatons Inc. will not sign such a licensing agreement. We think most other software developers, BBS sysops and Web site operators also will refuse to sign. We encourage our colleagues in the online communications community to evaluate the CompuServe-Unisys action, and to lodge appropriate protests directly with those companies. We believe that the CompuServe-Unisys GIF Tax drives a stake through the heart of Internet development. It will cripple the World Wide Web, NCSA Mosaic, and other Internet multimedia technologies that rely heavily on GIF imaging. Fortunately, we at TeleGrafix Communications do not depend on GIF imaging in our new RIPscrip 2.0 online multimedia technologies. We chose to implement the JPEG image format and only recently decided to add GIF support as a convienience to our customers. Due to the restrictive conditions of the CompuServe-Unisys GIF Tax and licensing agreement, we must now reevaluate our plans for supporting GIF use in the upcoming release of RIPscrip 2.0. While our company hopes to profit financially from our advanced RIPscrip 2.0 technology, we will not demand royalties from those who have used the freeware versions of our earlier RIPscrip 1.54 products and/or technical specifications. The RIPscrip 2.0 specification also will be made public for third-party use after it is finalized. We expect that the CompuServe-Unisys action will spell the death of GIF as a commercially viable technology, shifting the attention of the online communications community to JPEG imaging. Sincerely, Pat Clawson President & Chief Executive Officer TeleGrafix Communications Inc. Huntington Beach, CA Voice: (714) 379-2140 Fax: (714) 379-2132 BBS: (714) 379-2133 Internet: rip.support@telegrafix.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The folks at America OnLine must be a bit disgruntled by this news also since a large number of users on that system have GIFs on file for display to the persons they are talking to in the chat rooms, etc. I don't know how many times I have been on Compuserve, for example in the CB program and had someone ask me if I had a GIF of myself they could view, etc. This does seem like very bad news for the online community. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Thompson, Dave Subject: Pinouts on RS232 and Echoed Back Characters Date: Tue, 03 Jan 95 02:46:00 PST I've been out of the office and am amazed to see no followup to this, so: In Telecom DIGEST 14.422, 21 Nov 1994 02:07:33 -0500, William Ono asks: > If anyone has the list of pinouts for the RS232 style port, could they > please mail it to me? (news is flakey at my site..) I am using a > DB25 connector, but a DB9 pinouts list would also be helpful (I'm sure > I can dig up a conversion chart almost anywhere). Partly from memory and partly from McNamara 1ed 1977 (!) (one of the few books unpacked after a recent office move) the RS-232 (now -D) STANDARD, to which an "RS-232 style port" should comply IN RELEVANT PARTS, was: 1 Frame Ground 2 Tx data (SD) 3 Rx data (RD) 4 Request To Send 5 Clear To Send 6 Data Set Ready 7 Signal Ground 8 Data Carrier Detect 11,12 apparently used by Bell 202C but not standardized 14 Secondary aka Reverse Tx Data 15 Tx clock from DCE 16 Secondary/Reverse Rx Data 17 Rx clock from DCE 20 Data Terminal Ready 22 Ring Indicator 24 Tx clock from DTE You should also find this somewhere in the manual for almost any decent external modem or indeed serial card. > Also, I was just wondering -- is it possible to echo a character from > the Send Data pin to the Receive Data pin by simply fusing the two > pins together? I mean, if I wanted to just send everything back to > the computer that has been sent down the Send Data line, could I just > connect RD to SD, or do I need to do some processing first? Yes, you can just connect RD to SD, IF: 1) For a direct cable, the out + back distance = 2 * length (and the load of the two receivers combined) does not exceed the source (computer?) end line-driver capacity, typically 50-100ft for faster speeds (19.2, 38.4) and up to thousands of feet for 300, 1200 etc.; for modems or other active equipment each end must already be able to drive a good signal to the other, which is all that is needed, but unless the modems etc. are regenerating (e.g. an ISDN line through a TA) or error-correcting, any noise or timing distortion created on the way out will be added to (probably doubled) on the way back, which may be too much for correct/reliable transmission; AND 2) You DON'T send any data in at the remote end, that is, the ONLY data sent back on SD is that received on RD. If you try to connect RD plus a local RS232 driver to SD, the (actually or virtually) remote driver and the local one will fight each other to death. Thus the only practical use I can see for this is if you are sending a data stream to an output-only device (such as a printer or recorder) which is too dumb to detect and report errors, and you want to confirm that the correct data reached it: if the computer receives an echo that is the same as it sent, either the data actually reached the device's input port correctly, or any errors that occurred on the output path were matched by exactly complementary errors on the return path, which is possible but quite unlikely. However if the echo doesn't match it doesn't mean that the data was definitely NOT delivered correctly, only that it's doubtful; the error could have occurred only on the return path. Also, just because the data was delivered to the end of the cable doesn't assure it was necessarily printed correctly or whatever. And this assumes your computer's serial interface is set up so that it doesn't drop input characters as a result of buffer shortage or software timing problems (causing spurious mismatches), and doesn't echo its input back to its output (as terminal port drivers do on many systems, giving an infinite loop). If you want to return an echo of the received data and also send in data, you need at least to convert the RS232 to and from logic levels e.g. TTL and run them through an AND gate (assuming logic "true" = RS232 "mark"); but with this simple implementation, assuming you are sending characters in the normal fashion (ASCII) if you try to send in data (e.g. begin typing on the terminal) while receiving, the (serialized) characters (codes) will be be garbled; this is effectively what happened in the old days of current-loop Teletypes for telegraph/cable. An alternative would be if both(?) pieces of equipment support some control signals (typically DTR/DSR or RTS/CTS/DCD) and the cable is wired, or modems etc. are capable, to pass them through (e.g. modems use true switched carrier so DCD output at the remote end follows RTS at the computer end). You could then use a couple of logic gates or a 2-1 multiplexer to feed into the SD driver either the received (computer) data or the locally generated data depending on which has its "control" line active, optionally with provision to arbitrate the contention if both are active simultaneously. The next level would be to deserialize RD and echo the characters back into the send serializer, which would typically mean OR'ing or selecting (multiplexing) the UART parallel output, or a buffered copy of it, with the e.g. keyboard data lines, into the UART parallel input, probably with interlock/overrun logic to prevent trying to send while the UART is busy/full. ------------------------------ From: ERU.ERUDYG@memo4.ericsson.se Date: Tue, 03 Jan 1995 19:46:00 +0100 Subject: Erlang Capacit I am looking for information about Erlang Capacity Calculations for land line based telecom networks. My main question is this: In cellular, typical system design is according to Erlang B or Erlang C traffic tables, and designed for 2% blocking (.02 G.O.S., Grade Of Service). Is this the same for land line?, local PSTN? long distance trunks? international trunks? etc. Any information or source of information for this would be useful. Dan Goldberg ------------------------------ From: ai093@freenet.carleton.ca (Paul Murray) Subject: Phone Fraud - PBXs Reply-To: ai093@freenet.carleton.ca (Paul Murray) Organization: The National Capital FreeNet Date: Tue, 3 Jan 1995 23:01:46 GMT Last year the TV show, 60 minutes, did a feature on phone fraud in the US. They estimated it was costing US phone customers, especially businesses with PBxs, billions of dollars because of fraudulent use by hackers. More recently, CBC Radio in Canada did a news story on phone fraud in which they said a Ministry of the Ontario government had been hacked for $50,000 in one month. Is this becoming a major problem for business everywhere? I'd be interested to hear of incidents as I may know of a solution. Paul J. Murray [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It is a very major problem. Let's hear your solution. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Al Niven <71742.1665@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Phillipines Service Downtime Date: 4 Jan 1995 02:22:02 GMT Organization: Video, Voice, ~ Data, Inc. Anybody with ATT service to the Phillipines that experienced downtime between 12/3/94 and today please email or call collect at: 310-273-5891 or 310-273-5175 or 310-453-1414 (ask for Mike Lieber at this number) Thank You. Al Niven, Video, Voice, & Data, Inc. 212-714-3531 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: What's going on, if you don't mind discussing it here? PAT] ------------------------------ From: vidur@world.std.com (vidur kapoor) Subject: Netcom in Boston Area Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA Date: Tue, 3 Jan 1995 16:26:34 GMT I would like to know the telephone number (voice) for Netcom in the Boston area. Thanks, Vidur ------------------------------ From: snh1@cornell.edu (Sanjay Hiranandani) Subject: Cellular Direct Number Date: Tue, 03 Jan 1995 16:06:45 -0500 Organization: Cornell University Network Resources A while ago someone on this group posted a number for Cellular Direct and/or some other mail order source for cellular phones and accessories. Does anyone still have those numbers handy? ------------------------------ From: ccappuc@sefl.satelnet.org (Chris Cappuccio) Subject: It's Not Tenex Anymore ... Date: 3 Jan 1995 19:24:36 -0500 Organization: Public Access in Ft. Lauderdale - SatelNET (305) 587-1930 I haven't seen anything on comp.dcom.telecom about this before so I will explain what I know ... 10XXX codes are being changed to 1010XXX (e.g. AT&T @ 10288 is now 1010288) and new carriers are being assigned to 1015XXX to 1016XXX. I don't know how the rest of it is going to be assigned, but this change is quite interesting. It was planned sometime in 1993 and I don't know when it was actually implemnted, but it already works if you dial 1010XXX around Michigan (at least with Ameritech, I don't know if some of the smaller 'alternative' carriers in mid-michigan have adapted to this yet). I imagine that 10XXX dialing will be discontinued sometime in the future (or at least there will never be any 101XX codes) If anyone else has information on this subject, please post it! Peace, Chris ------------------------------ From: naddy@mips.pfalz.de (Christian Weisgerber) Subject: Noise Introduced by Bit-Robbing? Date: Tue, 3 Jan 1995 00:14:43 MET What kind of noise/distortion does American-style bit-robbing cause to voice band signals transmitted through PCM channels? (The reason I ask is that I wonder how much bit-robbing affects V.34 modems.) Christian 'naddy' Weisgerber, Germany naddy@mips.pfalz.de ------------------------------ From: qlanus@sigg.com (Quinn Lanus) Subject: How Can I Encrypt a T-1? Organization: The Signature Group Date: Tue, 3 Jan 1995 02:47:45 GMT I have a requirement which calls for encrypting the data which crosses our T-1. I would prefer this to occur "transparently" with respect to existing equipment installed. Has anyone heard of a product which can do this? Thanks in advance, Quinn Lanus qlanus@sigg.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Jan 1995 02:11:06 EST From: Daniel Ritsma Subject: Where Does ISDN Fit In? When talking about telecommunications in computer-networking, people often talk about t-1,2,3 or other type of line that specifically define the bandwith of the connection. What about ISDN, how do you fit that in these terms? What is the standard bandwith of ISDN, and how is it when you only use it for computer-data transfer when we speak about t-1s. Is it like an 15kHz analoge line, that is used for Radio Signal transfer. In short when do I use ISDN, over other alternatives? Thanks. ------------------------------ From: Dharshana P. Jayasuriya Subject: Need Information on IS-54 Date: 3 Jan 1995 15:44:52 GMT Organization: University of Trondheim, Norway I would appreciate very much if someone can recommend a good book or some other material which has sufficient information on the architecture and protocols of the US digital standard IS 54. Is it possible to buy a copy of the standard itself? (I mean not the whole thousands of pages but a summary.) Or is it strictly proprietary? Thanks in advance, Dharshana Jayasuriya, Dept.of computer systems and telematics, Norwegian Institute of technology, Trondheim, Norway ------------------------------ From: psukhu@Starbase.ingress.com (Patrick Sukhu) Subject: What Magazines Do You Read? Date: 2 Jan 1995 00:38:28 GMT Organization: Ingress Communications (info@ingress.com) What are some of your favorite telecom magazines that you read? Thanks, Patrick [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You mean of course, in addition to everyone's favorite, TELECOM Digest? :) PAT] ------------------------------ From: mpd@adc.com (Matthew P. Downs) Subject: Information Needed on Munich32 Chip Date: 3 Jan 1995 14:26:28 GMT Organization: ADC Telecommunications I need some help with a chip made by Siemens the Munich32. We are trying to run it in HDLC and have some problems. If any one has used this, any pointers would be appreciated. Matt ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V15 #2 **************************** Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa23168; 4 Jan 95 2:31 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (4.1/SMI-4.0-proxy) id AA29538; Tue, 3 Jan 95 22:13:03 CST Return-Path: Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (4.1/SMI-4.0-proxy) id AA29531; Tue, 3 Jan 95 22:13:00 CST Date: Tue, 3 Jan 95 22:13:00 CST From: telecom@delta.eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson)) Message-Id: <9501040413.AA29531@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #3 TELECOM Digest Tue, 3 Jan 95 22:13:00 CST Volume 15 : Issue 3 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: FM Subcarrier For Data Transmission (Gene Retske) Re: FM Subcarrier For Data Transmission (Wm. Randolph Franklin) Re: 19 Inch Network Relay Rack (Evan Gamblin) Re: 19 Inch Network Relay Rack (Mike Morris) Re: 19 Inch Network Relay Rack (Robert Hazen) Re: 19 Inch Network Relay Rack (Scott Falke) Re: Christmas Greetings From AT&T (Jim Hupf) Re: Christmas Greetings From AT&T (Steve Cogorno) Re: Cellphone Radiation Danger? (Steven King) Re: Cellphone Radiation Danger? (Alan Shen) Re: Watching the Area Codes Split (Sean E. Williams) Re: Watching the Area Codes Split (Mike Morris) Re: '500' Numbers Finally Available (Dave Levenson) Re: Prepaid Telephone Debit Cards (Gerry Gollwitzer) Re: Newbridge Channel Bank (Ethan Henry) 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: * telecom-request@eecs.nwu.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: 9457-D Niles Center Road Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 708-329-0571 Fax: 708-329-0572 ** Article submission address only: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu ** Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * 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. * ************************************************************************* Additionally, 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: Gene Retske Subject: Re: FM Subcarrier For Data Transmission Date: 3 Jan 1995 14:02:48 GMT Organization: Tachyon Communications Corporation -- Tach-Net PAT, you wrote: > In my phone box in the basement there are pairs going back to the > telephone exchange ... a distance of some three thousand feet. So let's > attach the antenna from our old Philco receiver turned transmitter to > one of the pairs ... no one will ever know the difference, seriously. > RF can travel on the phone pair; it gets along fine with telco's thing. > So we found an idle pair and hooked it up. This may work, but did you really connect the output of a tube type receiver to telephone pairs? This is very dangerous and, in my opinion, irresponsible. If the DC blocking capacitor in this old receiver were to short, which is highly likely, you could deliver a lethal shock to an unsuspecting telephone worker. I normally enjoy your commentaries, but I object to you publishing information that could be so deadly! Please think about how many children and unsophisicated adults could read this and jeopardize someone's life. Shame! Gene Retske [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, for all of about 30 minutes. You are correct it is not a very good idea. I certainly would not put up something like that on a regular or permanent basis. PAT] ------------------------------ From: wrf@ecse.rpi.edu (Wm. Randolph U Franklin) Subject: Re: FM Subcarrier For Data Transmission Date: 4 Jan 1995 01:40:52 GMT Organization: ECSE Dept, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY, 12180 USA Reply-To: wrf@ecse.rpi.edu (Wm. Randolph U Franklin) Ramsey, and possibly other kit makers, sell kits to decode SCA transmissions. The Ramsay ones cost from $28 to $60. The lo end is for only an SCA kit. The hi end is for an FM receiver kit also, and a case. I bought a Ramsey kit for a lo powered FM transmitter, to transmit my CD player around the house, and was quite satisfied with it. It was better than Heathkit, IMHO. If I'd known about their TV transmitter kit, I wouldn't have had to pull coax thru my heating ducts. According to Ramsey, these things are legal provided you don't interfere with anyone. Ramsey Electronics 793 Canning Parkway Victor NY 14564 (716) 924-4560 I found out about them from a 373-line list posted to sci.electronics some time ago. If you'd like it, to minimize traffic on this group, I put it up on the Web. It's accessible indirectly from my home page, or directly at: http://www.ecse.rpi.edu/wrf/mailorder_electronics Wm. Randolph Franklin, wrf@ecse.rpi.edu, (518) 276-6077; Fax: -6261 ECSE Dept., 6026 JEC, Rensselaer Polytechnic Inst, Troy NY, 12180 USA More info: (1) finger -l wrf@ecse.rpi.edu (2) http://www.ecse.rpi.edu/wrf.html ------------------------------ From: egamblin@ott.hookup.net (Evan Gamblin) Subject: Re: 19 Inch Network Relay Rack Date: Tue, 03 Jan 1995 12:50:25 -0500 Organization: Mary Ellen Carter Salvors Inc. In article , jpoulin@nt.com wrote: > I need help of a person who know a US or Canadian supplier (name and > phone number) for the following type of equipment: Standard 19 inch widths > open frame rack (network relay rack with universal EIA hole spacing) > certified for earthquake Zone 4 (california). Saunders Brothers in Santa Fe Springs, CA: 310 945-1038 voice, 698-6510 fax. Evan Gamblin, RCDD The Halifax Group 903-275 Sparks St Ottawa, Ontario K1R 7X9 Canada ------------------------------ From: morris@grian.cps.altadena.ca.us (Mike Morris) Subject: Re: 19 Inch Network Relay Rack Organization: College Park Software, Altadena, CA Date: Tue, 3 Jan 1995 02:38:33 GMT Call Harris-Dracon in Chatsworth, Calif. Don't know the number of the top of my head, but 818 information should have it. Mike Morris WA6ILQ PO Box 1130 Arcadia, CA. 91077 ICBM: 34.12N, 118.02W Reply to: morris@grian.cps.altadena.ca.us ------------------------------ From: supra@pnw.net (Robert Hazen) Subject: Re: 19 Inch Network Relay Rack Date: 03 Jan 1995 19:05:05 -0800 Organization: Pacific Northwest Net jpoulin@nt.com wrote: > I need help of a person who know a US or Canadian supplier (name and > phone number) for the following type of equipment: Standard 19 inch widths > open frame rack (network relay rack with universal EIA hole spacing) > certified for earthquake Zone 4 (california). Pardon? Nobody at Northern Telecom knows where to obtain these? Really? Naaaahh... :) If you don't have answers by 1/9/95, remind me via email. I'll be back to work then where I can look up our suppliers. We sell equipment into California that has been certified to Bellcore TR-EOP-000063 zone four seismic requirements. I'm sure I can help you out. Bob ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Jan 95 13:35:41 -0800 From: scott@csustan.csustan.edu (Scott Falke) Subject: Re: 19 Inch Network Relay Rack Organization: CSU Stanislaus Two manufacturers of 19" racks are: Hoffmannn Engineering @ 612 421-2240 fx-1556, and Hammond Manufacturing @ 716 631-5700 fx-1156. As for seismic rating, Hoffmann makes a lot of specials, but any rating would be absolutely dependent on the rack load; i.e., what's mounted in it. This may have to be indpendently determined by a third party, meaning mucho bux. If you can't get anywhere on this, *as time permits* I would be willing to do some minor research on the subject. scott@csustan.csustan.edu ------------------------------ From: Jhupf Subject: Re: Christmas Greetings From AT&T Date: Tue, 03 Jan 1995 20:20:23 EST Organization: News & Observer Public Access On Thu, 29 Dec 1994, Alan Boritz wrote: Paul Robinson writes: >> I would recommend to the father that he call his local telephone >> company and tell them to switch service back to MCI; don't even >> mention this check to the son; assuming anyone even notices, if AT&T >> complains, ask for a copy of the signed order from the subscriber. This is not necessary -- I got to the local telco before they made the change! As suggested below at the time I put the local telco on notice NOT to make any changes in my LD carrier without my authorization (for what good that will do, but they are on written notice to that effect.) > And who's going to pay for the PIXC change? His lazy son? The son is not lazy, he has two jobs and is paying off $22,000+ in student loans -- he appreciated getting teh Xmas present from AT&T (;-> >> The son is not the subscriber and has no authority to change the >> service. It is not your position to prove you didn't authorize it, >> it's theirs to prove they have an authorization from someone who can >> issue the authorization. That's what I told my phone company and they understood where I was coming from. > But it's not going to stop AT&T from issuing ANOTHER PIXC change just > like the did the first unauthorized change. The subscriber should > first issue an order to the local telco to not accept account changes > from anyone but HIM. As I said above I did that before the bogus change could be put in effect! >> Or just ignore the whole thing and dial 10222 to get MCI before every >> call, which is what I used to do when I wanted to use AT&T on the line >> I had switched to MCI in order to get the free bag from them; I dialed >> 10288 to get AT&T before calls, or I just use the other line which is >> still on AT&T. It's not in me to ignore anything like this, and besides how would I be able to accumulate more MCI Points to get me a free Round-Trip Coach-Class ticket on American Airlines (;-> while I rack up all of the Friends and Family savings! > Absolutely do NOT ignore it. Slamming is a sleazy way of doing long > distance business, and no one should have to put up with it. State > public utilities regulatory agencies are usually interested in > investigating such incidents. The father should file a simple > complaint against his local telco requesting that they be ordered to > change his PIXC back to the original LD carrier, that AT&T be charged > for all costs associated with the PIXC changes, and that the local > telco be ordered to refund to the subscriber any additional long > distance charges (and lost discounts) due to the unauthorized change. Even though there was nothing to complain to the state about the local phone company -- they were very cooperative with my concerns and I guess the fact that they may be facing direct local competition in my area may have had some influence on wanting to make sure I was a happy camper! (For other reasons it is my intention to drop them like a hot potato(e) when the new phone company makes their first contact with me!) I did drop a note to the state about this matter for whatever that is worth as well as sending a copy to the FCC, again for whatever tha is worth. I also will be discussing it with a consumer affairs specialt in the State Attorney General's Office of Consumer Protection early in the New Year when I meet with her concerning some sleezy advertising practices the local Cable company has been into - (Since the new phone company is running a fiber optic line, I wonder if I might be able to dump the Cable company too??? (8->>> The thought that I might be able to give it to two "Evil Giants" with one stone!) Jim Hupf Permanently Unemployed by Choice jhupf@nando.net jhupf@nyx.cs.du.edu j.hupf@genie.geis.com ------------------------------ From: cogorno@netcom.com (Steve Cogorno) Subject: Re: Christmas Greetings From AT&T Date: Tue, 3 Jan 1995 15:29:53 PST John D. Borrows said: > In article , Jhupf wrote: >> Now my son is one of those adult children who happened to return to >> our empty nest. He takes full advantage of his return to the nest >> including the use of MY telephone, he doesn't now have a phone he can >> call his own, nor for that matter has he ever been a customer of any >> phone company. But still Ray Drake in his generosity has decided to >> give him 40 bucks for Christmas -- hold on there are strings seems when >> the kid cashed the check he changed _MY_ LD carrier from MCI to AT&T! >> This annoyed me because I'm happy with MCI and don't want AT&T as my >> LD carrier! > WAIT, where your LD goes is a matter between you and your local > telephone company. They will presubscribe you to whomever you direct > them to. All you have to do is contact them and tell them you want > MCI. There may be a charge for the change. They are not in a > position to arbitrate any dispute between you and AT&T (or you and It may be a matter between the LEC and the customer, but as soon as AT&T finds out that the Easy Access carrier has been changed, they will issue an order to change it right back. I would call the LEC (in my case Pacific Bell) and tell them AT&T is "slamming" your line. When they hear "slam" they take your complaint very seriously. Tell them you want a password on your account, and not to authorize any changes made without that password. You might want to call AT&T up and tell them you don't appreciate them slamming your line. (Their ears perk up nicely when they hear "slam" too). Steve cogorno@netcom.com ------------------------------ From: king@wildebeest.cig.mot.com (Steven King, Software Archaeologist) Subject: Re: Cellphone Radiation Danger? Date: 3 Jan 1995 15:25:00 GMT Organization: Cellular Infrastructure Group, Motorola > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: There has been discussion of this topic > here in these very columns in the past. Generally speaking, it is a > non-issue. It takes a lot more power than a cellphone antenna can > radiate before it matters. If John Higdon sees this, he may well decide > to respond. He did so the last time this topic arose here. He has worked > around RF radiation for years, and lots of it at that. PAT] So, PAT, is this an argument *for* or *against* brain damage due to RF? (Just kidding, John. This one was too good to let by. :-) Steven King -- Motorola Cellular Infrastructure Group [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: When this came up last year, someone said John Higdon had a bald head caused by his hair falling out which was caused by his proximity to the radiation, etc. John protested that he did not have a bald head. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Alan Shen Subject: Re: Cellphone Radiation Danger? Date: Tue, 3 Jan 1995 14:40:23 -0800 Organization: University of Washington On 29 Dec 1994, Chuck Campbell wrote: > Someone told me that cellular telephones have antenna radiation > danger, being in such close proximity to the brain. Is there any > discussion or literature regarding such claims, or can they all be > immediately dismissed as garbage? > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: There has been discussion of this topic > here in these very columns in the past. Generally speaking, it is a > non-issue. It takes a lot more power than a cellphone antenna can > radiate before it matters. If John Higdon sees this, he may well decide > to respond. He did so the last time this topic arose here. He has worked > around RF radiation for years, and lots of it at that. PAT] Let's just say this. Your microwave is more powerful then your cellular phone. The TV gives of EMR. Your computer; a cop using a radar gun. I'm not trying to sound mean or anything, and that isn't what I'm trying to imply here. If you are going to live in fear of radiation, reality says that you'll never escape it. If using a portable phone with the antenna two or so inches (about six cm for your metric people ) away from your brain putting out 0.6 watts (this is according to US Standards. I know other standards put out 10X that much) is going to give you a BRAIN TUMOR, then don't use one! We're thoroughly aware of the fact that it may not be healthy for you. We're taking a chance. Why don't you just buy a mobile phone and put the antenna 20 feet away from you. That'll *technically* get rid of anyone's radiation worries. Daniel Kao ------------------------------ Date: 3 Jan 1995 14:49:36 -0500 From: Sean E. Williams Subject: Re: Watching the Area Codes Split John Lundgren wrote: > Someday there might just be a database that has your name, and the number > associated with it, and all people will have to do is punch up your name, > and not have to worry about a number. And it will be current. Just like the internet Domain Name System. It could have been implemented years ago, and then we wouldn't be having all the problems associated with the NANP -- your neighbor could be in a different area code, and you wouldn't even have to know or care, so long as you could remember his name! How about a system which provides a menu of available options? Start out by entering a person's name. Okay, so there are thousands of "Jim Smiths" in the US. At first, you are presented with the one who lives closest to you (the city / street would be displayed) or you could specify a specific location at the start if you are calling a "Jim Smith" who lives several states away. When you finally select the appropriate "Jim Smith", a menu appears listing the following options: home, cellular, pager, fax, data, etc. Select the option you wish, and you are connected to that service. I don't know much about ISDN, but it's probably capable of doing this right now if the appropriate software were to be written. Sean E. Williams (sean@epix.net) Harrisburg Area Community College, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, USA Mobile/Voicemail/Pager: +1 717 580-5187 FAX: +1 717 834-5236 ------------------------------ From: morris@grian.cps.altadena.ca.us (Mike Morris) Subject: Re: Watching the Area Codes Split Organization: College Park Software, Altadena, CA Date: Wed, 4 Jan 1995 02:36:44 GMT wa2ise@netcom.com (Robert Casey) writes: > In article Neal McLain edu> writes: >> My question: given that all three cities are centers of rapidly-growing >> metro areas, why not a three-way split: >> Nashville retains 615. >> Knoxville gets 423. >> Chattanooga gets something else. > Suppose area code 666 is to be asigned somewhere, maybe in the Bible > Belt. (there's some sort of connection with 666 with the devil). > Just imagine all the complaints you'll hear if this happens. The perfect location for area code 666 is Washington DC. Give the entire code to the federal government. Keep all the non-goverment stuff in the old area code. Mike Morris WA6ILQ PO Box 1130 Arcadia, CA. 91077 ICBM: 34.12N, 118.02W | Reply to: morris@grian.cps.altadena.ca.us [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: We went through this once before, a couple years ago, and someone posted a list of all the places where the 666 exchange appeared around the USA, in which area codes, etc, and if there were any special users such as centrex accounts, etc on them. It seems to me somewhere some government offices were on 666 in that area code; maybe it was the IRS, I'm not sure. In Chicago, MONroe, MOnroe-6 and 666 has been a working exchange on the west side of Chicago for seventy years or more. In the old days when it was Monroe (and in fact there is a central office named for it, called 'Chicago-Monroe') no one seemed to notice it. Now pronounced 'six six six', a few people get sore about being assigned to it. Until they changed to the new number 312-TAXICAB a couple years ago, the Yellow/Checker Taxi radio dispatch office had the longest term number of any business in Chicago: 666-3700, which they held for seventy-plus years along with their other number of equal longevity for radio dispatched cabs, CALumet-6000. In my collection of pictures from Chicago's past, I have a picture of a Model-J Ford, taken about 1915, with the inscription on the side, 'Yellow Taxicab Service, Monroe 3700'. The devil you say! :) PAT] ------------------------------ From: dave@westmark.com (Dave Levenson) Subject: Re: '500' Numbers Finally Available Organization: Westmark, Inc. Date: Tue, 03 Jan 1995 15:53:48 GMT Jack Hamilton (jfh@crl.com) writes: [regarding 500 service from AT&T] > - They count the number of times per day you change the forwarding phone, > and if you exceed that number something happens (I don't know what). How can the number of times per day you change the forwarding phone exceed the number of times per day you change the forwarding phone? Was Jack trying to say that they impose a limit? Does anybody know what it is? Dave Levenson Internet: dave@westmark.com Westmark, Inc. UUCP: uunet!westmark!dave Stirling, NJ, USA Voice: 908 647 0900 Fax: 908 647 6857 ------------------------------ From: gerryg@earth.execpc.com (Gerry Gollwitzer) Subject: Re: Prepaid Telephone Debit Cards Date: 03 Jan 1995 16:57:17 GMT Organization: Exec-PC Kevin J. Sullivan (ksully@telerama.lm.com) wrote: > I'm looking for information on setting up a business selling prepaid > calling cards. Is there anyone who knows what you need to do this? I > have heard it is relatively easy, however I'd like to know some > specific details. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I think you'll find there are so many > people doing this -- as well as selling long distance in general through > various multi-level marketing schemes -- that the profit margin is very > very thin. I think you will work long and hard hours for a very small > commission. PAT] Hmmm ... we are finding the prepaid calling card programs to be very lucrative, especially for fund raising and company promotions. Gerry [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, let me know which company you are selling for, and something about the profit you are making on them if you don't mind. I may start handling it again. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Jan 95 14:31:03 EST From: ehenry@Newbridge.COM (Ethan Henry) Subject: Re: Newbridge Channel Bank Organization: Crosskeys Systems Corporation In article is written: > tague@cwinc.win.net (Michael Tague) wrote: >> where is the Newbridge company located (or phone number)? > The listing in the new Dallas Yellow Pages shows the following: > [deleted] > I think this is the home office. If not they should be able to give > you the number. Gosh, I hope it's not the home office. The engineers are going to have an awfully long commute from their homes in Ottawa ... Newbridge's HQ is in Kanata, Ontario, but here is a list of their sales offices I got off of a '4602 MainStreet' poster. UNITED STATES Newbridge Networks Inc 593 Herndon Parkway Herndon, Virginia U.S.A. 22070-5241 Tel. 1 800 343-3600 1 703 834-3600 FAX 1 703 471-7080 CANADA Newbridge Networks Corporation 5580 Explorer Drive Suite 100 Mississauga, Ontario Canada L4W 4Y1 Tel. 1 416 238-5214 FAX 1 416 238-0581 LATIN AMERICA ASIA PACIFIC & RUSSIA Newbridge Networks Corporation 600 March Road P.O. Box 13600 Kanata, Ontario Canada K2K 2E6 Tel. 1 613 591-6300 FAX 1 613 599-3611 There's also an address in the UK. Newbridge has (I believe) local sales offices in various large cities, but I don't know anything about these. DISCLAIMER: Don't believe my email address, I don't work for Newbridge. Nice company though it is, I work across the street, at Crosskeys. Ethan Henry ehenry@newbridge.com CrossKeys Systems Corporation ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V15 #3 **************************** Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa24683; 4 Jan 95 3:25 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (4.1/SMI-4.0-proxy) id AA01122; Tue, 3 Jan 95 23:29:11 CST Return-Path: Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (4.1/SMI-4.0-proxy) id AA01114; Tue, 3 Jan 95 23:29:07 CST Date: Tue, 3 Jan 95 23:29:07 CST From: telecom@delta.eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson)) Message-Id: <9501040529.AA01114@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #4 TELECOM Digest Tue, 3 Jan 95 23:29:00 CST Volume 15 : Issue 4 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: British Telecom Information Superhighway (Yves Blondeel) Re: Portability of 800 Number When Bill Not Paid (Judith Oppenheimer) Re: Telephone Tariffs for 1995 California (John Covell) Re: What is a T1 Line? (James Carlson) Re: Handshaking: Computer-Computer or Modem-Computer? (Alain Fontaine) Re: NYNEX Ringmate and Modems (Steve Cogorno) Re: Flat Rate Cellular Phone Service (Jim Hupf) Re: Need Info on LD Marketing to College Students (Benjamin L. Combee) Re: Its Here Again! FCC/Modem Tax (Jerry Whelan) Re: Information Wanted on NEC 2000 Switch (chazworth@aol.com) Re: GSM in U.S. (Lynne Gregg) Re: How to Find Your Number (Greg Tompkins) Looking for Pager Operators for Tampa/Ft. Myers Area (Mark Huang) Phone Card Reader Wanted (Keith Jason Uber) Last Laugh! IBM Buys Episcopal Church (John Shaver) 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: * telecom-request@eecs.nwu.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: 9457-D Niles Center Road Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 708-329-0571 Fax: 708-329-0572 ** Article submission address only: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu ** Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * 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. * ************************************************************************* Additionally, 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: Yves Blondeel Subject: Re: British Telecom Information Superhighw Date: 3 Jan 1995 12:32:20 GMT Organization: FUNDP, Namur, Belgium etxhbt@tnll.eua.ericsson.se (Henrik Bergqvist) wrote: > In article 2@eecs.nwu.edu, Yves Blondeel > writes: >> The prohibition only applies to the delivery of entertainment >> services directly to residential customers as end-users in a local >> loop. The conveyance of signals within the network, for example to >> cable TV head-ends and also to individual business users, is permitted. > What is the definition of entertainment services? There is no formal definition of entertainment services. This is left to interpretation by the regulatory authorities (Department of Trade and Industry and Office of Telecommunications - OFTEL). These two authorities have shied away from formulating rigid definitions. Relevant reading material on this subject: March 1991 White Paper (see my previous posting). OFTEL Annual Report 1993 (available from OFTEL for 15 pounds). > Is there a difference in the regulation between point-to-point > services and broadcast services? There is no formal distinction from a *telecommunications* regulatory point of view. However, a broadcasting service would fall under the specific broadcasting regulations in addition to telecoms regulations. The Independent Television Commission (ITC) would be involved. > What would the regulatory issues be if the PTO (i.e. BT) only made > the bit transport service to the residence and another company > provided the actual service (e.g. videoserver)? In my opinion, in the case you suggest, the PTO would NOT be providing "entertainment services in their own right" since it would have no involvement on the entertainment side. I invite comments on this opinion. Yves Blondeel yves.blondeel@fundp.ac.be (e-mail address will change) ------------------------------ From: producer@pipeline.com (Judith Oppenheimer) Subject: Re: Portability of 800 Number When Bill Not Paid Date: 3 Jan 1995 15:22:18 -0500 Organization: The Pipeline Portabilty isn't in the regs. Portability was an FCC ruling in response to a carrier application. There is nothing in the original ruling about billing disputes. Beyond that, it depends who the carrier in question is, and the tariff (contract with the customer) under which they operate. For example, the AT&T tariff says 800 portability can only be blocked if there is in excess of $1000 in UNDISPUTED billing unpaid. J. Oppenheimer, Producer@Pipeline.com Interactive CallBrand(TM) ------------------------------ From: senator@well.sf.ca.us (John Covell) Subject: Re: Telephone Tariffs for 1995 California Date: 3 Jan 1995 03:32:29 GMT Organization: University of San Francisco In article jlundgre@kn.PacBell.COM (John Lundgren) writes: >> Where might I find a listing of the new tariffs that will be effective >> 1995? Is there a California PUC Web site? The CPUC has only a gopher site so far as I know: cpuc.ca.gov John Covell McLaren School of Business University of San Francisco ------------------------------ From: carlson@xylogics.com (James Carlson) Subject: Re: What is a T1 Line? Date: 3 Jan 1995 13:17:52 GMT Organization: Xylogics Incorporated Reply-To: carlson@xylogics.com In article , jhallen@world.std.com (Joseph H Allen) writes: >> In article , James Carlson > com> wrote: >>> In article , mpd@adc.com (Matthew P. Downs) >>> writes: >>>> These filters are not to limit your modem >>>> speeds, but to protect you 64 kbps channel from others. So you don't >>>> hear the cross talk on your line! >>> Not quite; there's no way one DS0 can interfere with another, and >>> there's no such thing as cross-talk at the digital level. >> Wrong; digital is always a statistical quantity in this analog world. >> Cross-talk certainly is possible between digital lines. If you put >> two wires next to each other, there is always some amount of >> cross-talk between them. As the cross-talk interference increases, >> the probability of a pulse being screwed up (or the digital error >> rate) increases. I'm afraid you'll have to re-read what I wrote. There is no such thing as "cross-talk" at the *digital* level. One DS0 channel cannot affect another within a T1 line; there just is no path for this to happen. Any signal at all can be carried on a DS0, and the others will be blissfully unaware that it exists. They are separated in time. Of course, digital signals are carried in the analog world, and, thus, the analog representation of the digital signal is possibly subject to cross-talk. This could increase the error rate if you've got multiple physical wires which are magnetically or capacitively coupled. But it won't appear as "cross-talk" in the traditional sense, since it would affect clock recovery and framing as well as the encoded data. >> In fact Pulse Code Modulation (digital) without any error detection >> has almost the same interference properties as FM radio. If two FM >> stations are close, there will be noise. If they are really close, >> you'll hear both stations at once and lots of noise. The two are very different. PCM is a digital signal; if you can recover it from the noise on the line, you'll get a "perfect" copy of the data. Line hits will produce a decidedly non-analog type of noise, with random data points being generated. To produce traditional "cross-talk" effects, you'd have to do an arithmetic average on the values of the data points between two lines. This is highly unlikely to occur. If you had two AMI lines next to each other, you'd need to have the extraneous cross-talk signal exceed the pulse detection threshold of the receivers in order to be able to detect *anything* at all. Anything below this value would simply be invisible at the digital level. FM, due to the nature of analog demodulation techniques, exhibits a capture effect. If two signals are broadcast on the same frequency, the "louder" signal will be heard to the exclusion of the "quieter" signal. You won't hear both stations at once. If the received amplitude of the two signals are varying with respect to each other, then all sorts of interesting effects (depending on the type of demodulation used) occur, but hearing both at once isn't one of the options. >>> The analog filters are there to prevent aliasing, which is an objectionable >>> beat frequency which appears in the spectrum when the Nyquist limit is >>> exceeded by any component of the signal. >> There's a 4KHz low pass filter before the A/D converter for this. Right. And it has nothing to do with cross-talk, which was the poster's original assertion. >> There's also a ~100KHz low-pass filter between the A/D converter and >> the line to limit the edge rate of the digital pulses. Cross-talk is >> more severe at higher frequencies, so limiting the unnecessary high- >> frequencies caused by fast edges helps reduce cross-talk. Any filter placed in the DS0 data path after quantization and before multiplexing has no effect on the bandwidth of the signal that the user of that DS0 sees. This has nothing to do with the poster's original statements. James Carlson Tel: +1 617 272 8140 Annex Software Support / Xylogics, Inc. +1 800 225 3317 53 Third Avenue / Burlington MA 01803-4491 Fax: +1 617 272 2618 ------------------------------ From: fontaine@sri.ucl.ac.be (Alain Fontaine) Subject: Re: Handshaking: Computer-Computer or Modem-Computer? Date: Tue, 03 Jan 1995 10:14:52 +0100 Organization: Universite Catholique de Louvain In article (Dans l'article) , jon_sree@ world.std.com (Jon Sreekanth) wrote: > Fascinating. If I understand right, the second parallel interface was > required because any character sent on the first would just get modulated > and sent out on the phone line, instead of being interpreted as a > command? Exactly. There was nothing but an frequency-modulated oscillator behind the serial interface (or a more complicated circuit in modems faster than V.23, but still a circuit and no intelligence). > And the intelligent modem breakthru was to make a moded modem, to be > in command mode initially, go into data mode upon carrier detection, > and drop out upon carrier loss or upon seeing the infamous escape > sequence? Is this how Hayes got their start? Right. In article (Dans l'article) , jlundgre@ kn.PacBell.COM (John Lundgren) wrote: > whatever, the dropping of the RTS may not really mean no carrier. It > may just mean to stop sending data from the modem to the PC, and the > carrier may not be affected. In this case, I would call the signal 'Ready to receive' (ITU V.24 circuit 133) instead of RTS. The fact that it is still on pin 4 of an ISO2110 physical interface notwithstanding ... just call me a nitpicker. AF ------------------------------ From: cogorno@netcom.com (Steve Cogorno) Subject: Re: NYNEX Ringmate and Modems Date: Tue, 3 Jan 1995 13:17:31 PST John Lundgren said: >> I've called Pac Bell several times and asked when I can get ringmate/ >> and they tell me they have no idea. >> I tell them what it is and they say that the system can't do it. I >> tell them that it has been available all over the country for over a >> year and they are speechless. Is there any other "magic words" I can >> use to enlighten them? If it helps any I'm northeast of downtown L.A. >> by about 12 miles, in the 818-447 exchange. > Ask for a supervisor and pursue the issue. Ive heard it called distinctive > ringing, but it might be called something else by P.B. Whatever you > do, don't give up if you get the same 'idunno' from the stupidvisor. Distinctive Ringing is a _very_ different service; you select up to ten numbers, and your phone will ring with a different cadence when any one of those 10 people call you. Sort of like a poor man's Caller ID. As I posted previously, Pac Bell does not offer "Ringmate" because they perceive that there is a shortage of numbers. Steve cogorno@netcom.com ------------------------------ From: Jhupf Subject: Re: Flat Rate Cellular Phone Service Date: Tue, 3 Jan 1995 20:32:19 EST Organization: News & Observer Public Access On Thu, 29 Dec 1994, Lawrence The Dreamer Chen wrote: > I don't know how wide spread the service is, but up here (Canada) they > have packages where you get unlimited weekend calling, and for $10 a > month more you get unlimited evening calling (7pm-7am). CelularOne of Triangle here in the Triangle in North Carolina offers full local access on weekends for $10 a month. We were considering going for it until we realized we had an accmulation of more than 575 minutes of local calling credit we haven't been able to use during the past 14 months. Between this balance of "bonus" time and the 60 minutes included in our calling plan we are able to Call, Talk, listen and home rate roam without any significant reduction in our accumulated balances. ------------------------------ From: combee@prism.gatech.edu (Benjamin L. Combee) Subject: Re: Need Info on LD Marketing to College Students Date: Tue, 3 Jan 1995 20:24:26 -0500 Organization: ROASF Atlanta Reply-To: combee@prism.gatech.edu In article is written: > I'm researching a magazine article on how the long distance companies > market their services to college students. You would be helping me > considerably by providing me with any of the following information: > o The size (budget, number of employees) of AT&T's, MCI's or Sprint's > student marketing departments. > o Any recent promotions, giveaways or advertising targeting college > students. > o Any weird, frightening or amusing stories or incidents related to > this subject. Hello. I'm down at Georgia Tech, and we've seen a number of different marketing schemes. MCI has been doing a lot: just recently, they came along with lots of other companies to do a Campus Fest where they were pushing their 1-800-COLLECT line. Also, around Thanksgiving, they were handing out hundreds of cards that each gave ten minutes on 1-800-COLLECT using a special code. My roommate last year had a Sprint calling card, and he got several promotions. For Halloween, he got a postcard with a mask on one side that said he could make unlimited free long distance calls for one hour on Halloween night. Tech itself has contracted with Sprint for the LD service in all the dormatories. Most rooms only have local service turned on, but if you want, you can get LD enabled but only with Sprint as your carrier. The housing department gets a kickback on any Sprint calls made from the rooms. I hope these help you out. If you've got more questions, let me know. Name=Ben Combee E-Mail=combee@prism.gatech.edu URL=http://www.gatech.edu/acm/combee.html ------------------------------ From: jerryw@abode.ccd.bnl.gov (Jerry Whelan) Subject: Re: Its Here Again! FCC/Modem Tax Date: 3 Jan 1995 18:47:41 GMT Organization: Brookhaven National Lab, CCD > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, he did not mark it 'not for > publication' and in any event, I think it does us good to air out > this thing once in awhile and re-emphasize the nonsense of it all. PAT] 'Not for publication' ... Take a look at Brock Meeks's `CyberWire Dispatch' at: http://cyberwerks.com:70/0h/cyberwire/cwd/cwd.94.12.09a.html The root of the dispatch tree is at: http://cyberwerks.com:70/1/cyberwire ------------------------------ From: chazworth@aol.com (Chazworth) Subject: Re: Information Wanted on NEC 2000 Switch Date: 3 Jan 1995 00:35:03 -0500 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) In article , Jason Davis writes: > I just installed one, nice system. This one was equiped with 256 > ports and three T1 interfaces. SMDR and voice Mail also. Great looking > rack mounted with patch panels. In the interest of keeping this string going: Have you or anyone installed the Ethernet card on the 2000IVS yet? Let me know, I am curious as to how it works, or may work. ------------------------------ From: Lynne Gregg Subject: Re: GSM in U.S. Date: Tue, 03 Jan 1995 09:46:00 PST jjfai@alertnet.com recently inquired about GSM support in the U.S. Recently McCaw's New York operation, Cellular One began an International Roaming service involving GSM phones. One TD responder to the original post pointed out that there are NO cellular carriers supporting GSM on their U.S. systems. This is absolutely correct. However, if you choose local service with Cellular One in New York, you can retain your GSM unit and can have your GSM calls (if you roam back in Europe) billed back to a single account -- your Cellular One account. If you have questions about this service you can talk to cathy.oshea@ mccaw.com, reply to me, or contact the Cellular One office near you. Best regards, Lynne Gregg ------------------------------ From: gtompk@teleport.com (Greg Tompkins) Subject: Re: How to Find Your Number Date: Tue, 3 Jan 1995 19:31:18 GMT Organization: Teleport What is a number beside the 1-800 thing that I can dial? I thought there was one from the local exchange. I can dial 311 and it gives me my phone number. GREG [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It varies from one community to the next. It even varies from one central office to the next in the community. When one gets published or widely known, it gets changed soon thereafter. From time to time here in the Digest we have had lists of these things that had been collected from all over the USA, but time and again about half the numbers on the list were incorrect by the time the list got printed. Really, the only way to find out about this is to ask locally in your own community. The one I gave earlier of 1-800-MY-ANI-IS seems to be the only one that works from anywhere and has been in service for awhile. Our old faithful 1-577-your last four for ringback does not even work here in Skokie any longer as of a month ago. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Mark Huang Subject: Looking for Pager Operators for Tampa/Ft. Myers Area Reply-To: Organization: National Institutes of Health Date: Tue, 03 Jan 1995 15:04:30 GMT Hi, all: I'm looking for paging system operators interested in 929MHz licenses for Tampa/Fort Myers area. Please call (301) 770-6417 or e-mail: mhuang@capaccess.org. Thx! Mark L. Huang, Ph.D. E-mail: mhuang@capacess.org E-mail: rin0mxw@bumed30.med.navy.mil (expire: 31 January, 1995) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 03 Jan 1995 10:53:31 EDT From: Keith Jason Uber <942576@edna.cc.swin.edu.au> Subject: Phone Card Reader Wanted Pat, Firstly - thank-you for your newsgroup/archives/digest - fantastic reading! I am looking for an article on building a Phone Card Reader that connects to a pc. I saw it two or three days ago when browsing gopher or WWW (I can't remember) and thought "That's cool ... but Australia doesn't use Smart-cards for their phones". The very next day, I met a German exchange student who gave me a German phonecard! Subsequently I've spent about four hours searching through veronica, wwww etc with no luck. Any help or direction would be great ... I intend to modify it to use it as an electronic key to start my car! Thanks again, keith [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, it sounds like an interesting application if it can be done. Let us know how it progresses. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 03 Jan 95 11:02:51 MST From: John Shaver Subject: Last Laugh! IBM Buys Episcopal Church For Immediate Release The Chairman of IBM announced today that, in response to Microsoft Corp.'s acquisition of the Roman Catholic Church, IBM has bid for and acquired the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America for $1 billion. "We are the oldest and most prestigious computer company in the world," he said, "and we cannot be seen to be lagging behind in the race for preeminence in the religious software and hardware markets. We have tendered an offer to the Most. Rev. Edmund Browning, Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church and Pamela Chinnis, President of the House of Deputies of General Convention, and they have recommended acceptance to the shareholders / communicants." The Episcopal Church is one of the oldest and most respected denominations in the United States. Many current and former officeholders, including many Presidents, have been communicants. Although its membership was declining in recent years, the latest figures show a slight increase in membership. A combination with IBM will probably be beneficial in terms of putting "fannies in the seats" in Episcopal Churches across the United States. There will also be great benefits to IBM in terms of international connections through the Episcopal Church. The Church is one of the most senior members of the international Anglican communion by way of its separation from the Church of England after the Revolutionary War and the consecration in 1784 of its first Bishop, Samuel Seabury. IBM hopes to gain a foothold in the international religious business through these connections, and perhaps tender a bid for the entire Anglican Communion by the time of the next meeting of the world Anglican bishops in London in 1998 (Lambeth Conference). The Archbishop of Canterbury, The Most Reverend George Carey, could not be reached for comment. IBM and Episcopal Church are "good fit" IBM has had the distinction of being the first and, up until several years ago, the most successful computer company in the world. It was founded by Herman Hollerith, the inventor of the computer card, in the late 1800, and concentrated on business machines such as adding machines and typewriters until the invention of the computer in the 1940. They invested heavily in this new technology, and became rich from selling and maintaining them in the 1950's through 1980's. However, IBM's stodgy corporate culture prevented it from taking advantage of newer technology. It almost entirely missed the value of personal computer technology in the late 1970's, allowing other companies to use processes it developed to make so-called "clone" personal computers. It therefore lost out on the billions of dollars spent on this technology over the past 15 years. IBM has recently spun off its typewriter and printer businesses and concentrated on PC building and software, and has even resorted to layoffs for the first time in its history. The slogan, "No one was ever fired for buying IBM" has become a bitter joke in the business world. The Episcopal Church was, for a long time, considered the most successful of the Protestant Churches in terms of wealth and power. Many of the rich and famous swelled its numbers, and its liturgy was noted for its archaic beauty as much as its treasury was noted for its gilt-edged bonds. However, in recent years, with the dying-off of the elderly rich and the fall in the birth rate among the bluebloods who remained, the Episcopal Church has suffered both a decline in numbers and in influence and wealth. Notwithstanding the slogan, "The Episcopal Church Welcomes You," numbers have only recently begun to increase again as the Church begins to be seen as a place where outcasts can take part in its life. Along with IBM, the Episcopal Church has had to resort to layoffs to balance its budget, and the merger will allow both organizations to trim even further their personnel costs. IBM's chairman said today, "We have been known as the place where the white-coated mystics take charge of computers in sealed rooms. As a direct result of this merger, our white-coated mystic roster will be cut by half and merged with the ordained ministry of the Episcopal Church. After all, they also wear white garments when celebrating their mysteries. The similarities outweigh the differences, and we think that we can bring their white-suited mystics up to speed in JCL and C++ within a few months." The Presiding Bishop and Ms. Chinnis issued a joint statement saying: "We welcome this merger as a meshing of two great but sometimes old-fashioned institutions. The merger will allow us to cut our technical staff by half again, and concentrate our resources on becoming the largest and most successful Protestant Church in the United States. Our first IBM mainframe is already being installed in the basement of 815 Second Avenue, the Episcopal Church Center in New York." They continued: "So that we can assure ourselves that the Apostolic Succession will be continued, the Bishops of the Episcopal Church will lay hands on the Board of IBM in a ceremony at the Cathedral of St. John the Divine in New York City. Then, the entire House of Bishops will travel up to Armonk, where they will be instructed in the use of the personal computer." The business writers of most US newspapers will join the religion correspondents in recording this momentous occasion. Both the business and the religious communities are awaiting the new developments that this historic merger will make possible. His Eminence Bill Gates, had no comment. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V15 #4 **************************** Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa04467; 4 Jan 95 18:11 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (4.1/SMI-4.0-proxy) id AA08053; Wed, 4 Jan 95 08:33:20 CST Return-Path: Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (4.1/SMI-4.0-proxy) id AA08043; Wed, 4 Jan 95 08:33:17 CST Date: Wed, 4 Jan 95 08:33:17 CST From: telecom@delta.eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson)) Message-Id: <9501041433.AA08043@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #5 TELECOM Digest Wed, 4 Jan 95 08:33:00 CST Volume 15 : Issue 5 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Protest of New Compuserve-Unisys GIF Usage Tax (Jack Hamilton) Re: What is a T1 Line? (Joseph H Allen) Re: Britain-Japan Fiber Cable (Wally Ritchie) Re: Finland Data Transmission (Wally Ritchie) NANP 800 Numbers From the UK (Clive D.W. Feather) Cellular Billing Services (Raymond S. VanderBok) Cell One NY/NJ Eliminates Daily Roam Charges (Stan Schwartz) Summary: Telecom Texts (David P. Wiltzius) 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: * telecom-request@eecs.nwu.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: 9457-D Niles Center Road Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 708-329-0571 Fax: 708-329-0572 ** Article submission address only: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu ** Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * 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. * ************************************************************************* Additionally, 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: jfh@crl.com (Jack Hamilton) Subject: Re: Protest of New Compuserve-Unisys GIF Usage Tax Date: 3 Jan 1995 23:28:03 -0800 Organization: CRL Dialup Internet Access (415) 705-6060 [Login: guest] There have been many articles on this topic posted in the comp.infosystems. www.* groups, You should read all these articles yourself, but a reasonable summary, I think, is this: - Compuserve was charged by Unisys with a patent violation for the LZW compression algorithm used in GIFs. Compuserve had used the algorithm believing it was in the public domain, but in fact Unisys had applied for a patent. - Compuserve decided to license the technology rather than fight the patent. - Compuserve doesn't seem much happier about this than anyone else (except the people at Unisys, I guess). - Unisys clearly seems to be the villain here. - Compuserve has to pay royalties to Unisys. - The patent doesn't apply to GIF files themselves. Here's part of a message from Tim Oren, who claims to be a vice-President of Compuserve. CompuServe has not and is not asserting a proprietary interest in the GIF spec. Even if we wanted to, there are enough sharp attorneys here who could remind us that it has long been publicly disclosed with no patent filing or attempt to assert other rights. However, in developng GIF, we did use the LZW compression scheme. Unknown to us at the time, Unisys had filed for a patent on that algorithm, even though we found it in a public source. We were approached regarding the matter long after GIF had been widely released on CompuServe and to the market at large. Regardless of what you may think about software patents in general, or the tactic of waiting until substantial infringment has occured, we were in an infringing position and had no option to seek a license. Since we have a substantial base of developers who were not only creating clients to Compuserve, but had used GIF in good faith in their own products, we also needed to in some way protect their interests by developng a pass through license. The text of that license, or portions of it, are what's circulating around the nets. Because it has been taken out of context, many are taking it as an assertion, by CompuServe, of an intent to prosecute proprietary rights in GIF against all users, including developers of Web clients and other software. This is not the case. CompuServe has no intent of pursuing rights in GIF in such a fashion, and I am writing this with the knowledge and consent of our CEO. Unisys, of course, may follow whatever they see as their best interests in the matter. For better or worse, as a patent attorney can tell you, selective enforcement is allowed by the letter of the law. Tim Oren Vice President CompuServe and more from Mr Oren: Re GIF, I can talk about it, and if the impression being left is that we are trying to make big bucks, I definitely need to talk about it, because we've left the wrong impression. Here's the story, which you CAN repeat, WITH my name attached: GIF was originally developed at CompuServe by Steve Wilhite, who currently works for me. As part of it, he used with the LZW compression scheme, which had been openly published by Unisys engineer in a journal. A number of other developers picked up and used LZW as well. None of us knew that Unisys had filed for, and eventually received, a patent on the LZW scheme. I believe this is called a 'submarine' patent - it can surface and get you later. We were got. Unisys proposed an infringement suit, and we had no recourse but to settle. We are paying licensing fees in a manner which IS a nondisclosure item. One of the things we needed to be able to do is to 'pass through' a license embodying both LZW & GIF to those developers who create their own client programs to CompuServe, such as TAPCIS and Mac Nav, since they 'practice' LZW as well. The reason that GIF is included as a conditional in such licenses is that we can't pass through an unrestricted LZW license, and the reason there is money involved is that we in turn have to pay Unisys. If anyone is taking the impression that we are asserting proprietary rights in GIF additional to the LZW patent, that is wrong. Neither are we attempting to assist Unisys in enforcing their patent with respect to non-CompuServe environments, such as the Internet, though 'buying into' our license would be one way of Internet based vendors in avoiding possible action from Unisys. This is far more headache than it is worth, believe me, and we are actively engaged in looking at migration strategies that will get us and our customers off the hook. Our reputation has been damaged by being an unwitting partner to Unisys during those 7 years of encouraging proliferation, and we are not happy about it. (I'm sure Stallman - rms - could find a moral in here somewhere... ) ------------- Jack Hamilton jfh@crl.com KD6TTL '92 K75RTA co-moderator, sci.med.aids ------------------------------ From: jhallen@world.std.com (Joseph H Allen) Subject: Re: What is a T1 Line? Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA Date: Wed, 4 Jan 1995 08:01:22 GMT In article , James Carlson wrote: > I'm afraid you'll have to re-read what I wrote. There is no such > thing as "cross-talk" at the *digital* level. One DS0 channel cannot > affect another within a T1 line; there just is no path for this to > happen. Any signal at all can be carried on a DS0, and the others > will be blissfully unaware that it exists. They are separated in > time. For a DS0 as defined as a TDM channel on a T1, this is true (excluding inter-symbol interference on a bad line). The original poster was concerned about a filter on a 56K copper pair, which prevented it from being used at any higher rate. In this case there is filter to prevent cross-talk between 56K copper pairs. An entire T1 can also go on a copper pair, but not with that filter. The fact that the line is a DS0 which eventually gets multiplexed onto a T1 also limits his bandwidth. If this is not the filter which the poster was referring to, then pardon me. >>> In fact Pulse Code Modulation (digital) without any error detection >>> has almost the same interference properties as FM radio. If two FM >>> stations are close, there will be noise. If they are really close, >>> you'll hear both stations at once and lots of noise. > The two are very different. PCM is a digital signal; if you can > recover it from the noise on the line, you'll get a "perfect" copy of > the data. Line hits will produce a decidedly non-analog type of > noise, with random data points being generated. To produce > traditional "cross-talk" effects, you'd have to do an arithmetic > average on the values of the data points between two lines. This is > highly unlikely to occur. > If you had two AMI lines next to each other, you'd need to have the > extraneous cross-talk signal exceed the pulse detection threshold of > the receivers in order to be able to detect *anything* at all. > Anything below this value would simply be invisible at the digital > level. If there are two PCM signals going at the same rate with no error detection, no sequence randomization, and out-of-band syncronization, and there is enough interference to mess with the detection threshold, you will here actual cross-talk. It will be very bad, and the original signal will also be almost completely munged. Yes, this is different from linear additive cross-talk, but it's still cross-talk. > FM, due to the nature of analog demodulation techniques, exhibits a > capture effect. If two signals are broadcast on the same frequency, > the "louder" signal will be heard to the exclusion of the "quieter" > signal. You won't hear both stations at once. If the received > amplitude of the two signals are varying with respect to each other, > then all sorts of interesting effects (depending on the type of > demodulation used) occur, but hearing both at once isn't one of the > options. This "capture" effect has nearly the same effect as two PCM signals on top of each other. The stronger one will get through if the weeker one doesn't mess with it too much. If they have the same signal levels, you'll have real cross-talk plus lots of noise (to the point where they are both nearly indistinguishable, same as PCM). This really happens, try it. >>> There's also a ~100KHz low-pass filter between the A/D converter and >>> the line to limit the edge rate of the digital pulses. Cross-talk is >>> more severe at higher frequencies, so limiting the unnecessary high- >>> frequencies caused by fast edges helps reduce cross-talk. > Any filter placed in the DS0 data path after quantization and before > multiplexing has no effect on the bandwidth of the signal that the > user of that DS0 sees. This has nothing to do with the poster's > original statements. It does, because the original poster was concerned about that bandwidth of the actual copper pair that came to his house. It's my understanding that an ISDN DS0 is 56K digital line on a copper pair between your house and the local office, not a shared T1 (although a multiplexer at the local office my put it on a T1). jhallen@world.std.com (192.74.137.5) Joseph H. Allen ------------------------------ From: writchie@gate.net Subject: Re: Britain-Japan Fiber Cable Date: 4 Jan 1995 06:31:23 GMT Reply-To: writchie@gate.net In , nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle) writes: > wrf@ecse.rpi.edu (Wm. Randolph U Franklin) writes: >> AT&T will build a cable from Britain to Japan for $1.2G. It'll be >> 17,000 miles long, 5Gbps, and carry 320,000 "voice and other messages". >> That looks like only 16Kbps per circuit (which looks low). The >> current longest cable is a 9,000 mile one from France to Singapore, >> completed a year ago. >> Fun math: That works out to a capital cost per circuit of only $3750. >> Assume that a phone call from Britain to Japan costs $2/minute. If >> all 320,000 channels were in continuous use, then the cable would be >> paid for in the first 31 hours. >> Alternatively, if we assumed that the cable is good for ten years, >> or 100,000 hours, then amortizing the capital cost would be three >> cents per hour, or $5e-4/minute. This is a factor of 4,000 less >> than the price of the call. > The numbers for the newer transantlatic cables look like that, > too. You really should be able to buy a full-time transatlantic > circuit for about $100/month, and at the rate cable is being laid, you > probably soon will. > Not having to acquire property rights is a big win. Fortunately, > the UN didn't think of this for the Law of the Sea conference. There is no question that the "cost" to the carriers of the international circuits is declining toward zero. That cost, however, has very little to do with what you pay for an int't private-line or switched service. An international circuit is two "half circuits" with the price at each end completely controlled by the carriers at each end, one or both of which is normally a monopoly PTT. Only US/Canada and US/UK circuits are priced at anything even reasonably related to cost. Until PTT's discover what price elasticity means, or they are forced by large private bypass users, tariffed rates are unlikely to reflect the low costs actually involved. The U.S. Model is informative. For interstate long distance the "costs" are $0.03 originating access (paid to LEC), $0.03 terminating access (paid to LEC), and $0.01 or less TOTAL operational cost for the IXC. Because the IXC has to pay the LEC's the $0.06, it has about $0.07 total cost resulting in a retail pricing on the order of $0.11 - $0.16. The IXC of course has to absorb credit risk on all of the true cost (including the LEC which gets its money in any case. The IXC also has marketing and other costs. Nevertheless the true cost of long distance is on the order of a penny a minute and that includes the switches. If access costs were reduced to the same magnitude as the long distance, the total retail price would be on the order of a nickel a minute. Intrastate is even worse. I actually pay less to call Ft. Lauderdale to London than I pay to call from Ft. Lauderdale to Miami. The fact is that most PTT's subsidize their large and politically powerful employee bases by maintaining the highest possible overall charges for international calling both in collection rates (charged to those in their country) and in accounting rates (charges to U.S. or other foreign carriers). The same true for private lines. In fact the "price" guideline for a private line is oftern based on 9000 minutes of switched usage, no relataion to cost. Wally Ritchie Ft. Lauderdale ------------------------------ From: writchie@gate.net Subject: Re: Finland Data Transmission Date: 4 Jan 1995 06:50:24 GMT Reply-To: writchie@gate.net In , jackp@telecomm.admin.ogi.edu (Jack Pestaner) writes: > We have been communicating to a site in Finland with autoranging 14.4k > modems. On a good day we can run at 9600, but typically at 2400. We > have tried AT&T, MCI, and IDB (all are direct digital connections > through our PBX), but all seem to be extremely variable. We use > NetBlazer modems, same model, on each end. > This is really expensive, and we want to move to a more reliable > service, as we expect to have longer hold times of three to five hours > a day. I checked on a 56k DDS, but cost was about $9K per month. > Are there any satellite solutions, or packet solutions that anybody > knows of? BTW, we also tried x.25 from Sprint, but service went down > often, and Sprint just has the WORST customer service for problem > solving. You might want to try different modems including some newer V.34's You might also investigate the nature of the analog loops at both your end and the Finland end. V32bis and V34 depend on effective cancellation of echo. Not all modem models are equally effective with circuits that have long delays. The types of echo cancellers and echo suppressors used on individual connections can also be a significant factor. Since you will be spending several $K per month, it should be worthwhile to investigate different modems and possibly some conditioning of the analog loops in Finland. How is your voice quality? Are you getting satellite circuits all the time?. What happens US/UK with the same modems? What happens Finland/UK. With the money your spending, the capital costs of the best modems money can buy are insignificant. Wally Ritchie Ft. Lauderdale, Florida ------------------------------ Subject: NANP 800 numbers from the UK Date: Wed, 4 Jan 1995 12:57:52 GMT From: Clive D.W. Feather All of a sudden, I can now dial 1-800 numbers from the UK. There is a few seconds of silence, and then an American female voice tells me that this call will *not* be free, but charged at standard direct-dial rates. If I don't want to pay, I should hang up now. Just for fun, I tried 1-800-MY-ANI-IS. It told me: "702 000 5555" ! Clive D.W. Feather | Santa Cruz Operation clive@sco.com | Croxley Centre Phone: +44 1923 813541 | Hatters Lane, Watford Fax: +44 1923 813811 | WD1 8YN, United Kingdom ------------------------------ From: rvb@iti.org (Raymond S. VanderBok) Subject: Cellular Billing Services Date: 4 Jan 95 13:02:09 GMT Organization: Industrial Technology Institute Are there service companies that provide custom billing for cellular service? I would like to be charged for service in a way different from what my cellular provider offers. Ray VanderBok Metalforming Manager NIST / Midwest Manufacturing Technology Center (313)769-4131 internet: rvb@iti.org ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Jan 1995 22:35:58 EST From: Stan Schwartz Subject: Cell One NY/NJ Eliminates Daily Roam Charges It was buried in small print in the copy of their ad in Monday's {New York Newsday}, so I called customer service and verified it. As of 1/2/95, Cell One NY/NJ (00025) has FINALLY followed NYNEX Mobile's lead and eliminated the $3.00 daily "nag" roamer charge everywhere in North America. This applies to both NACN and Non-NACN cities (it was unclear in some cases whether some NACN cities charged the fee). At any rate, the only charges for roaming outside the NACN are 99 cents per minute airtime (still higher than NYNEX, for the most part). CellOne's customer service rep explained that some areas are 83 cents per minute instead of the 99, but they are few and far between - one should assume that it will be 99 and be pleasantly surprised if the bill is 16 cents less (per minute). A small celebration is in order! Stan ------------------------------ From: wiltzius@anduin.ocf.llnl.gov (David P Wiltzius) Subject: Summary: Telecom Texts Date: 4 Jan 1995 00:00:06 GMT Organization: Lawrence Livermore Nat'l Lab. I had several requests to post a summary so here goes. I haven't found a good textbook in telecom, but I think Newton's Telecom Dictionary is a very useful substitute. Because it is structured as a dictionary, one must piece together information from various entries, but I did pretty well on your test sentence. All the technical terms in your sentence were in Newton and they clearly pointed me toward the SONET entry, which is almost two pages long, and did a decent job of explaining your sentence, I think. I teach a course on information and communication technology (for industrial engineers); I use a collection of up-to-date articles on uses of telecom (Network World is one great source) and have the students use Newton to help them read these articles. I saw a book in Barnes and Noble called "Digital Telephony", Second Edition, by John Bellamy. Publisher is John Wiley, (c) 1991. IBSN 0-471-62056-4 After perusing the book, I came to the conclusion that it contains much of the information I am looking for (the same sort of thing you are looking for). The first chapter covers analog systems. The rest is digital. There is a chapter on SONET. I am still debating whether or not to get it (it was $75). I am interested but I could also spend $1000 on software engineering books (my occupation). Consider it requested. BTW, I bought some of the Telephony BASIC series. Haven't had a chance to look at them yet but they are THIN. I suspect they are VERY basic and not a good bargain. Happy Holidays, (Ed: I bought two of them (SONET and Wireless) months ago and I think they are worth their modest price. They are basic, as advertised.) McGraw-Hill, Delran, NJ 08075, publishes a series of reference books called Datapro. The series covers everything from how modems work, T-1 history, to vendor and product analysis. William Stallings has written several books on communications media and equipment. Titles slip my mind but I'm sure you should be able to find something by author search. -------------------Start off with "Digital Telephony" 2nd Ed. by John Bellamy ISBN 0-471-62056-4. He has a chapter on SONET that will give you a taste. Since the field is still emerging, many issues with SONET and SDH are still evolving. ------------------- RADIO SHACK CARRIES A BOOK CALLED "UNDERSTANDING TELEPHONE ELECTRONICS" WHICH EXPLAINS SUBJECTS FROM THE SIMPLE POTS TELEPHONE TO CENTRAL OFFICE EQUIPMENT. TELLABS, INC. PUTS OUT A TEXT BOOK COMPLETE WITH TESTS AT THE END OF EACH CHAPTER. HOPE THIS HELPS. IF YOU HEAR ABOUT OTHERS PLEASE LET ME KNOW. ------------------- You're welcome! I recently purchased an excellent telecom book from Artech House Inc.: "Service Management in Computing and Telecommunications." Artech specializes in telecom material. Their number is: 617-769-9750, call for a catalog. I've found them pleasant to do business with, but their prices, as with Computer Literacy, are full list (read: high). Speaking of price, if you're in the San Jose area, there is a large store near the corner of Hilsdale and Camden, across Hillsdale from Target, that buys close-out books from publishers. They sell most for under $5.00, and many for $3.00! Many books are college texts, and on some very good subjects. I was there this afternoon and picked up the "Artifial Inteligence Handbook ($3.00), Spencer Johnson's "Yes or No" ($3.00), "Voodoo Dos" ($8.00), Jimmy Carter's "An Outdoor Journal" ($3.00), Stanley Davis' "Managing Corporate Culture" ($2.00), and the "Pocket Guide to Phrasal Verbs" ($2.00). These are all hardbound editions. I didn't see any telecom material, but I have in the past. the place is huge, and I didn't look at everything. It's definately worth a visit if you're in the neighborhood, and you have the time. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V15 #5 **************************** Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa06229; 4 Jan 95 20:27 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (4.1/SMI-4.0-proxy) id AA23108; Wed, 4 Jan 95 15:23:13 CST Return-Path: Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (4.1/SMI-4.0-proxy) id AA23100; Wed, 4 Jan 95 15:23:09 CST Date: Wed, 4 Jan 95 15:23:09 CST From: telecom@delta.eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson)) Message-Id: <9501042123.AA23100@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #6 TELECOM Digest Wed, 4 Jan 95 15:23:00 CST Volume 15 : Issue 6 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson AT&T Settles CALL-INFO Dispute With MCI (AT&T News via A. Alan Toscano) Motorola Flip Technical Manual (Shawn Gordhamer) Irish/USA Phone Ring Signals vs UK (Conor O'Neill) Telecom FAQ - Time to Update It (Dave Leibold) Is There a Telecom Group in Chicago? (logicarsch@aol.com) Seeking White Pages on CD or Disk (Scott Warbritton) EARN Gopher Server (gopher@earn.net) Computer Caller-ID (Thomas Fitzurka) AT&T First to Deliver Long-Awaited "Follow-Me" 500 Numbers (Alan Toscano) Are You Working in Televirtuality/Networked Virtual Worlds? (Robt Jacobson) Re: Noise Introduced by Bit-Robbing? (Wally Ritchie) Re: Noise Introduced by Bit-Robbing? (Andy Spitzer) 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: * telecom-request@eecs.nwu.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: 9457-D Niles Center Road Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 708-329-0571 Fax: 708-329-0572 ** Article submission address only: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu ** Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * 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. * ************************************************************************* Additionally, 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 4 Jan 1995 14:01:51 -0600 From: A Alan Toscano Subject: AT&T and MCI Settle 800-CALL-INFO Directory Assistance Dispute Michael Lordi 908-221-6382 Gary Morgenstern 908-221-6153 AT&T AND MCI SETTLE 800 CALL INFO DIRECTORY ASSISTANCE DISPUTE BASKING RIDGE, N.J. -- AT&T today announced that it has reached an agreement to settle its complaint against MCI Telecommunications Corporation involving MCI's 1-800-CALL-INFO directory assistance service. Under the settlement, MCI will make changes in the service that will protect the public's interests and trust in the toll-free status of 800 services. The agreement requires MCI to cease its practice of automatically charging for calls to its 800 number for directory information based on the electronic identification of the callers' numbers. Contingent on that change, and upon the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) approval of the settlement, AT&T will drop its complaint that MCI's practice violated the 1992 Federal Telephone and Dispute Resolution Act. The law restricts telephone companies and information providers from charging customers for calling 800 numbers. Callers to MCI's service will now be required to use credit cards, calling cards or establish alternative billing arrangements with MCI in advance of their calls. MCI has agreed to make these modifications by Jan. 7. "This means that callers will no longer have to fear dialing 800 numbers and automatically being charged. And businesses don't need to concern themselves with policing these calls from their premises," said Kenneth Sichau, AT&T's marketing vice president. "It's great news for the entire industry! "This is precisely the outcome we had requested when we filed our complaint in October. We will continue our efforts at the FCC to preserve and strengthen rules that protect consumers from abusive or unfair practices involving toll-free 800 service." ------------------------------ From: shawnlg@netcom.com (Shawn Gordhamer) Subject: Motorola Flip Technical Manual Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Date: Wed, 4 Jan 1995 17:35:39 GMT Is there a good source for the Micro T-A-C technical manual (or information contained therein)? My dealer said they paid several hundred dollars for one. Shawn Gordhamer shawnlg@netcom.com ------------------------------ From: Conor O'Neill Date: Wed, 4 Jan 1995 16:19:08 +0000 Subject: Irish/USA Phone Ring Signals vs UK Reply-To: conor_o@s3dub.ie Hi, I recently purchased a British Telecom Answering machine for use in Ireland. In my innocence I assumed the Irish and UK phone systems would be almost identical. They are not. From what I can gather, the Irish system almost identical to the USA when tones are concerned. I purchased an adapter in Ireland which uses a capacitor to modify the ring signal so that the BT machine recognises the tones. However it does not recognise the hang-up tone and so is a bit useless at the moment. Anyone out there know how to modify American tones to suit BT equipment? I'm pretty sure about the Irish and American signals being similar as several people I know have bought phone equipment in the USA which worked perfectly here. Any help would be appreciated. Conor O'Neill ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 4 Jan 1995 00:38:00 -0500 From: dleibold@gvc.com (Dave Leibold) Subject: Telecom FAQ - Time to Update It The TELECOM Digest FAQ is long overdue for an overhaul. Anyone with updates for the FAQ should send them this way. Hopefully before the winter is out, another FAQ edition will replace the current one. Send updates to dleibold@gvc.com (or to any of my usual e-homes) ------------------------------ From: logicarsch@aol.com (LogicaRsch) Subject: Is There a Telecom Group in Chicago? Date: 4 Jan 1995 15:20:39 -0500 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: logicarsch@aol.com (LogicaRsch) I do market research specializing in telecommunications. I'm looking for a telecom organization that I can join that has a Chicago chapter. Specifically, I'm looking for a group that has meetings, seminars and get-togethers, a little newsletter, etc. etc. for a hundred or two hundred bucks a year. Can someone clue me in? Thanks! [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You know, to show you what a hermit I have become the past few years, my answer to your question would have to be 'I do not know'. Seriously, I don't. Maybe we should start one, or some sort of telecom discussion group, social, etc. PAT] ------------------------------ From: swar@infinet.com (Buzz) Subject: Seeking White Pages on CD or Disk Date: Wed, 04 Jan 95 13:55:56 EST Organization: infinet.com I'm not sure if such an animal exists, but I'm looking for white pages for the entire country on either CD or Disk. All reply's on where to obtain this information, either by email or posts will be deeply appreciated. Scott Warbritton swar@infinet.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: They're out there. Some are of dubious value in terms of accuracy. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 4 Jan 1995 12:17:09 +0100 From: GopherMail Server Subject: EARN Gopher Server Mail this file back to gopher with an X before the menu items that you want. If you don't mark any items, gopher will send all of them. 1. About the EARN Information Service. 2. About EARN/ 3. About TERENA/ 4. User Services Documentation/ 5. EARNEST, the EARN Newsletter/ 6. CNRE - Computer Networks for Research in Europe/ 7. Network Services Conferences (NSC)/ 8. LISTSERV (public archives, list of lists)/ 9. Networking Information (Internet Documents, RIPE, InterNIC, ISOC, ITU)/ 10. EARN/Bitnet (List of nodes, node changes, management databases, etc.)/ 11. Other Gopher and Information Servers/ 12. Subject Tree/ 13. Library Catalogs and Electronic Journals/ 14. Network Resource Tools (archie, Netfind, Whois, veronica, Usenet, etc.)/ 15. Need help? Try NETHELP, the online help desk (or read the FAQs)/ You may edit the following two numbers to set the maximum sizes after which GopherMail should send output as multiple email messages: Split=64K bytes/message <- For text, bin, HQX messages (0 = No split) Menu=100 items/message <- For menus and query responses (0 = No split) # Name=About the EARN Information Service Numb=1 Type=0 Port=70 Path=0/README Host=gopher.earn.net # Name=About EARN Numb=2 Type=1 Port=70 Path=1/general.information Host=ftp.earn.net # Name=About TERENA Numb=3 Type=1 Port=70 Path=1/terena Host=gopher.earn.net # Name=User Services Documentation Numb=4 Type=1 Port=70 Path=1/doc Host=ftp.earn.net # Name=EARNEST, the EARN Newsletter Numb=5 Type=1 Port=70 Path=1/earnest Host=ftp.earn.net # Name=CNRE - Computer Networks for Research in Europe Numb=6 Type=1 Port=70 Path=1/cnre Host=ftp.earn.net # Name=Network Services Conferences (NSC) Numb=7 Type=1 Port=70 Path=1/nsc Host=ftp.earn.net # Name=LISTSERV (public archives, list of lists) Numb=8 Type=1 Port=70 Path=1/listserv.archives Host=ftp.earn.net # Name=Networking Information (Internet Documents, RIPE, InterNIC, ISOC, ITU) Numb=9 Type=1 Port=70 Path=1/networking.servers Host=gopher.earn.net # Name=EARN/Bitnet (List of nodes, node changes, management databases, etc.) Numb=10 Type=1 Port=70 Path=1/network.information Host=ftp.earn.net # Name=Other Gopher and Information Servers Numb=11 Type=1 Port=70 Path=1/Other Gopher and Information Servers Host=gopher.sunet.se # Name=Subject Tree Numb=12 Type=1 Port=70 Path=1/Subject Tree Host=gopher.sunet.se # Name=Library Catalogs and Electronic Journals Numb=13 Type=1 Port=70 Path=1/epub Host=gopher.earn.net # Name=Network Resource Tools (archie, Netfind, Whois, veronica, Usenet, etc.) Numb=14 Type=1 Port=70 Path=1/tools Host=gopher.earn.net # Name=Need help? Try NETHELP, the online help desk (or read the FAQs) Numb=15 Type=1 Port=70 Path=1/nethelp Host=gopher.earn.net ------------------------------ From: LCRS73A@prodigy.com (Thomas Fitzurka) Subject: Computer Caller-ID Date: 04 Jan 1995 11:21:56 GMT Organization: Prodigy Services Company 1-800-PRODIGY Does anyone know of a software program that enables you to have your computer identify caller's phone numbers? I saw a movie called Brainscan that had a computer, using caller id, identify the caller and tell the person in an "igor" voice, which I perticularly liked, that "Bobby is calling master". The idea was really interesting to me and I would like to get something like it. Thanks. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I don't know the specific name of a software program doing this, but there is lots of software for what you propose. I think someone said Procomm had that ability. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 4 Jan 1995 14:00:53 -0600 From: A Alan Toscano Subject: AT&T First to Deliver Long-Awaited "Follow-Me" 500 Numbers Jon Mellor 908-221-5017 Carol Henry 908-221-8089 Doug Idleman 908-221-3950 AT&T FIRST TO DELIVER LONG-AWAITED "FOLLOW-ME" 500 NUMBERS BASKING RIDGE, N.J. -- Mobile consumers and corporate road warriors eager for the new "follow-me-everywhere" 500 numbers are getting them from AT&T, the first company to offer a service. The company said it already has arrangements to provide 500 numbers to as many as 37,000 members of the National Football League Players, the American Institute for Foreign Study, and Cross Country Healthcare. AT&T also is selling the service to tens of thousands of individuals who reserved numbers last summer, when the company announced how people could use the new numbers. Customers can begin using the new personal number service, called AT&T True Connections, in the next several weeks as local dialing availability becomes universal. Anyone who needs to stay connected to business associates, friends or relatives while moving from place to place can benefit from having an AT&T 500 number. People can tailor the service to their needs for anytime-anywhere communications, and can keep their 500 numbers for life. The people signing up for AT&T's service include real- estate agents, who move around a lot during the day; business owners and executives who spend time in different offices during the week; college students, who move between campuses and their homes; and retirees, who travel throughout the year as both tourists and grandparents. "AT&T 500-number service can save these people -- and the important people in their lives -- time and money," said Joseph P. Nacchio, president-AT&T Consumer Communications Services. "They'll spend less time exchanging numbers and tracking each other down when they want to talk. And they may even spend less money making fewer calls." Customers can choose from several 500-number offers with a variety of features available only from AT&T. Each customer will have a 500-prefix number that can be programmed to ring any telephone, cellular phone, pager, fax machine or personal computer that can be dialed directly in the United States and more than 200 other countries. By dialing their own 500 numbers, customers can program several phones to ring in sequence, retrieve voice-mail and fax messages and, soon, make outgoing calls without calling cards or coins. Each of the AT&T 500-number packages will be available for an introductory price of $1 a month, with no enrollment fee, through April 30, 1995. Voice-mail service will cost an additional $5.95 a month. AT&T's 500-number service for businesses will include all available features, and will cost $7 a month for each number after the introductory offer has ended. The company expects to add more business-related features in the new year. A variety of packages for consumers allows each person to pick a level of service that meets individual needs. Beginning May 1, subscriptions will range from $1 to $7 a month. Enrollment for business customers and consumers beginning May 1 will cost $10 for each randomly selected 500 number or $25 for each specifically requested 500 number. In addition to monthly fees, a per-minute charge will apply to calls made with 500 numbers. Calls within the United States, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands during off-peak hours (from 5 p.m. to 8 a.m. weekdays, and all weekend) will cost 15 cents a minute, whether the caller or receiver pays. Calls during peak hours (from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. weekdays) will cost 25 cents a minute. Rates for some in-state calls may vary. Calls made to or from other countries will be charged the regular AT&T rates for those countries. Business customers can realize savings opportunities by applying 500-number charges to such volume-discount plans as Customnet and Small Business Advantage Plus. Charges for consumers' AT&T True Connections calls can be discounted through AT&T True USAsm Savings, and they also can earn points in AT&T True Rewardssm and AT&T Global Rewardssm, the company's customer-rewards programs. With voice-mail service, subscribers can receive messages and gain more control over their communications. For instance, it gives them the ability to screen calls, and pager owners can receive notification on their pagers when messages have been left in their voice mailboxes. "We're offering a personal number service that gives customers tremendous flexibility," Nacchio said. "It's rich in features and will help them better manage their communications." The pro football players, nurses and students getting 500 numbers have distinct needs that AT&T meets. o The football players and others covered by the NFLPA agreement can program their 500 numbers to follow them to hotels around the country. o The foreign-exchange students' parents can call their kids' 500 numbers to reach them around the world. The students also can automatically reverse charges on calls back to the United States from locations with touch-tone service. o The nurses and other medical specialists who take short- term jobs through Cross Country Healthcare, a national placement firm, can have their 500 numbers follow them to the apartments they rent. Both business customers and consumers can learn more about AT&T True Connections by calling 1-800-TRUE-500, extension 439. For consumers to subscribe, they must have or obtain AT&T long-distance service in their homes, but they are not required to enroll in any specific program. # # # AT&T 500 PERSONAL NUMBER SERVICES PACKAGES AND PRICES JANUARY 1995 A single feature-rich package for business customers will be available for the introductory price of $1 a month through April 1995. These customers will receive all the features available to consumers, plus business-related enhancements in coming months. Four packages for consumers offer a wide range of choices in features, functions and prices. All will cost $1 a month for an introductory period through April 1995. The basic package, called "Private Line," offers a 500 number that the subscriber can keep for life, no matter how many times he or she moves within the United States. AT&T currently can assign subscribers 500 numbers that begin with 20 different exchanges, such as 346, 367 and 677. For example, a person's number could be 500-346-XXXX. With this package, the calls to the 500 number go only to the subscriber's home telephone. It also allows subscribers to make calls to their own homes when they're traveling. Beginning in February, they'll be able to charge calls to other places on their AT&T True Connections accounts without coins or credit-cards. This package will continue to cost $1 a month after the introductory period. The "Stay Close" package adds call-placing and the subscriber's choice of call forwarding or reverse-billing to the basic package. Call-forwarding lets the subscriber have 500-number calls forwarded to virtually any other U.S. telephone number and to more than 200 countries and areas on demand. Reverse-billing lets the subscriber pay for calls from other people, when those people have a code number given by the subscriber. This package will cost $3 a month after the introductory period. The "Traveler" package adds call-placing, call-forwarding and reverse-billing to the basic package, and will cost $5 a month after the introductory period. The premium package, "Navigator," offers all the above features and adds call-sequencing, which lets a subscriber's 500-number calls ring at several locations in sequence. For instance, a call could be forwarded first to an office phone, then a cellular phone, and then home or even a hotel. The subscriber could change the sequence as often as desired. This package will cost $7 a month after the introductory period. For $5.95 a month, AT&T True Connections subscribers can add voice-mail and receive an unlimited number of messages. With call-screening, they can choose to receive all calls, urgent calls, calls from certain people, or send all calls to their voice mailboxes. And pager owners can receive notification on their pagers when messages have been left for them. Both business customers and consumers can learn more about AT&T True Connections by calling 1-800-982-8480, extension 439. For consumers to subscribe, they must have or obtain AT&T long-distance service in their homes, but they are not required to enroll in any specific program. ------------------------------ From: cyberoid@u.washington.edu (Robert Jacobson) Subject: Are You Working in Televirtuality/Networked Virtual Worlds? Date: 4 Jan 1995 19:56:39 GMT Organization: WORLDESIGN, Seattle I would be interested in anyone working in these areas for possible inclusion on a panel at a leading international conference on virtual worlds. Thanks. Please use email. Bob Jacobson ------------------------------ From: writchie@gate.net Subject: Re: Noise Introduced by Bit-Robbing? Date: 4 Jan 1995 05:51:23 GMT Reply-To: writchie@gate.net In , naddy@mips.pfalz.de (Christian Weisgerber) writes: > What kind of noise/distortion does American-style bit-robbing cause to > voice band signals transmitted through PCM channels? > (The reason I ask is that I wonder how much bit-robbing affects V.34 > modems.) The effect of a robbed bit is to introduce, 50% of the time, an additional quantitization error that results in an overall reduction of about 2db in the S/N ratio. This is not likely to be the limiting factor in V.34 performance except possibly in situations where many D4 type links are involved in tandem. In the U.S., most intermachine trunks are common channel direct connections so only the robbed bit at each end of the IC/EC connection introduces the robbed bit (as well as any non CCS systems in the EC). I believe that other types of noise (other than quantization noise) will have a much greater effect on V.34 peformance particular any type of impulse noise or cross-talk in the analog portions of the local loop. Wally Ritchie Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 4 Jan 95 12:29:30 EST From: woof@telecnnct.com (Andy Spitzer) Subject: Re: Noise Introduced by Bit-Robbing? naddy@mips.pfalz.de (Christian Weisgerber) writes: > What kind of noise/distortion does American-style bit-robbing cause to > voice band signals transmitted through PCM channels? While I can't answer your question in scientific terms (aka %THD measurements, S/N ratios, etc.) I can answer it subjectively. In Robbed Bit signalling, the "Robbed" bit occurs every sixth frame (or sample if we are concentrating on an individual channel), thus in every sixth sample the LSB is overridden with the value of the A bit, then 6 samples later with the value of the B bit. On a "quiet" idle channel (AB bits both 0), using u-Law PCM, the pattern sent over the channel would be: (in hex, LSB last) FF FF FF FF FF FE FF FF FF FF FF FE ... The difference in voltage of a standard CODEC (A/D converter for PCM) from FF to FF is about 2 mV (on a scale from -8031 to +8031 mV). So, converted to an analog signal, the above waveform is a series of 2 mV impulses occuring every 8000/6 = 1333.3 Hz. This waveform is rich in harmonics, so it "sounds" like a very high pitched, (although rather quiet) whine, similar to the "ringing in your ears" sound. Once the line is taken offhook (aka AB bits both become 1), then the pattern becomes: FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF ... which is dead quiet. (And since LSB=1, and AB=1 there is no distortion!) Thus the noise associated with robbed bit signalling can be viewed as superimposing the intended signal with the above impluse train. Perhaps armed with this information, someone else can calculate the noise/distortion measurments you are seeking. Hope this helps! Andy Spitzer woof@telecnnct.com The Telephone Connection 301-417-0700 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V15 #6 **************************** Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa07234; 4 Jan 95 22:45 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (4.1/SMI-4.0-proxy) id AA27091; Wed, 4 Jan 95 16:22:11 CST Return-Path: Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (4.1/SMI-4.0-proxy) id AA27078; Wed, 4 Jan 95 16:22:06 CST Date: Wed, 4 Jan 95 16:22:06 CST From: telecom@delta.eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson)) Message-Id: <9501042222.AA27078@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #7 TELECOM Digest Wed, 4 Jan 95 16:22:00 CST Volume 15 : Issue 7 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Canadian Yellow Pages Companies Face Anti-Monopoly Challenge (Nigel Allen) Cross Keys (Richard D.G. Cox) Re: Cell One NY/NJ Eliminates Daily Roam Charges (Alan M. Gallatin) Re: Cell One NY/NJ Eliminates Daily Roam Charges (Jeffrey Rhodes) Re: Flat Rate Cellular Phone Service (Andrew Laurence) Re: NANP 800 Numbers From the UK (James Sterbenz) Re: Noise Introduced by Bit-Robbing? (Jeffrey Rhodes) Re: Watching The Area Codes Split (Revised List) (Steve Grandi) Re: Christmas Greetings From AT&T (Donald J. Zanolla) Re: Procedure for Obtaining a 10XXX Code (Barton F. Bruce) Re: Where Does ISDN Fit In? (synchro@access1.digex.net) Looking For Mail Order Cellular Accessories (G. Robert Arrabito) Re: How Can I Encrypt a T-1? (synchro@access1.digex.net) Re: How Can I Encrypt a T-1? (Jeff Box) Re: What is a T1 Line? (Matthew P. Downs) Re: What is a T1 Line (William Wood) 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: * telecom-request@eecs.nwu.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: 9457-D Niles Center Road Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 708-329-0571 Fax: 708-329-0572 ** Article submission address only: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu ** Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * 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. * ************************************************************************* Additionally, 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 4 Jan 1995 15:34:15 -0500 Subject: Canadian Yellow Pages Companies Face Anti-Monopoly Challenge From: ndallen@io.org (Nigel Allen) Organization: Internex Online Here is a press release from the Director of Investigation and Research of the Bureau of Competition Policy, an independent official of the government of Canada. (I don't work for the government; I'm just forwarding the press release. Other government press releases are available through ftp, gopher and mosaic at debra.dgbt.doc.ca in /dbd/ftp/pub/isc/Industry.Canada.News.Releases.) File name:Dec-22-94.nb3 File location: debra.dgbt.doc.ca /dbd/ftp/pub/isc/Industry.Canada.News.Releases Date archived: Wed Jan 4 10:13:39 EST 1995 Archive name: Industry Canada, Canadian Federal Government Archived by: tyson@debra.dgbt.doc.ca Originator: Bureau of Competition Policy DIRECTOR BRINGS APPLICATION BEFORE COMPETITION TRIBUNAL REGARDING YELLOW PAGES PUBLISHERS OTTAWA, December 22, 1994 -- George N. Addy, Director of Investigation and Research of the Bureau of Competition Policy, filed an application today before the Competition Tribunal alleging that two subsidiaries of Bell Canada Enterprises, Tele-Direct (Publications) Inc., and Tele-Direct (Services) Inc., are engaged in conduct contrary to the Competition Act. The provisions of the Act that are at issue in this case deal with abuse of dominance, tied selling and refusal to deal. The Director is asking the Competition Tribunal to prohibit the two companies from tying the sale of advertising services to the sale of advertising space in the Yellow Pages and from engaging in other anti-competitive acts toward other participants in the market. He is also requesting the Tribunal to order the two companies to provide subscriber listing information to competing publishers. "In my view, the anti-competitive acts alleged in this application have deprived a large segment of the Canadian business community of the benefits of competition in this important advertising medium," Mr. Addy stated. "The order requested would open the market to independent publishers, advertising agencies and consultants and result in more competitive product and service offerings for consumers of these products," Mr. Addy continued. The Director's application alleges that Tele-Direct (Publications) Inc., and Tele-Direct (Services) Inc., each with market shares in excess of 90 percent, control the publication of telephone directories in their territories, which includes the provision of advertising space in such directories and related advertising services. The application alleges that the two companies have tied the sale of advertising services to advertising space in the Yellow Pages. This conduct has prevented advertising agencies from competing for the advertising services business of advertisers in a substantial part of the market. The respondents have refused to supply publishers of competing directories with current telephone subscriber listing information which is obtained on an exclusive basis from the telephone companies. As well, the respondents have engaged in additional anti-competitive acts which have had an exclusionary effect on advertising agencies, advertising consultants and competing telephone directory publishers. Tele-Direct (Publications) is the exclusive publisher of telephone directories for its affiliate Bell Canada which at present is the sole provider of local telephone services throughout most of Ontario and Quebec. Tele-Direct (Services) is the exclusive publisher of telephone directories for certain municipal, provincial and territorial telephone companies in Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, Yukon and the Northwest Territories. The application is on public record before the Competition Tribunal. Under the Tribunal rules, the respondents have 30 days to file a response to the Director's application. For more information, please contact: Robert Lancop (819) 997-1353 Release 7188 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 4 Jan 1995 13:56:35 -0500 From: richard@mandarin.com Subject: Cross Keys ehenry@Newbridge.COM (Ethan Henry) gave you some addresses for Newbridge Networks, and added:>> There's also an address in the UK. There is indeed. It is at: Coldra Woods, Chepstow Road, NEWPORT, Gwent, NP6 1JB UK Telephone: 01633 413600 (from outside the UK +44 1633 413600) Telex: 497557 (From outside the UK, +51 497557) I was particularly interested in his comment that he worked, not for Newbridge, but "across the street, at Crosskeys Systems Corporation". What, you may ask, is the connection between Newbridge and Crosskeys? Well, in the valley in South Wales where I grew up, Newbridge and Cross Keys are both names of (nearby) villages. Whether there will ever be telecom companies named after the two villages between them (Cwmcarn and Abercarn) is another matter. Perhaps there already are (Cwmcarn is the location of what was Post Office Telephones' refurbishment factory, now bought and operated by Northern Telecom in the UK !) Both Newbridge and Cross Keys are less than ten miles from the Newbridge HQ at Coldra. Cross Keys was also one of the first places in the valley to have a crossbar switch replace the "original" Strowger UAX13 - these little switches were intended to serve up to 200 lines but were often made to stretch to serve anything up to 700 lines, until they were replaced. Richard D G Cox Mandarin Technology, P O Box 111, Penarth, South Glamorgan CF64 3YG Voice: 0956 700111; Fax: 0956 700110; VoiceMail: 0941 151515 E-mail address: richard@mandarin.com; PGP2.6.2 public key on request ------------------------------ From: amg@panix.com (Alan M. Gallatin) Subject: Re: Cell One NY/NJ Eliminates Daily Roam Charges Date: 4 Jan 1995 13:20:45 -0500 Organization: Pinetree CyberServices In a previous article, Stan Schwartz wrote: > At any rate, the only charges for roaming outside the NACN are 99 cents > per minute airtime (still higher than NYNEX, for the most part). This is actually untrue. NYNEX roaming costs $.99/minute outside of the Boston to Washington corridor. Inside that corridor the rates are $.59 for New England (and I think that's limited to NYNEX markets only) and $.79 for BAMS markets south of New Jersey. Cellular One's rates outside that corridor vary, up to $.99/minute, but occasionally less. Within, the rates from Boston to Washington are the same as home rates. On all rate plans (even the overpriced "access plan") the $.79 NYNEX charges is more than any CellOne home minute could possibly be. Also, the $.59/minute NYNEX charges north of NYC is more than all CellOne home rates except for Access and Plan30 peak minutes. (Then again, anyone who has Access clearly doesn't care about minute rates for roaming, and the Plan30 peak minute is $.65, just a bit more than NYNEX's New England Roaming rate). Long story short: By eliminating the $3 fee, Cellular One is matching or beating ALL NYNEX roaming rates, save peak hours while roaming in New England for Plan30 customers. Alan M. Gallatin ------------------------------ From: jcr@creator.nwest.mccaw.com (Jeffrey Rhodes) Subject: Re: Cell One NY/NJ Eliminates Daily Roam Charges Date: 4 Jan 1995 20:31:08 GMT Organization: McCaw Cellular Communications, Inc. Reply-To: jcr@creator.nwest.mccaw.com In article 7@eecs.nwu.edu, Stan Schwartz writes: > It was buried in small print in the copy of their ad in Monday's {New > York Newsday}, so I called customer service and verified it. As of > 1/2/95, Cell One NY/NJ (00025) has FINALLY followed NYNEX Mobile's > lead and eliminated the $3.00 daily "nag" roamer charge everywhere in > North America. This applies to both NACN and Non-NACN cities (it was > unclear in some cases whether some NACN cities charged the fee). At > any rate, the only charges for roaming outside the NACN are 99 cents > per minute airtime (still higher than NYNEX, for the most part). > CellOne's customer service rep explained that some areas are 83 cents > per minute instead of the 99, but they are few and far between - one > should assume that it will be 99 and be pleasantly surprised if the > bill is 16 cents less (per minute). > A small celebration is in order! In some Cellular One markets, the 99 cent per minute roamer air time includes all necessary long distance charges (10 to 20 cents per minute) for automatic call delivery via the NACN. This is because McCaw buys bulk long distance from AT&T and can absorb the ACD long distance charges, perhaps justifying a higher per minute roamer air time charge. Unfortunately, this practise will have to change when markets are converted to Equal Access to support the McCaw-AT&T merger. McCaw is not permitted to be a long distance reseller, so Cellular One subscribers must pick an Equal Access long distance carrier. ACD long distance charges will be set by the PICked Equal Access carrier. As usual, opinions are my own and are subject to vary with actual facts. Jeffrey Rhodes at jcr@creator.nwest.mccaw.com ------------------------------ From: laurence@netcom.com (Andrew Laurence) Subject: Re: Flat Rate Cellular Phone Service Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Date: Wed, 4 Jan 1995 17:59:31 GMT Jhupf writes: > On Thu, 29 Dec 1994, Lawrence The Dreamer Chen wrote: >> I don't know how wide spread the service is, but up here (Canada) they >> have packages where you get unlimited weekend calling, and for $10 a >> month more you get unlimited evening calling (7pm-7am). > Cellular One of Triangle here in the Triangle in North Carolina offers > full local access on weekends for $10 a month. We were considering > going for it until we realized we had an accmulation of more than 575 > minutes of local calling credit we haven't been able to use during the > past 14 months. Are you saying that Cellular One lets you carry unused minutes from your allowance over to future months? GTE Mobilnet here in the San Francisco Bay Area has a "use 'em or lose 'em" policy. Andrew Laurence laurence@netcom.com Certified NetWare Administrator (CNA) Oakland, California, USA CD-ROM Networking Consultant Pacific Standard Time (GMT-8) Phone: (510) 547-6647 Pager: (510) 308-1903 Fax: (510) 547-8002 ------------------------------ From: jpgs@gte.com (James Sterbenz) Subject: Re: NANP 800 Numbers From the UK Date: 4 Jan 1995 18:14:47 GMT Organization: GTE Laboratories, Waltham, MA In article , Clive D.W. Feather wrote: > All of a sudden, I can now dial 1-800 numbers from the UK... So will 500 numbers work out of the US as well? James P.G. Sterbenz Sr. MTS, Broadband Intelligent Networks jpgs@{acm|ieee}.org GTE Telecommunications Research Laboratory +1 617 466 2786 40 Sylvan Road MS-61, Waltham, MA 02254 USA http://info.gte.com/jpgs/jpgs.html [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, I don't think anyone knows yet, since they are not yet working in the USA, or maybe just barely in a few areas. Wait a month or so until they are turned on and working correctly around the USA, then let's see what happens from abroad. PAT] ------------------------------ From: jcr@creator.nwest.mccaw.com (Jeffrey Rhodes) Subject: Re: Noise Introduced by Bit-Robbing? Date: 4 Jan 1995 18:01:48 GMT Organization: McCaw Cellular Communications, Inc. Reply-To: jcr@creator.nwest.mccaw.com In article 9@eecs.nwu.edu, naddy@mips.pfalz.de (Christian Weisgerber) writes: > What kind of noise/distortion does American-style bit-robbing cause to > voice band signals transmitted through PCM channels? > (The reason I ask is that I wonder how much bit-robbing affects V.34 > modems.) I'm not a modem expert but I would answer "none". If a call connection is made on a bit robbing DS0 within a DS1, then the modems will settle for some transparent speed (9600bps) during the initial negotiation. I don't think the V.34 modems will connect at 28k8 when bit robbing is present. There really aren't many circuits like these, especially for long distance calls. Most bit-robbing occurs on intra-LATA (I think) by LECs that haven't updated circuits that are being depreciated over a 40 year period. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 4 Jan 1995 12:28:16 -0700 From: grandi@noao.edu (Steve Grandi) Subject: Watching The Area Codes Split (Revised List) Thanks to a number of folks, I have corrected some errors in my list and added some new information. There will be at least 15 new area codes in 1995! (Last Revised: 04 January 1995) Date Event 1) 1/7/95 AC 630 overlaid on ACs 312 and 708 (Chicago metro area) 2) 1/15/95 AC 334 splits from AC 205 (Alabama) 3) 1/15/95 AC 360 splits from AC 206 (Washington) 4) 3/1/95 AC 281 overlaid on AC 713 (Houston metro area) 5) 3/1/95 AC 954 overlaid on AC 305 (Miami metro area) 6) 3/19/95 AC 520 splits from AC 602 (Arizona) 7) 4/2/95 AC 970 splits from AC 303 (Colorado) 8) 5/28/95 AC 941 splits from AC 813 (Florida) 9) 7/15/95 AC 540 splits from AC 703 (Virginia) 10) 9/1/95 AC 423 splits from AC 615 (Tennessee) 11) 9/2/95 AC 562 overlaid on ACs 213, 310 and 818 (Los Angeles metro area) 12) 10/??/95 AC 770 splits from or overlaid on AC 404 (Atlanta metro area) 13) 10/??/95 AC 860 splits from AC 203 (Connecticut) 14) 10/1/95 AC 441 splits from AC 809 (Bermuda & Bahamas) 15) ??/??/95 AC 864 splits from AC 803 (South Carolina) 16) ??/??/?? AC 340 splits from AC 809 (Puerto Rico) Notes: 1) Wireless services (cellular phones and pagers). All wireless services in 708 will be forced to move to 630. All new wireless services in areas served by 312 and 708 will be in 630. Wireless companies are appealing to the Illinois Commerce Commission and to the FCC. 2) 334 will contain Auburn, Dothan, Mobile, Montgomery and Selma. 205 will retain Anniston, Birmingham, Decatur, Huntsville and Tuscaloosa. Permissive period ends 5/13/95. 3) 360 will contain Bellingham, Bremerton, Olympia, Vancouver. 206 will retain Auburn, Bellevue, Everett, Redmond, Seattle, Tacoma. Permissive period ends 5/21/95. 4) First numbers assigned in AC 281 will be wireless services. Landline services will be assigned in AC 281 later. 5) Wireless services. All wireless services in 305 will move to 954. Awaiting approval of Florida Public Service Commission. 6) 520 will contain Flagstaff, Prescott, Sierra Vista, Tucson, Yuma. 602 will retain Buckeye, Chandler, Glendale, Mesa, Phoenix, Scottsdale, Tempe. Permissive period ends 7/23/95. 7) 970 will contain Aspen, Durango, Fort Collins, Grand Junction, Greely, Loveland, Steamboat Springs, Vail. 303 will retain Arvada, Aurora, Boulder, Denver, Englewood, Littleton, Longmont. Permissive period ends 10/1/95. 8) 941 will contain Bradenton, Fort Meyers, Lakeland, Sarasota, Winter Haven. 813 will retain Clearwater, St. Petersburg, Tampa. Permissive period ends 3/3/96. 9) 540 will contain Blacksburg, Roanoke, Salem, Winchester. 703 will retain Alexandria, Arlington, Fairfax, Falls Church, Mclean. Permissive period ends ??/??/?? 10) 423 will contain Chattanooga, Clarksville, Johnson City, Kingsport, Knoxville. 615 will retain Murfreesboro, Nashville. Permissive period ends 2/1/96. 11) First numbers assigned in AC 562 will be wireless services in the area served by AC 310. Landline services in AC 310 and wireless and possibly landline services in AC 213 and 818 will follow. Wireless companies are appealing to the FCC. 12) AC 770 will either be an overlay on AC 404 or a geographical split. 13) No further details. 14) No further details. 15) 864 will contain Anderson, Greenville, Rock Hill, Spartanburg. 803 will retain Charleston, Columbia, Florence, Myrtle Beach. Permissive period ends ??/??/?? 16) No details. Steve Grandi, National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, Arizona USA Internet: grandi@noao.edu +1 602 325-9228 (after 1 Apr 95: +1 520 318-8228) ------------------------------ From: zanolla@agouti.cig.mot.com (Donald J. Zanolla) Subject: Re: Christmas Greetings From AT&T Date: 4 Jan 95 20:02:15 GMT Organization: Motorola Cellular Infrastructure Group cogorno@netcom.com (Steve Cogorno) writes: > It may be a matter between the LEC and the customer, but as soon as > AT&T finds out that the Easy Access carrier has been changed, they > will issue an order to change it right back. > I would call the LEC (in my case Pacific Bell) and tell them AT&T is > "slamming" your line. When they hear "slam" they take your complaint > very seriously. Tell them you want a password on your account, and > not to authorize any changes made without that password. > You might want to call AT&T up and tell them you don't appreciate them > slamming your line. (Their ears perk up nicely when they hear "slam" > too). Please define SLAM in this context. Thanks, Donald Zanolla zanolla@agouti.cig.mot.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: "Slamming" has always been defined in this context as the unauthorized switching of long distance carriers on a phone line. If for example you are a customer of AT&T and one day you discover that your default (one plus or zero plus) carrier has been changed to Sprint -- just an example -- without your permission or knowledge, then we say that (in this example) Sprint 'slammed' your line. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Barton.Bruce@camb.com Subject: Re: Procedure for Obtaining a 10XXX Code Date: 4 Jan 95 10:03:17 -0500 Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc. In article , primeperf@aol.com (Prime perf) writes: > Does anyone know the procedure for obtaining a 10XXX code? Where does > one begin? What FCC forms and regulations are involved? Having > obtained a 10XXX code, how does one get it incorporated into the PSTN? You are a tad late. All the 10xxx codes are long *gone*. You will have to wait for the four digit ones to be in universal use. Or buy some ma/pa in-state outfit hogging an xxx one and then you own it. ------------------------------ From: synchro@access1.digex.net (Steve) Subject: Re: Where Does ISDN Fit In? Date: 4 Jan 1995 12:05:55 GMT Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA ISDN is a digital scheme composed of two 64kb/s channels for voice/data/whatever and one 16 Kb/s channel that serves signalling purposes. As far as uses go, any of the following have been done: 1) remote lan connections; 2) compressed video teleconferencing; 3) internet access; 4) any dial-up data situation. These are just a few off the top of my head. Take it easy, Steve ------------------------------ From: robbie@hermes.dciem.dnd.ca (G.Robert Arrabito) Subject: Looking For Mail Order Cellular Accessories Date: 4 Jan 95 03:54:48 GMT Organization: Defence and Civil Institute of Environmental Medicine I'm looking for a mail order outlet in either Canada or the U.S. which carries NMH batteries for my Motorola cellular phone. Can anyone suggest good, reliable companies? Rob Arrabito e-mail: robbie@dciem.dnd.ca ------------------------------ From: synchro@access1.digex.net (Steve) Subject: Re: How Can I Encrypt a T-1? Date: 4 Jan 1995 12:00:27 GMT Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA There is a company in California called Cylink. They make several different kinds of crypto gear for communications. I'm unable to come up with a telephone number for them at the moment. Take it easy, Steve ------------------------------ From: jeffb65582@aol.com (JeffB65582) Subject: Re: How Can I Encrypt a T-1? Date: 4 Jan 1995 10:20:38 -0500 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: jeffb65582@aol.com (JeffB65582) Many years ago I recall that the Collins Radio Division of Rockwell International manufactured a device known as a "T1 bulk encryption unit". It would take the entire 1.544 stream and encrypt it while still meeting the one's density requirements, etc. I don't know if they're still made, but that's where I'd start looking. Jeff Box ------------------------------ From: mpd@adc.com (Matthew P. Downs) Subject: Re: What is a T1 Line? Date: 4 Jan 1995 17:21:03 GMT Organization: ADC Telecommunications jhallen@world.std.com (Joseph H Allen) writes: > It does, because the original poster was concerned about that > bandwidth of the actual copper pair that came to his house. It's my > understanding that an ISDN DS0 is 56K digital line on a copper pair > between your house and the local office, not a shared T1 (although a > multiplexer at the local office my put it on a T1). The DS0 for ISDN is a 64 kbps clear channel. A 56 kbps is effective through put because the other 8 kbps is used for signalling overhead. In ISDN, you don't have this overhead, it's carried on the D channel. All DS0's that go to a line termination are 64 kbps. It's more of what is the effective bandwidth. Unless your circuit is provisoned to be a clear channel, it will have this 8K of overhead associated with it. Matt ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 4 Jan 1995 11:23:59 -0800 From: wewood@ix.netcom.com (William Wood) Subject: Re: What is a T1 Line? It's been interesting to watch the thread of "What is a T1 Line" thru various net respondents, to say the least. I don't know what they are teaching in college or tech schools these days, but from some of the comments from people on the net, it has little relevance to the real world. I'm not an engineer but have some years experience as a technician and manager in the telephone industry and offer my observations as an assistance to those who wish to listen. First, what is the "T" in T1? It's the next letter in the alphabet after "S," and that's all the "T" means. Over the years I've heard people insist it stands for "terrestrial" or even "twisted pair" because the original system only worked on wire. Nice try but no cigar. All of the interoffice carrier systems prior to 1962 were analog and had single or double letter designations. I came into the game too late to work on the really early ones but I did maintain J, K, L, N1, N2, N3, O, ON, BN, and R type carrier systems. All are (were) analog and worked on twisted pair, coax or radio transmission facilities. The carrier system developed by Bell Labs and manufactured by Western Electric Company which was introduced to the Bell System in 1962 was digital and had the letter designation of "T" because it was the next letter to be used. (I don't know what happened to the "S," maybe it died in the labs?) The original hardware consisted of a "bank" of plug-in cards. There were three banks in a standard 19" "bay" (i.e. "rack"). Each bank was made up of a row of cards for transmit, a row of cards for receive and two rows of cards for channel units. The channel units were divided into two groups of 12 (a "digroup"). A 12 channel group was common in the analog systems and that concept was carried over to this system. Each of the channel units converted a standard range VF (voice frequency 300 to 3500 Hz) analog signal into a 64 Kbps DS0 (digital signal level zero). The bank produced a channelized digital time division multiplexed stream known as DS1 (digital signal level one). The bank hardware was collectively known as a "D1 Bank." The original "T1" carrier used a "D1" bank to produced a "DS1" digital stream. The stream was (is) 24 each 64 Kb channels (1.536 Mbps) plus 8 Kbps of framing for a total of 1.544 Mbps. Channel level signaling (off hook, dial pulses, etc.) was done by "bit robbing" (a type of channel associated signaling) within each channel stream. With all these individual cards, the system was difficult to maintain, but when it worked right it was light years ahead in channel noise compared to any of the existing analog systems. Over the years WECO brought out updates of digital banks and that is why there are D2, D3, D4 and D5 type banks in addition to all the "non-Bell" manufacturers hardware. Interesting to note that "D4" framing (as compared to Extended Superframe Format) is referring to the bit stream form standardized by a specific type of WECO bank. It's no wonder that many people now also confuse these bank hardware designations with the higher rate digital multiplexed streams. There is no direct relationship between D1, D2, D3, D4 banks and DS1, DS2, DS3, DS4 bit rates. This also adds mystery to what is meant by "T1, T2, T3, and T4," is it bank hardware or bit stream? The D1 banks transmit an Alternate Mark Inversion (AMI) signal over a 4 wire twisted pair (transmit on one pair, receive on the other) to a distance of around 6 thousand feet before regeneration. The 6 Kft was a standard spacing for "H" type load coils used in long analog voice grade pairs to improve speech quality. To bring up a cable for T carrier required a regen installed in the same pole mount or cable vault as the load pots, so the physical locations were easy to get to. Six thousand feet at 1.544 Mb was a major feat in 1962. The AMI cut the baud (symbol) rate considerably but it was still a very high equivalent frequency for the time. There are currently on the market a number of 'repeaterless' T type systems which can extend the cable distance up to 12 thousand feet with no regen. Short haul N type analog carrier systems typically had 10 to 15 MILE spacing between repeaters, so a digital T regenerator every mile seemed a bit complicated at the time. As to the ISDN Primary Rate, it is not a T1, if T1 is understood as a DS1 with 24 individual and unrelated DSO's. The physical access may be on two pairs (four wire) and the bit rate is 1.544 Mb, but the channel stack is different. One of the DSO 64 Kb time slots (channels) is dedicated (aka, common channel signaling) to control signaling, supervision and other data functions for the other 23 DSO (possibly voice) channels. This control channel is the "D" and the others are the "B" channels. Depending on the manufacturer, the system level hardware may be software configurable to look like a standard T1-DS1 or a ISDN PRI. Or it may take a different card altogether. With the exception of some Special Services applications, ISDN PRI does not run between telephone exchanges. Standardized trunking arrangements (frequently using a Common Channel Signaling system such as SS7) are used to carry traffic between exchanges. The issue of a low pass filter on 'ordinary telephone lines' is directly related to what that line is connected to. If we start with an example of POTS (plain old telephone service) phone connected to a mechanical switch such as a step by step (Stroger) switch - there are no filters. It's a purely physical wire connection from phone, to line, to switch, to line, to phone connection. Whatever frequency is applied to the line at one end will come out at the other, impaired only by the physics of the wire facility. This is still true today in the case of 'Metallic' or 'Wire Only' (no active devices) circuits. In data applications sometimes these are called Local Area Data Channels because they have to be 'local,' meaning they don't go thru switches or carrier systems. Whatever goes in, comes out, minus the line losses. If the line is connected to a analog or digital carrier system or to a digital switch, it will be subjected to limitation by a filter for the purposes of creating a standard 3 Khz voice channel bandwidth. This has been the standard since the earliest carrier systems and remains the standard today. This limitation is not a secret plot to limit modem bit rates. Nor is it a device to improve speech quality (although a companding process is normally used to improve the voice quality of the narrow VF channel). It was, and is, an engineering necessity for multiplexing multiple voice channels onto a limited transmission facility (either a bus in a switch or a copper, fiber or radio trunk facility for a carrier system). One net respondent suggested that you could ask as a 'courtesy' for the telephone company to remove the filter. They cannot remove this function without impacting other circuits in the shared switch or carrier system. They can however, move your wires to a different type of hardware which has wider analog or digital capacity. Then you no longer have POTS service, you would now have some type of Special Service circuit and would have to pay extra for it. Finally, there is a subtle difference between 'cross talk' and 'cross modulation.' Nit picking perhaps but cross talk takes place at the VF level and is commonly associated with a physical cable problem. If the pairs in a cable get wet (particularly pulp [paper] insulated pairs) the signal energy of one POTS call can bleed into another pair. Each person can hear others talking on their call. This problem is typical of the local loop side of a telephone exchange. Cross modulation takes place after the analog or digital modulation step is taken in a digital switch or an analog or digital carrier system. In digital (T) carrier systems cross mod usually results in white noise or frying in a conversation. Its unusual to hear distinct conversations crossing into your call. In analog systems cross mod allows distinct conversations to enter your call. Cross mod takes place on the interoffice or trunk side of an exchange. Not always easy to distinguish the two but helpful getting the problem fixed if you can do it. This is because often the repair folks who fix the local loop side are not the same folks who fix the trunk side. Trouble gets fixed faster if you give it to the right people first. I offer this as a help to my friends and wish to offend no one so please keep any flames to pilot light size. I don't know anyone in this industry who knows it all so we need to support each other as much as possible. WE Wood Technotranslater Techtrans Animatics Group ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V15 #7 **************************** Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa08047; 5 Jan 95 1:12 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (4.1/SMI-4.0-proxy) id AA11233; Wed, 4 Jan 95 20:16:14 CST Return-Path: Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (4.1/SMI-4.0-proxy) id AA11226; Wed, 4 Jan 95 20:16:12 CST Date: Wed, 4 Jan 95 20:16:12 CST From: telecom@delta.eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson)) Message-Id: <9501050216.AA11226@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #8 TELECOM Digest Wed, 4 Jan 95 20:16:00 CST Volume 15 : Issue 8 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson More Administrivia, Errors, etc (TELECOM Digest Editor) OZLIP Reminder (Mehmet Orgun) GSM Book [Moulet &...] (Rupert Baines) US Contact: American Management System, Systemetic Inc. (Mr. Wah Chan) Wanted to Buy: Tekalek 221-C E-1 Test Set (pkt@ix.netcom.com) Re: Standard 19 Inches Network Relay Rack (Paul A. Lee) Re: AT&T First to Deliver Long-Awaited "Follow-Me" 500 Numbers (S. Donelan) Re: Looking For Mail Order Cellular Accessories (Michael Schuster) Re: Watching the Area Codes Split (David Leibold) Re: Watching the Area Codes Split (Mark Brader) Re: Roll Over/Hunt Group (Tim Gorman) Re: Procedure for Obtaining a 10XXX Code (Wayne Huffman) 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: * telecom-request@eecs.nwu.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: 9457-D Niles Center Road Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 708-329-0571 Fax: 708-329-0572 ** Article submission address only: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu ** Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * 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. * ************************************************************************* Additionally, 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 4 Jan 95 19:15:54 CST From: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Subject: More Administrivia, Errors, etc ... *if* you chose to pick up a copy of the 1992-1994 volume of the Accelerated Index from the archives .. well, there was a slight error in the way some items were keyed ... I found out when someone using the SEARCH command of the Email Information Service contacted me to say they were getting quite screwey answers in response to some searches he was making ... It was only announced yesterday, so most of you probably have not yet picked up a copy, and in all probability most of you will not want to bother keeping this humongous, 26,000 (yes twenty six thousand) line file at your site. But if you did take a copy prior to Wednesday at about 6:30 PM CST, do me a favor ... ditch it and go get another copy, one that has been corrected. What this is -- when it works correctly, as it is now -- is a complete index of the titles of articles which have been in the Digest for the past six years and the author names. You can either use SEARCH, which is a command in the email server, or you can simply go and pull the two files back to your site. There are two editions. One covers the years 1989-1991 and the other covers 1992-1994. Together, they constitute about 48,000 entries, the number of messages seen here over the past six years. They are sorted in strict alphabetical order by subject with any instances of 'Re:' where it appears ignored for the purpose of the sort. Where more than one article appears with the identical subject title, the sort continues further by author *first* name. When using grep or SEARCH (which is just a version of grep I put in the email server) you can search by subject name or author name. It is highly recommended that you use the most liberal grep possible, that is, with '-i' as the argument, so that case will be ignored. Also, if you choose to search by author, search the *last name only* since sometimes the first name appears as just an initial, i.e. P.Townson. If you are really interested, use the INFO command in the email server to get two other files you'll need to interpret the rest of the data shown in the accelerated index: INFO back-issues INFO search-hints Anyway, that's enough on the topic. I botched it, and I've repaired it, I think. I'm sure someone will tell me if that's not correct. ----------------- In other administrivia news: I've received a suggestion from a reader about having a 'human resources' section in the archives. This would be a place where anyone who wished to do so could put a paragraph or two about themselves for the benefit of other readers. It would be voluntary and would have no connection at all to the mailing list, which is never shared or revealed. Suggestions for things to include would be in addition to your name, address, phone number and company/school/institutional affiliation, perhaps a .signature file, a paragraph about your current project(s), prior accomplishments, etc. It would be removed/destroyed from the archives whenever you said to do so, or modified as required. *DO NOT SEND ENTRIES NOW* Just let me know what you think of the idea, and if you would want to have data about yourself there in the Telecom Archives. Should it be open and available to all to read? I can fix it so that it is blocked or denied to FTP/Gopher users while available on a passworded basis to email service users. If it is open to all to read you can be sure of receiving lots of junk mail ... :) If on a passworded basis, then only those who contribute entries of their own would get the password to read the biographies of the others ... in other words, give a biography of yourself, and read the others. Let me have your thoughts. *DO NOT SEND ENTRIES NOW*. PAT ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Jan 95 12:02:36 +1100 From: mehmet@macadam.mpce.mq.edu.au (Mehmet Orgun) Subject: OZLIP Reminder Dear All, Please contribute to the success of ISLIP'95 by submitting a paper, posting/distributing the call for papers etc. I have posted it to a number of newsgroups already. I have also prepared a WWW home page for ISLIP'95. Check out the URL: http://krakatoa.mpce.mq.edu.au/~mehmet/islip95.html A PostScript version of the call for papers can be obtained from the above page as well as a LaTeX version. Cheers, Mehmet ------------------------- Call for Papers ISLIP'95 The Eigth International Symposium on Languages for Intensional Programming May 3-5, 1995, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia Objectives There is a growing interest in computational models and/or programming languages and systems based on intensional logics such as temporal logic, interval logic, modal and intuitionistic logics. In fact, a whole new programming model called intensional programming has been created with applications in a wide range of areas including parallel programming, dataflow computation, temporal reasoning, scientific computation, real-time programming, temporal databases, spreadsheets, attribute grammars, and hardware synthesis. This symposium aims at bringing together researchers working in all aspects of this area, and to promote intensive discussions and foster collaboration among researchers. We encourage papers dealing with the theoretical foundations, design, implementation and prototype development issues, comparative studies, and applications, as well as those describing new challenges arising out of applications. The symposium will include, but will not be limited to, the following topics of interest (as they relate to intensional programming): Programming paradigms Semantics * dataflow computation * non-determinism * connectionist models * extended Kahn principle * logic programming * intensional concepts * real-time programming * termination issues * languages such as Lucid and GLU Software Engineering Applications * version control * signal processing * visual user interfaces * image processing * parallel programming * hardware synthesis * fault-tolerant systems * graphics * program verification * data models Submissions You are invited to submit either a full paper or an extended abstract of approximately 5000 words (10-15 double spaced pages). The cover page should include the name, phone/fax numbers and e-mail addres of the contact author(s), a short abstract, topic(s) and a list of keywords. Papers will be reviewed by the program committee for their originality, correctness, significance, and relevance to the symposium. We prefer PostScript or self-contained LaTeX submissions via electronic mail to either one of the e-mail addresses below. You can also send 3 hardcopies of your submission to one of the following addresses (chosen with respect to geographical proximity). Submissions should arrive no later than February 15, 1995. Edward A. Ashcroft / ISLIP'95 E-mail: ed.ashcroft@asu.edu Department of Computer Science & Eng Phone : +1 602 965-7544 Arizona State University Fax : +1 602 965-2751 Tempe, Arizona 85283, U.S.A. Mehmet A. Orgun / ISLIP'95 E-mail: mehmet@mpce.mq.edu.au Department of Computing Phone : +61 2 850 - 9570 Macquarie University Fax : +61 2 850 - 9551 Sydney, NSW 2109, Australia Authors will receive notification of acceptance by March 20, 1995. Revised versions of the papers to appear in the pre-proceedings to be distributed at the Symposium are due on April 12, 1995 (preferred in PostScript or LaTeX form, sent by email). The symposium will be held on May 3-5, 1995 at Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia. At the Symposium, the research will be presented and also evaluated, and it is planned that final polished papers will appear in the proceedings in book form. The details about registration and accommodation will be provided later. Symposium Chair Edward A. Ashcroft Arizona State University Program Committee Seiki Akama Teikyo University of Technology Edward A. Ashcroft Arizona State University Weichang Du University of New Brunswick Tony A. Faustini Arizona State University Jan Hext Macquarie University Tom Hintz University of Technology,Sydney R. Jagannathan SRI International Michael Johnson Macquarie University Steve Matthews University of Warwick Mehmet A. Orgun Macquarie University John Potter Microsoft Institute John Plaice University of Laval William W. Wadge University of Victoria Andrew L. Wendelborn University of Adelaide Kang Zhang Macquarie University Local Arrangements Mehmet A. Orgun Macquarie University Kang Zhang Macquarie University Important Dates Submission Deadline: February 15, 1995 Notification: March 20, 1995 Revised Versions due: April 12, 1995 Symposium: May 3-5, 1994 Further Information Contact: ed.ashcroft@asu.edu mehmet@mpce.mq.edu.au Latest information about the Symposium will be made available via the WWW page: http://krakatoa.mpce.mq.edu.au/~mehmet/islip95.html ------------------------ Mehmet A Orgun, Department of Computing, Macquarie University Sydney, NSW 2109, Australia Tel: +61 (0)2 850 9570, Fax: +61 (0)2 850 9551 E-mail: mehmet@mpce.mq.edu.au ------------------------------ From: Rupes@voyager.cris.com (Rupes) Subject: GSM Book [Moulet &...] Date: 4 Jan 1995 19:04:12 -0500 Organization: Concentric Research Corporation A couple of people have emailed me asking for this information, so I thought I should re-post it. The GSM book that seems to be most popular is: The GSM System for Mobile Communications Mouly & Pautet ISBN 2-9507190-0-7 tel +33 1 69 31 03 18 fax +33 1 69 31 03 38 It is a private printing - you have to contact the authors on number above. I have nothing to do with the authors and do not get commision. Which is a shame, as I've recommended it quite a bit Does anyone know of a US distributor ? (I suppose there may be copies on sale at CTIA or Wireless ?) Rupert Baines ------------------------------ From: johnnycw@HK.Super.NET (Mr Wah Chan) Subject: US Contact: American Management System, Systemetic Inc. Date: 4 Jan 1995 22:45:20 GMT Organization: Hong Kong Supernet Anyone know about the following companies: American Management System Systemetic Inc. Both companies specialize on Telephone Billing Systems. We need to know their US contact and also their Rep Office in HK or SE Asia. Suggestions on how to find such information are also welcomed. (e.g., sites where I can find out the address and telephone number of any US companies, etc.) Johnny Chan Internet Address: johnnycw@hk.super.net ------------------------------ From: PKT@ix.netcom.com (Pat) Subject: Wanted to Buy: Tekalek 221-C E-1 Test Set Date: 4 Jan 1995 22:55:24 GMT Organization: Netcom I'm told that the Tekalek (SP?) 221-C E-1 test set is no longer manufactured. So, I'm looking for someone that wants to sell a used one. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 4 Jan 1995 13:18:12 -0500 Subject: Re: Standard 19 Inches Network Relay Rack From: Paul A. Lee Organization: Woolworth Corporation In TELECOM Digest Volume 14 Issue 481, Jocelyn Poulin asked for suppliers of seismic-certified relay racks. Try the following: AMCO Engineering, Schiller Park, IL 708 671-6670 B-Line Telecom, Reno, NV 702 677-0855 (formerly Saunders Telecom) Chatsworth Products, Chatsworth, CA 818 882-8595 (formerly Dracon division of Harris) Equipto, Aurora, IL 708 859-1000 Hammond Manufacturing Co., Buffalo, NY 716 894-5710 Hendry Telephone Products, Goleta, CA 805 968-5511 Newton Instrument, Butner, NC 919 575-6426 Rittal Corp., Springfield, OH 513 399-0500 Zero/Stantron, Pacoima, CA 818 890-3445 Paul A. Lee Voice 414 357-1409 Telecommunications Analyst FAX 414 357-1450 Woolworth Corporation CompuServe 70353,566 INTERNET <=PREFERRED ADDRESS* ------------------------------ From: sean@sdg.dra.com (Sean Donelan) Subject: Re: AT&T First to Deliver Long-Awaited "Follow-Me" 500 Numbers Date: 4 Jan 95 18:14:32 CDT Organization: Data Research Associates, St. Louis MO In article , A Alan Toscano writes: > she moves within the United States. AT&T currently can assign > subscribers 500 numbers that begin with 20 different exchanges, such ^^ > as 346, 367 and 677. For example, a person's number could be According to the AT&T 1-800 line they only have four exchanges available. Does anyone know when (and what) other exchanges will be available? Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO ------------------------------ From: schuster@panix.com (Michael Schuster) Subject: Re: Looking For Mail Order Cellular Accessories Date: 4 Jan 1995 19:24:08 -0500 Organization: Public Access Internet & UNIX In article , G.Robert Arrabito wrote: > I'm looking for a mail order outlet in either Canada or the U.S. which > carries NMH batteries for my Motorola cellular phone. Can anyone suggest > good, reliable companies? Motorola 1-800-331-6456 Mike Schuster schuster@panix.com | 70346.1745@CompuServe.COM schuster@shell.portal.com | GEnie: MSCHUSTER ------------------------------ From: aa070@torfree.net (David Leibold) Subject: Re: Watching the Area Codes Split Organization: Toronto FreeNet Date: Thu, 5 Jan 1995 01:14:15 GMT Mike Morris (morris@grian.cps.altadena.ca.us) wrote: > The perfect location for area code 666 is Washington DC. Give the > entire code to the federal government. Keep all the non-goverment > stuff in the old area code. Canadian federal government offices in Vancouver BC have been on the 666 NXX for years. This included (at last report) the regional office of the CRTC which regulates telecom and broadcasting in Canada. David Leibold aa070@freenet.toronto.on.ca ------------------------------ From: msb@sq.sq.com (Mark Brader) Subject: Re: Watching the Area Codes Split Organization: SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, Canada Date: Wed, 4 Jan 95 23:10:10 GMT > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: We went through this once before, a couple > years ago, and someone posted a list of all the places where the 666 > exchange appeared around the USA, in which area codes, etc, and if there > were any special users such as centrex accounts, etc on them. It seems > to me somewhere some government offices were on 666 in that area code; > maybe it was the IRS, I'm not sure. ...] Wrong country. From the Telecom Archives: > Date: Sat, 11 Aug 90 19:59:12 PDT > From: Jonathan Story > Subject: Re: 666 and Ignorant People > In Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada (area code 604) the 666 > exchange is used by ... the Canadian Government. > jonathan@jspc.wimsey.bc.ca And our IRS analog, Revenue Canada, would certainly have an office in Vancouver. Mark Brader "'Taxpayer' includes any person msb@sq.com whether or not liable to pay tax." SoftQuad Inc., Toronto -- Income Tax Act of Canada, s.248(1) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 4 Jan 1995 20:40:40 -0500 From: Tim Gorman Subject: Re: Roll Over/Hunt Group roodh@dds.nl (Hendrik Rood) writes in TELECOM Digest V14 #481: > In article , jon@server.branch.com (Jon > Zeeff) says: >> Ameritech tells me that they cannot roll over a trunk hunt where >> instead of starting with line one and picking the first free one, it >> always takes the next one after the last used one (ie, a circular >> hunt). Maybe I didn't use the right terminology. Does anyone know >> why they couldn't do this? > Even when this is possible it is very stupid to do circular hunting with > a standard trunk and a rollover trunk. What happens is simple described: > Suppose: Main trunk eight circuits > Rollover trunk four circuits. > Circular hunting results after at most eight incoming calls in usage > of the rollover trunk. Even when circuits on the main trunk are > released again. > This means that with circular hunting your rollover does not act as a > rollover anymore but simply as a trunk. I can understand software > writers of exchange manufacturers that block such a setup in their > code :-). This isn't quite true. With all circular hunt trunk groups I know of, the decision of whether or not to route advance to the next group is done each time a call origination is received. So if a trunk in the primary group is free at the time, it will get the next call. Circular hunt on primary high-alternate use combination does provide signficant benefits, especially if per trunk signaling is used. Circular hunt, if designed to always start hunting at the trunk following the one just picked, significantly decreases the impact of killer trunks on traffic capacity of the trunk group. Tim Gorman tg6124@ping.com Southwestern Bell Tel. Co ------------------------------ From: whuffman@ix.netcom.com (Wayne Huffman) Subject: Re: Procedure for Obtaining a 10XXX Code Date: 5 Jan 1995 01:59:07 GMT Organization: Netcom In Barton.Bruce@camb.com writes: > In article , primeperf@aol.com (Prime > perf) writes: >> Does anyone know the procedure for obtaining a 10XXX code? Where does >> one begin? What FCC forms and regulations are involved? Having >> obtained a 10XXX code, how does one get it incorporated into the PSTN? > You are a tad late. All the 10xxx codes are long *gone*. You will have > to wait for the four digit ones to be in universal use. > Or buy some ma/pa in-state outfit hogging an xxx one and then you own it. FYI The local cableco here in Fairfax County, VA (Media General Cable) has a 10XXXX code (106-500), used for ordering Pay-Per-View movies. I can't seem to get an answer from Bell Atlantic on how this was arranged. Is this a common practice, I wonder. Wayne H. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V15 #8 **************************** Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa14469; 5 Jan 95 14:52 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (4.1/SMI-4.0-proxy) id AA28762; Thu, 5 Jan 95 08:02:22 CST Return-Path: Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (4.1/SMI-4.0-proxy) id AA28755; Thu, 5 Jan 95 08:02:19 CST Date: Thu, 5 Jan 95 08:02:19 CST From: telecom@delta.eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson)) Message-Id: <9501051402.AA28755@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #9 TELECOM Digest Thu, 5 Jan 95 08:02:00 CST Volume 15 : Issue 9 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: What is a T1 Line? (Wally Ritchie) Re: What is a T1 Line? (Ed Goldgehn) Re: Protest of New Compuserve-Unisys GIF Usage Tax (Monty Solomon) Re: Protest of New Compuserve-Unisys GIF Usage Tax (Pat Clawson) Re: Procedure for Obtaining a 10XXX Code (Rahul Dhesi) Re: Watching the Area Codes Split (Tim Gorman) Re: NANP 800 Numbers From the UK (Jan Joris Vereijken) Re: Christmas Greetings From AT&T (Wolf Paul) Re: Erlang Capacity (Tim Gorman) Chatter Heard on Scanner Leads to Criminal Charges (Paul Gloger) 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: * telecom-request@eecs.nwu.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: 9457-D Niles Center Road Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 708-329-0571 Fax: 708-329-0572 ** Article submission address only: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu ** Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * 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. * ************************************************************************* Additionally, 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: writchie@gate.net Subject: Re: What is a T1 Line? Date: 5 Jan 1995 04:04:45 GMT Reply-To: writchie@gate.net In , mpd@adc.com (Matthew P. Downs) writes: > jhallen@world.std.com (Joseph H Allen) writes: >> It does, because the original poster was concerned about that >> bandwidth of the actual copper pair that came to his house. It's my >> understanding that an ISDN DS0 is 56K digital line on a copper pair >> between your house and the local office, not a shared T1 (although a >> multiplexer at the local office my put it on a T1). > The DS0 for ISDN is a 64 kbps clear channel. A 56 kbps is effective > through put because the other 8 kbps is used for signalling overhead. Not exactly. > In ISDN, you don't have this overhead, it's carried on the D channel. Signalling is on the D channel but other overhead may also be involved. (see below) ... > All DS0's that go to a line termination are 64 kbps. It's more of > what is the effective bandwidth. Unless your circuit is provisoned to > be a clear channel, it will have this 8K of overhead associated with > it. ALL ISDN WITHOUT EXCEPTION is clear channel in the B channels. There is no ISDN transport mechanism that will ever modify the 8th bit. What the original poster was probably referring to as a "56K digital line" was most likely a DDS circuit. DDS is a four-wire (i.e. two pair) circuit with a bit rate of 64Kbps of which 56Kbps is available for data. DDS uses an AMI coding so that most of the spectral energy peaks around 32KHZ much like a T1 with 1.544mbps has its spectral peak around 772KHZ. ISDN BRI "Lines" in the US are normally single pairs that use a 2B1Q modulation scheme with 160kbps transmitted at 80K "quads" per second. The same pair is used for BOTH directions of transmission with adaptive echo cancellation used at both ends to cancel that ends transmit signal at it receiver so it "hears" only the other end. 80kqps 2B1Q has most of its spectral energy around 40KHZ which is not much higher than DDS. Of the 160kbps, 2 B channels of 64Kbps each and 1 D channel of 16Kbps are provided both of which are free of any coding restrictions as far as the "line" is concerned. The remaining 24kbps is used for overhead and maintenance functions. ALL forms of ISDN transport clear 64kbps bearer channels without coding restrictions. The 56K bps restrictions come up only when inter-working with non-ISDN segments that have coding restrictions which means most of the US intra-LATA networks. ISDN PRI in the US can be transported over T1 lines that employ B8ZS encoding instead of AMI. B8ZS has essentially the same spectrum as AMI but provides for transmission of any bit stream in the individual time slots. With PRI the D channel is 64KBPS leaving 23 B channels of 64KBPS (without coding restrictions) on the T1 with D channel and 24 B channels on any additional associated T1's. Channel Banks that support B8ZS T1 lines can also be used to transport the bit streams for BRI lines. In this case 1 or 2 timeslots are assigned as the B channel(s) and 1 timeslot (typically) is assigned as the D channel. In fact this may become the most common way ISDN is delivered to residential areas. ISDN BRI lines in US and the rest of the world are typically broken up for CPE interface to a four-wire S/T interface. In the US the conversion from the line to S/T interface is accomplished by an NT-1 which is CPE in the same sense that a DSU is CPE. Other CPE can, however, incorporate this functionality itself. The S/T lines are twisted pairs with separate transmit and receive pairs. The line code is inverted AMI baseband with a bit rate of 192kbps and spectral peak around 96khz. 144kbps is used for the payload B channels (64kbs each) and D channel (16kbs). The B channels AGAIN are clear channel. The remaining 48kbps is used for overhead functions including a protocol that allow any one of multiple devices to acquire the D channel. WORTH REPEATING! ISDN always provides a clear 64kbps B channel free of any coding restrictions whatsoever. If it don't it ain't ISDN. When the B channel inter-works with a non-ISDN network or service, however, coding restrictions may apply to the transport. ISDN segments will never modify the data stream. Non-ISDN segments can modify the stream in many ways including trashing the the 8th bit with signalling data, converting between A-Law and u-Law PCM, "TRUE VOICING" or other marketing gimmicks, echo control, signal level conversions, or even deliberate modifications to prevent users from sending data over connections setup as voice in order to avoid usage charges on data. In , wewood@ix.netcom.com (William Wood) writes: > The bank hardware was collectively known as a "D1 Bank." The original > "T1" carrier used a "D1" bank to produced a "DS1" digital stream. The > stream was (is) 24 each 64 Kb channels (1.536 Mbps) plus 8 Kbps of > framing for a total of 1.544 Mbps. Channel level signaling (off hook, > dial pulses, etc.) was done by "bit robbing" (a type of channel > associated signaling) within each channel stream. With all these I believe that the D1 system used the full 8th bit for signalling and a 7 bit PCM. This was something less than satisfactory so the robbed bit approach and an 8 bit PCM code was introduced in succeeding systems. Just for the record. Wally Ritchie Ft. Lauderdale, Florida ------------------------------ From: edg@ocn.com (Ed Goldgehn) Subject: Re: What is a T1 Line? Date: 5 Jan 1995 02:44:54 GMT Organization: The INTERNET Connection, LLC In article , wewood@ix.netcom.com says: [one of the best explanations I've ever seen snipped] The only flames you should get are lighters in the air in lieu of applause. Ed Goldgehn E-Mail: edg@ocn.com Sr. Vice President Voice: (404) 919-1561 Open Communication Networks, Inc. Fax: (404) 919-1568 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 4 Jan 1995 23:51:29 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Re: Protest of New Compuserve-Unisys GIF Usage Tax Reply-To: monty@roscom.COM > The announcement by CompuServe and Unisys that users of the GIF image > format must register by January 10 and pay a royalty or face lawsuits > for their past usage, is the online communications community's > equivalent of the sneak attack at Pearl Harbor. Begin forwarded message: Date: Wed, 4 Jan 95 01:27:59 EST Sender: cello-l@listserv.law.cornell.edu From: johnross@halcyon.com (John Ross) Subject: Future of .gif It's not quite as bad as first reported. This was posted on The WELL tonight: [TD Editor's Note: Text printed here yesterday. See previous issues. VP of Compuserve in essence says 'not our fault' and hoping things can be worked out. PAT] > Tim Oren > Vice President > CompuServe My analysis of this is that it's premature to panic. Depending on what UnySys does, there may be no problem. But it's probably time to find a replacement for .gif as the Web standard anyway. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: And maybe a replacement for .git *has* been found -- already! See the next message in this series for one solution put together on the run by a few people. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 05 Jan 1995 03:08:34 -0500 (EST) From: PATCLAWSON@delphi.com Subject: Re: Protest of New Compuserve-Unisys GIF Usage Tax An Open Letter to the Senior Management of CompuServe and the Online Communications Community: HOW TO SAVE GIF -- NOW !! Following last weekend's surprise announcement of the CompuServe-Unisys GIF Tax, we agree with many in the online communications community that a group is needed to create a new imaging format. New compression methods allow us to design a format that's smaller, more flexible, and ready to go the distance for our future needs. But let's take a hard look at the current crisis at hand. There are thousands of software products in the market featuring GIF support, from shareware to professional commercial packages. There are thousands of BBS systems and Web sites transmitting GIF images to online customers all over the world. What happens to these products and their developers when January 10th hits? Does the online community stop viewing GIFs online? Will Web Sites have holes in the HTML pages where the GIFs should have been? Will sysops be told to remove GIFs and GIF-related software from all non-CompuServe related systems? How many millions of dollars will be lost by software developers and sysops? Like all of us, we're waiting for a possible announcement from CompuServe and Unisys that may solve our problems. That same announcement may also seal GIF's demise. We need a backup plan if things don't go well. Some say GIF is dead. We think it's just broken. SO WE FIXED IT. We replaced the broken part - LZW compression. So now, we propose a remedy that may cure our problem in a timely manner. If CompuServe really wants to continue to provide the GIF format under the conditions of their original royalty-free license, but can't because of the patented Unisys LZW compression algorithm, the most painless cure is to substitute another compression scheme. Here's our fix. See what you think: * We just completed a two-day, no-sleep marathon to yank the LZW routines out of our GIF89a code and replace it with an open form of LZHUF. * In our testing, the LZHUF compression produced GIF files that were virtually identical in size to the LZW version. Some LZHUF images were slightly larger. * We have followed the GIF89a format specification to the letter, except for the part that defines the type of compression method used on the image data (LZHUF vs LZW). * We replaced all LZW functions in our GIF library with LZHUF functions. This two hour change to our software produced a completely functional GIF library (Interlaced, Comment Blocks, Masking Bits, Etc.). EVERYTHING WAS INTACT AND WORKING FINE WITHOUT ANY NEED FOR LZW. * We also wrote a program to convert the original GIF87a and GIF89a images to the LZHUF version of our proposed GIF format. There has been talk in this forum of a GEF (Graphics Exchange Format) or a GIF95a format, and even the replacement of the LZW part of GIF. We took the initiative and created GEF. We think GEF is a quick and viable solution to our problem. TeleGrafix Communications offers it to the online community FREE OF CHARGE as a public service. We are willing to upload our proposed GEF update with ALL SOURCE CODE intact so everyone can convert their current GIF files from the closed LZW form to the open LZHUF form. All we ask is that CompuServe give us its approval. Developers need make only minimal changes to their original GIF source code. It took us only two hours. Most GIF-based products that your customers own can be upgraded WITH JUST A PATCH FILE. GIFs and LZW would become unrelated immediately and we could get back the open, royalty-free format we have come to depend on. If CompuServe will not allow the compression method to be changed, then GIF is truly a dead format. We appreciate any comments on our proposal, especially from GIF's creators at CompuServe. If it is not supported by CompuServe or the online community, then it will be deleted along with all of our other GIF-related files. We will stay with JPEG, and search for an entirely new image format standard. Sincerely, Pat Clawson President & Chief Executive Officer TeleGrafix Communications Mark Hayton Vice President & Chief Technology Officer TeleGrafix Communications Inc. Phone: (714) 379-2140 Fax: (714) 379-2132 BBS: (714) 379-2133 Internet: rip.support@telegrafix.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Good luck with this! Let's hope the change in format can be accomplished with a minimum of effort on the part of all concerned. If your's will do the job, perhaps CIS should look at it and see if they can be accomodating. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Rahul Dhesi Subject: Re: Procedure for Obtaining a 10XXX Code Date: 5 Jan 1995 10:55:45 GMT Organization: a2i network In whuffman@ix.netcom.com (Wayne Huffman) writes: > FYI The local cableco here in Fairfax County, VA (Media General Cable) > has a 10XXXX code (106-500), used for ordering Pay-Per-View movies. I > can't seem to get an answer from Bell Atlantic on how this was > arranged. I assume they talked with some IXC called 'EDS', which owns 10650. The next digit you dial is another zero, which leads to an operator. Rahul Dhesi ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 4 Jan 1995 21:50:27 -0500 From: Tim Gorman Subject: Re: Watching the Area Codes Split Sean E. Williams writes in TELECOM Digest V15 #3: >John Lundgren wrote: >> Someday there might just be a database that has your name, and the >> number associated with it, and all people will have to do is punch up >> your name, and not have to worry about a number. And it will be current. > Just like the internet Domain Name System. It could have been implemented > years ago, and then we wouldn't be having all the problems associated > with the NANP -- your neighbor could be in a different area code, and > you wouldn't even have to know or care, so long as you could remember > his name! > How about a system which provides a menu of available options? Start > out by entering a person's name. > Okay, so there are thousands of "Jim Smiths" in the US. At first, you > are presented with the one who lives closest to you (the city / street > would be displayed) or you could specify a specific location at the > start if you are calling a "Jim Smith" who lives several states away. > When you finally select the appropriate "Jim Smith", a menu appears > listing the following options: home, cellular, pager, fax, data, etc. > Select the option you wish, and you are connected to that service. > I don't know much about ISDN, but it's probably capable of doing this > right now if the appropriate software were to be written. I couldn't let this one go by. Is there anyone else out there who would expect the internet DNS to puke up if it had to handle a system the size of teh nationwide phone system? Especially with the daily change activity that has to be processed? Just keeping the 800 database current is a major undertaking. I cannot even imagine keeping a database of over two (actually closer to four isn't it?) billion potential nodes current, especially if it included mobile terminals which change second by second rather than daily, weekly or longer. Tim Gorman Southwestern Bell Tel Co tg6124@ping.com ------------------------------ From: janjoris@win.tue.nl (Jan Joris Vereijken) Subject: Re: NANP 800 numbers from the UK Date: 5 Jan 1995 11:30:01 +0100 Organization: Eindhoven University of Technology, the Netherlands Reply-To: janjoris@acm.org (Jan Joris Vereijken) Clive D.W. Feather wrote: > All of a sudden, I can now dial 1-800 numbers from the UK. There is a > few seconds of silence, and then an American female voice tells me > that this call will *not* be free, but charged at standard direct-dial > rates. If I don't want to pay, I should hang up now. I tried this in the Netherlands (from the 040-84 exchange located in Nuenen, near Eindhoven), and it didn't work. After I had dialed 00-1-800-xxx I got the "illegal number" tones. Previously, in the Netherlands, you could dial all digits of 1-800, but got a (Dutch) recording "this number cannot be reached". In 1993 this recording disappeared, and you couldn't dial further than 00-1-800-xxx. Just for the heck of it I tried it a dozen times, with differnt values of xxx. Alas, to no avail. What's happening? Is the Dutch PTT blocking calls that could be perfectly well completed? Or do the Britsh have a special agreement with the Americans that not valid in the Netherlands? Who knows more? ByeBye, Jan Joris [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It would not surprise me if a special deal was in place between the UK and the telcos here. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Wolf.Paul@aut.alcatel.at (Wolf Paul) Subject: Re: Christmas Greetings From AT&T Date: 5 Jan 1995 09:01:11 GMT Organization: Alcatel Austria AG Reply-To: Wolf.Paul@aut.alcatel.at In article 10@eecs.nwu.edu, cornutt@lambda.msfc.nasa.gov (David Cornutt) writes: >> I got one of those things. Unfortunately for AT&T, the phone number >> that they had on the check was not an actual line, but an old remote- >> call-forwarded number that I was retaining for personal reasons. >> As such, it was, of course, utterly impossible to make outgoing calls >> from that number. So the check went in the trash. I imagine that >> cashing it under those circumstances probably would have constituted >> fraud. That would be a very interesting question: Would it really constitute fraud if I cashed a check which someone has sent me without solicitation from me? After all, I agree to their switching this number, so I am fulfilling the condition they placed on me for cashing the check. It is **THEIR** problem that they did not do their homework properly. Now, if they advertised such a check for anyone requesting a switch, and I call them and have them send me a check in return for switching that number, knowing full well that it isn't a real line, then I could see calling this fraud. But not if the initiative was theirs. Well, we'll find out how this works over here in a couple of years. Austria just joined the EU, and the EU has decreed the end of telecom monopolies by the end of 1996 (or is it 1998)? We will all be faced with the same problems and privileges then. Wolf N. Paul, UNIX Support/KSR wnp@aut.alcatel.at Alcatel Austria AG +43-1-277-22-2523 (w) Scheydgasse 41/E26 +43-1-277-22-118 (fax) A-1210 Vienna, Austria (Europe) +43-1-220-6481 (h) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 4 Jan 1995 21:30:57 -0500 From: Tim Gorman Subject: Re: Erlang Capacity ERU.ERUDYG@memo4.ericsson.se writes in TELECOM Digest V15 #2: > I am looking for information about Erlang Capacity Calculations for > land line based telecom networks. My main question is this: > In cellular, typical system design is according to Erlang B or Erlang > C traffic tables, and designed for 2% blocking (.02 G.O.S., Grade Of > Service). > Is this the same for land line?, local PSTN? long distance trunks? > international trunks? etc. Any information or source of information > for this would be useful. Grade of Service for all PSTN providers that I know of is 1% blocking. To provide this on tandem connections to interLATA carriers we utilize 0.5% blocking on our end office-access tandem links. I'm not sure what you are describing with the term "land line" since a land line has 100% grade of service to the CO by definition (this may not be true in some concentrated subscriber loop carrier systems but it should be pretty close). InterLATA toll and international toll grades of service are not in my area of expertise anymore but I'll be they are close to 1% blocking as well in most areas. We use Neil-Wilkerson tables for coming up with the number of trunks required. It's been a long time since I studied this but I think a simple explanation would be that these tables are Poisson tables with peakedness factors for non-smooth offered load. The Poisson tables would be equivalent to your Erlang B tables, I suspect. Again, it has been a while but I thought Erlang C was not used for figuring blockage to offered load on a trunk group but instead for figuring holding time in queue while waiting for answer. Are you sure you use Erlang C in trunk blocking or do I have my tables mixed up :-) ? Tim Gorman Southwestern Bell Tel. Co tg6124@ping.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Jan 1995 04:49:47 PST From: Paul_Gloger.ES_XFC@xerox.com Subject: Chatter Heard on Scanner Leads to Criminal Charges From the Associated Press, as reported in the {Los Angeles Times}, Sunday, January 1, 1995: Chatter Heard on Scanner Leads to Criminal Charges Memphis, Tenn. - A woman listening to a police scanner she had gotten for Christmas picked up a conversation over cordless telephones and heard what turned out to be a murder plot unfolding, investigators say. Donna McGee tipped sheriff's deputies to what she had heard, and on Thursday a woman and her boyfriend were arrested and accused of conspiring to kill the woman's husband and make it look like a burglary gone awry. "It appears their motive was to collect the insurance money and get out of debt, and for them to continue their lives together," said Sheriff's Capt. Joe Ball. Jacqueline Lee Greene, 32, and Christopher Scott Davis, 21, were charged with conspiracy to murder her husband, James Kenneth Greene. Davis was also charged with criminal attempt to commit murder. McGee said the scanner chatter she heard Wednesday caught her attention fast. "I heard this man say: 'Are you sure you want to go through with this?' She said she was sure, and asked him if he was sure," McGee said Friday. "She asked him: 'Do you really love me enough to kill for me?' He said: 'Yes, I do. Do you have any doubts?'" The man and woman talked about having Davis enter the Greene house through a window, McGee said. "She said if he came through the unlocked patio door, there wouldn't be any sign of forced entry," McGee said. "She said: 'If you come through the window, Kenny will hear you and he'll come and that's when you shoot him.'" By this time some of McGee's family was listening. When the woman on the scanner called her daughter, McGee's daughter recognized a playmate's name. Eventually, the McGees said, they realized the identity of the intended victim. Greene "was just absolutely amazed, scared, shocked" when sheriff's deputies informed him of the plot against him, Ball said. Cordless telephones use radio waves to communicate between the handset and the base. Those radio waves can easily be intercepted by a police scanner. Ball said there was nothing illegal in McGee's listening to the cordless phone conversations because it was a random scanning. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: That's the first time I have ever heard of cordless phone monitoring being dismissed as 'nothing illegal' because it was 'random scanning'. You'd think they would rely on previous court decisions stating that cordless phones do not have the same protection as cellular phones ... or something ... but isn't all scanner listening essentially 'random'? PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V15 #9 **************************** Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa24012; 5 Jan 95 21:58 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (4.1/SMI-4.0-proxy) id AA16473; Thu, 5 Jan 95 17:08:34 CST Return-Path: Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (4.1/SMI-4.0-proxy) id AA16463; Thu, 5 Jan 95 17:08:31 CST Date: Thu, 5 Jan 95 17:08:31 CST From: telecom@delta.eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson)) Message-Id: <9501052308.AA16463@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #10 TELECOM Digest Thu, 5 Jan 95 17:08:00 CST Volume 15 : Issue 10 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Internet '95 Conference (Leona Nichols) 800 Numbers, How Important? (Paul Harts) Re: Telecom Group in Chicago (Maurice Givens) New Telecom Resource on the Internet (me@telematrix.com) Switch Features Information Wanted (Glenn Shirley) Videoconferencing Seminar in Rochester, NY (David C. Weber) Call Waiting and Caller-ID (Keith Knipschild) Cellphone ANI Now Being Given? (Keith Knipschild) Cellular Phone Pricing Question (John McGing) British Telecom Cuts Rates to Canada and U.S. (Dave Leibold) M2 Presswire Note (News Digest Reader Account) Need Profile of Teleport Communications Group (Linli Zhao) CAI Preferences by Service Providers (Alex Cena) Telecomix (Dave Leibold) 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: * telecom-request@eecs.nwu.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: 9457-D Niles Center Road Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 708-329-0571 Fax: 708-329-0572 ** Article submission address only: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu ** Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * 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. * ************************************************************************* Additionally, 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 5 Jan 95 10:15:26 PST From: Leona Nichols Subject: Internet '95 Conference TeleStrategies' Internet '95 Conference/Expo CONFERENCE TRACK Publishing, Marketing and Advertising on the Internet March 21-22, 1995 Tuesday, March 21, 1995 9:00-10:30 Session C-1 THE FUTURE OF INTERNET PUBLISHING Brewster Kahle, CEO, WAIS, Inc. John Curran, Product Manager, BBN Technology Services Stanley R. Greenfield, President, Dial-A-Book, Inc. and former Senior Vice President and consultant for Ziff-Davis Publishing Company 10:45-12:15 Session C-2 HOW TO MARKET AND ADVERTISE EFFECTIVELY Jeffrey Dearth, CEO, Electronic Newsstand, Inc. Andrew Frank, Director, Software Development Ogilvy & Mather Direct Duffy Mazan, Partner, Electric Press, Inc. 1:30-3:00 Session C-3 PUBLISHING ON THE INTERNET Laura Fillmore, President, Online Bookstore John Pierce, Electronic Publishing Specialist Online Computer Library Center, Inc. Brad Templeton, President, ClariNet Communications 3:30-4:00 Session C-4 ONLINE CREDIT CARD TRANSACTIONS Lee H. Stein, Chairman and CEO, First Virtual Holdings Incorporated 4:00-5:30 Session C-5 ROUND TABLE DISCUSSION OF INTERNET SECURITY Steven Lipner, Vice President, Trusted Information Systems, Inc. Kurt Stammberger, Technology Marketing Manager RSA Data Security, Inc. Raymond DeRoo, System Administrator, E-Znet Inc. Wednesday, March 22, 1995 8:30-10:00 Session C-6 COPYRIGHT AND LICENSING ISSUES Kathlene Karg, Assistant Director, Copyright and New Technology Association of American Publishers, Inc. Steve Metalitz, Partner, Smith & Metalitz Rebecca Lenzini, President, CARL Corporation 10:30-12:00 Session C-7 DOING BUSINESS ON THE INTERNET Phillip J. Selleh, Solutions Consultant Worldwide Alliance Team, AT&T Global Information Solutions Fernand A. Lavallee, Senior Associate Venable Baetjer Howard & Civiletti Nat Ballou, Technology Consultant, Software Products Division AT&T Global Information Solutions Arthur S. Rosenfield, President, Business Development Group, Inc. 1:30-3:30 Session C-8 COMMERCENET: A MODEL FOR BUSINESS-TO-BUSINESS ELECTRONIC COMMERCE Randall Whiting, Chair, CommerceNet Sponsors Steering Committee SESSION CHAIR Stacy Bressler, Worldwide Business Development Manager - Interactive Electronic Sales, Hewlett-Packard Company Robert Frank, Project Leader - Chief Scientist - Electronic Commerce/EDI, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Gail Grant, Vice President - New Business Development, Open Market, Inc. Mark Resch, Xerox Corporation Anita Schiller, Director of Electronic Marketing, Silicon Graphics, Inc. William Wong, CommerceNet Project Leader, Enterprise Integration Technologies WORKSHOP TRACK HOW TO DO BUSINESS ON THE INTERNET MARCH 21-22, 1995 TUESDAY, MARCH 21, 1995 9:00-10:00 Session W-1 BUSINESS USES OF THE INTERNET Howard McQueen, President, McQueen Associates 10:15-11:00 Session W-2 NETIQUETTE: HOW TO DO BUSINESS ON THE INTERNET WITHOUT GETTING FLAMED Paul Kainen, President, Kainen Technology Services 11:00-12:00 Session W-3 SECURITY 101 Alan Taffel, Vice President - Marketing, UUNET Technologies, Inc. 2:00-2:30 Session W-4 WRITING FOR THE INTERNET Ed Hott, Vice President - Sales, Interse Corporation 2:30-3:45 Session W-5 CREATING A BUSINESS PRESENCE ON THE INTERNET Duffy Mazan, President, Electric Press, Inc. 4:00-5:00 Session W-6 MARKETING AND MANAGING YOUR SERVER Scott Finer, President, HSF Consulting WEDNESDAY, MARCH 22, 1995 9:00-9:45 Session W-7 HANDLING ONLINE CREDIT CARD TRANSACTIONS Representative, First Virtual Holdings Inc. 9:45-10:30 Session W-8 ONLINE PUBLISHING Laura Fillmore, President, Online Bookstore 11:00-12:00 Session W-9 CREATING A PROFITABLE ONLINE CATALOG Gregory Giagnocavo, Internet Consultant, Wentworth Worldwide Media 2:00-3:15 Session W-10 BUSINESS-TO-BUSINESS MARKETING ON THE INTERNET Robert Tobias, Senior Consultant, Regis McKenna Inc. PRE-CONFERENCE TUTUORIALS MARCH 20, 1995 Pre-Conference Tutorial -- Basic Level -- Session T-1 The Basics of Using the Internet for Business Monday, March 20, 1995 o 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. By John Buckley, Director of Training, Gestalt Systems, Inc. Pre-Conference Tutorial -- Advanced -- Session T-2 Understanding and Using Internet Resources and Improving Access Monday, March 20, 1995 o 9:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. By Howard McQueen, President, McQueen Associates Pre-Conference Tutorial -- Advanced -- Session T-3 COMMERCIAL WEB DEVELOPMENT Monday, March 20, 1995 o 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. By Duffy Mazan, President, Electric Press, Inc. EXHIBIT TRACK Exhibitors at past TeleStrategies Internet programs include: America Online Ameritech Library Services Gestalt Systems McQueen Associates PSI Inforonics Hybrid Networks, Inc. Spry, Inc. UUNET Legi-Slate Wentworth Worldwide Media WAIS, Inc. Internet Access Group EXHIBIT HOURS Monday, March 20 5:00-6:30 p.m. Tuesday, March 21 12:00-6:30 p.m. Wednesday, March 22 10:00-2:00 p.m. In addition to the exhibits, on March 21-22, seven exhibitors will do in-depth online demonstrations of their services. FOR INFORMATION ABOUT EXHIBITING AT TELESTRATEGIES INTERNET 95, CALL JACKIE MCGUIGAN AT 703-734-7050. FOR MORE INFORMATION, REGISTRATION OR A COMPLETE CONFERENCE BROCHURE: CALL (703)734-7050 FAX (703)893-3197 E-MAIL internet@telestrat.com (Please include ground address or fax number to receive the full conference brochure, which is not available on-line) PRE-CONFERENCE TUTORIALS -- March 20, 1995 (choose one) The Basics of Using the Internet for Business ...................$495 Understanding and Using Internet Resources and Improving Access..$495 Commercial Web Development.......................................$495 INTERNET CONFERENCE TRACK Plus workshops, exhibits and online demonstrations March 21-22, 1995................................................$985 ALL FOUR INTERNET 95 EVENTS A tutorial (please specify), conference, workshop, online demonstrations and exhibits March 20-22, 1995..............................................$1,395 INTERNET WORKSHOPS, DEMONSTRATIONS AND EXHIBITS March 21-22, 1995................................................$495 EXHIBITS ONLY March 20-22, 1995.................................................$10 HOTEL INFORMATION Sheraton Crystal City Hotel 1800 Jefferson Davis Highway Arlington, VA 22202 703-486-1111 CONFERENCE HOURS Registration begins at 8:00 a.m. on Monday and Tuesday. Session hours are 9:00-5:00 on Monday, March 20, 9:00-5:30 on Tuesday, March 21 and 8:30-3:30 on Wednesday, March 22. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 05 Jan 1995 15:10:58 GMT From: P.P.W.M.Harts@research.ptt.nl (Paul Harts) Subject: 800 Numbers, How Important? Organization: PTT Research, The Netherlands Hi, Recent research indicated that more than 25% of all 'long Distance Calls' in the United States is to an 800 number. Can any of you substantiate this percentage? And do you know if is it measured in frequency of use or in minutes? Thanks in advance, Paul email: P.P.W.M.Harts@research.ptt.nl mail : Winschoterdiep OZ 46 P.O. 15000 9700 CD Groningen Netherlands ------------------------------ From: maury@tellabs.com (Maurice Givens) Subject: Re: Telecom Group in Chicago Organization: Tellabs, Inc. Date: Thu, 5 Jan 1995 14:32:20 GMT In article logicarsch@aol.com writes > I do market research specializing in telecommunications. I'm looking > for a telecom organization that I can join that has a Chicago chapter. > Specifically, I'm looking for a group that has meetings, seminars and > get-togethers, a little newsletter, etc. etc. for a hundred or two > hundred bucks a year. Can someone clue me in? Thanks! > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You know, to show you what a hermit I > have become the past few years, my answer to your question would have > to be 'I do not know'. Seriously, I don't. Maybe we should start > one, or some sort of telecom discussion group, social, etc. PAT] As former chairman of the Chicago Chapter of the IEEE Comunications Society, I would like to invite you to our Chapter meetings. These meetings are frequented by local telecom engineers and researchers. Additionally, our meetings address timely issues concerning the telecom industry. For more information on metings of the Communications Society, or to get in contact with the current chairman, you may call the Chicago IEEE office at 1 800 898 IEEE (1 800 898 4333). All interested parties are invited to our meetings. Maurice "Maury" Givens PP ASEL IA AGI IGI maury@tellabs.com Ham Radio: N9DC ------------------------------ From: Me@telematrix.com Subject: New Telecom Resource on the Internet Date: 5 Jan 1995 18:44:53 GMT Organization: TZ-Link, a public-access online community in Nyack, NY. Our company, Telematrix Communications, has recently opened a new site on the World Wide Web called "telematrix.com." So far as we know, it's the only site devoted entirely to telecommunications information and we aim to become the main listening post and forum for people interested in this field. Our target audience includes both professionals and users of all sorts. We are contacting you because we seek your input. We would like to know what telecommunications information or resources you want or need that are not already readily available on the Internet. In addition, we solicit your reaction to our site and suggestions for any improvements. At present, we have a free calendar of telecom events, new product announcements, softwasre, practical "tips" on telecom cost savings, newsletters, magazines and educational/training resources, plus much more. Telematrix.com can also be accessed by gopher, ftp and telnet. Thank you for your interest. http://www.telematrix.com/ ------------------------------ From: shirleyg@stanilite.com.au (UL ENG) Subject: Switch Features Information Wanted Date: 6 Jan 1995 04:26:19 +1100 Organization: Stanilite Electronics Pty. Ltd. Sydney, Australia Does anyone know of a standard or recommendations for features in B number analysis type tables ie. someone dials 414-xxxx and the switch knows to throw away the 414 and replace it with say 555 or strips it entirely or dials 414-yyyy where yyyy is a certain offset from xxxx. I need to know what minimum features should be available in a switch's number translation type functionality. Standards can be CCITT(ITU), EIA or whatever. Alternatively decent books that deal with the subject. Hope the above made sense. Glenn ------------------------------ From: David C. Weber Subject: Videoconferencing seminar in Rochester, NY Date: Thu, 05 Jan 95 16:20:18 EDT Organization: PSI Public Usenet Link There will be a free Personal Videoconferencing seminar in Rochester, NY on Thursday January 19, 1995. The Seminar is sponsored by: PicturePhone Direct, Intel, and Frontier Communications. The seminar will include hands on demonstrations and presentations with Intel's ProShare Videoconferencing system, Frontier Communications ISDN services, and System integration by PicturePhone Direct. There will be two individual sessions:Session 1 from 10:30am-12:30pm, and Session 2 from 1:30pm-3:30pm. The Seminar will be held at 180 South Clinton Ave. Rochester, NY. For reservations or information please call 1-800-810-9966 or email to pp000231@interramp.com. ------------------------------ From: keith.knipschild@asb.com Organization: America's Suggestion Box - BBS (516) 471-8625 Date: Thu, 05 Jan 95 00:44:32 Subject: Call Waiting and Caller-ID I got the lastest edition of the HELLO DIRECT Catalog (Spring 95) today, and I noticed on page 24, they are selling a Northern Telecom PowerTouch 225 w/Caller ID. This phone has capabilites for different modules. The ad states: " Caller ID, Call Waiting Module - coming in mid-95 You'll see who's on a call waiting call, without interupting the call you're already on." Is this possible yet? Anywhere? " Also in LATE-95 a new module called "ADSI" is comming. It will help doing banking, paybills, and such -- by phone." What is ADSI? Keith.Knipschild@asb.com ------------------------------ From: keith.knipschild@asb.com Organization: America's Suggestion Box - BBS (516) 471-8625 Date: Thu, 05 Jan 95 00:44:31 Subject: Cellphone Now Giving ANI? I guess NYNEX Mobile has made some progress, Today I dialed 1-800-MY-ANI-IS from my Cellular phone ... and guess what ... it came back with my cellular phone number. In the past it would come back with a WEIRD number. Is NYNEX Mobile the first company to pass along the ANI from cellular phones? Keith.knipschild@asb.com ------------------------------ From: jmcging@access.digex.net (John McGing) Subject: Cellular Phone Pricing Question Date: 4 Jan 1995 21:51:09 -0500 Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA Reply-To: jmcging@access.digex.net I have a car phone on Cell One here in the Baltimore area. The plan is $24.95 a month plus $.39 or $.37 per minute prime and $.19 or $.17 per minute off-prime (I don't have my bill handy.) Anyway, where I work we have a big employee assocuation that recently announced they had some special pricing plans from both Bell Atlantic Mobile and Cell 1. I'm not sure but think each was offering the same pricing scheme which was (per BAM): Pay the employee association $25.00. BAM monthly charge becomes $8.95. Per minute charges were the same as under the existing plan (above). This requires a three year contract. Cell One showed up, and sold about 200 accounts then told the employee association that they had run out of slots and packed up and left. BAM is coming back two more times next week. (They actually walk out to the parking lot and reprogram your phone as part of the sale. I found that interesting.) Anyway, I have a couple of questions: Even including the $25.00 year to the employee association, the monthly base cost is $11.03 month vs $24.95. Over three years that's $167.00 x3 or over $500.00 in savings. Is this deal too good to be true? The three year thing doesn't worry me (we're NOT moving and the car phone we have is a real top drawer Motorola we can switch to a new car.). Should it? And why would Cell One only have 200 "slots"? BAM was doing a land office business. I called Cell One to see if they could match the BAM pricing, the sales rep said no and said he understood why I would want to switch and said to call them when I wanted the service terminated! . Appreciate any insight on whether this is a switch that makes sense to do. John jmcging@access.digex.net jmcging@ssa.gov J.MCGING on GEnie 70142,1357 on Compuserve ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Jan 95 00:20 EST From: dleibold@gvc.com (Dave Leibold) Subject: British Telecom Cuts Rates to Canada and U.S. British Telecom calls from the UK to Canada and the U.S. will cost about 20% less effective February 1995, according to a BT announcement reported by the Associated Press. The cuts were reportedly authorized by the UK regulator last year as part of a price reductions scheme. The sample rate given was for a three minute call at the lowest rate period: the former rate was equivalent to CAD$3.14; the new rate will be CAD$2.49. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Do you think this price reduction is somehow tied in with the recent ability to dial 1-800 numbers in the USA from the UK as Clive pointed out a couple days ago? PAT[ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 05 Jan 1995 13:15:28 GMT From: Newsdigest@m2comms.demon.co.uk Reply-To: Newsdigest@m2comms.demon.co.uk Subject: M2 Presswire Note Dear Colleague, Please give me a moment of your time ... I want to offer you the chance of reading AND placing full-text press releases on a range of topics including IT/communications and the media from all around the world. I also want to introduce you to the range of newsletters that M2 Communications Limited offers. They may be of use to you or a colleague, and discounts of up to 50% are being offered until the end of January. YOU ARE UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO EVER SPEND A CENT, PENNY, RUPEE ETC ... While every effort has been taken to cleanse our database, if you have received a duplicate of this PLEASE send a copy of it with an appended note to postmaster@m2comms.demon.co.uk. Similarly, if we have offended you and you do not want to hear from us ever again PLEASE send a copy of this mail with an appended note to mps@m2comms.demon.co.uk; and we will place you on our kill-file so that we do not trouble you again. Please accept our apologies if this is the case. FEEL FREE TO PASS THIS NOTE AROUND internally and to colleagues. M2 PRESSWIRE is a new service that allows the FREE SUBSCRIPTION to a daily digest of Internet-delivered full-text press releases in English from around the world. We also offer companies the chance to have releases sent free-of-charge. For details send e-mail to listserv@ m2comms.demon.co.uk with the body text: get m2pressw.faq. To get a full index type 'index' without the quotes. We also want to introduce you to a range of business newsletters and give you samples. Send e-mail to listserv@m2comms.demon.co.uk with the body text: get nlindex.txt. If you need help please holler. We've deliberately not appended the material in order not to trouble you further. Thank you for your time. We hope to see you as a regular user of M2 Communications' resources in the future. Sincerely, M2 COMMUNICATIONS LTD Darren P. Ingram (di@m2comms.demon.co.uk) -- Please note new e-mail address M2 Communications Ltd. Reptile Hse, 20 Heathfield Rd, Coventry CV5 8BT, UK Tel: +44 (0)1203 717417/Fax: +44 (0)1203 717418/Tlx: 94026650 DBRIG Publishers of Telecomworldwire, Service Communications, Internet Business News M, Data Broadcasting News and now M2 PRESSWIRE (info@m2comms.demon.co.uk) ------------------------------ From: lzhao@wellfleet.com (Linli Zhao #8277) Subject: Need Profile of Teleport Communications Group Date: 5 Jan 1995 16:18:16 GMT Organization: Wellfleet Communications, Inc. Reply-To: lzhao@wellfleet.com I need any information known about Teleport Communications Group (TCG). Thanks in advance. Best Regards, Linli Zhao Internet: lzhao@wellfleet.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 05 Jan 95 11:56:18 EST From: Alex Cena Subject: CAI Preferences by Service Providers I am trying to build a list of air interface preferences by US cellular and PCSservice providers. Any comments, corrections, additions, etc. would be highly appreciated. Service Provider Air Interface Comments CELLULAR AirTouch CDMA Full Svc in San Fernando Jun 95 Ameritech CDMA Construction starts 3Q95 Bell Atlantic TDMA Likely to switch to CDMA Bell South TDMA Under Construction GTE CDMA Under Construction in Austin, TX McCaw TDMA Commercial NYNEX CDMA Trials Southwestern Bell TDMA Commercial Sprint CDMA Under Construction US West CDMA Svc in Seattle Mid '95 PERSONAL COMMUNICATION SERVICES McCaw/AT&T ? Wireless Co ? Pacific Bell DCS1900 Bell South DCS1900 SouthwesternBell DCS1900 APC DCS1900 Go Communications DCS1900 GTE CDMA AT&T/Cable&Wireless CDMA PCS Primeco CDMA Ameritech CDMA OmniPoint DS1900 Thanks in advance, Alex M. Cena, acena@lehman.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Jan 95 00:22 EST From: dleibold@gvc.com (Dave Leibold) Subject: Telecomix Highlights of some of the newspaper phunnies with phone topics in recent months: Charlie 13 Dec 94: [at a police station] "If he wants to use his one phone call under the Miranda rule to call a TV shopping club, that's his right, John." Mixed Media 10 Oct 94: Introduced the concept of "MCI Friends and Royal Family ... for those making 300 calls to the same number." The Better Half 28 Aug 94: Stan invites Harriet to call his "Hubby Hotline" for $3.99/minute. Animal Crackers 14 Nov 94: [Lyle the ever-jilted lion phoning his ever-unrequited love:] "Lana's installed call forgetting" On The Fastrack 10 Oct 94: The newly-wed Bud & Chelonia are seen having their first fight - namely an net flame war. Finally ... {Mad Magazine} #332 had an article full of cell phone comics. I won't spoil those ones, though ... [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I am curious: Who is running {Mad Magazine} now that Bill Gaines has passed away? It was his thing for all the years it operated until his death. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V15 #10 ***************************** Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa29154; 5 Jan 95 23:00 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (4.1/SMI-4.0-proxy) id AA18279; Thu, 5 Jan 95 18:24:07 CST Return-Path: Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (4.1/SMI-4.0-proxy) id AA18272; Thu, 5 Jan 95 18:24:05 CST Date: Thu, 5 Jan 95 18:24:05 CST From: telecom@delta.eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson)) Message-Id: <9501060024.AA18272@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #11 TELECOM Digest Thu, 5 Jan 95 18:24:00 CST Volume 15 : Issue 11 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Chatter Heard on Scanner Leads to Criminal Charges (Joel B. Levin) Re: Chatter Heard on Scanner Leads to Criminal Charges (Christopher Zguris) Re: Procedure for Obtaining a 10XXX Code (Sander J. Rabinowitz) Re: Procedure for Obtaining a 10XXX Code (James J. Sowa) Re: Noise Introduced by Bit-Robbing? (William H. Sohl) Re: Noise Introduced by Bit-Robbing? (Matthew P. Downs) Re: Seeking White Pages on CD or Disk (Andrew C. Green) Re: AT&T First to Deliver Long-Awaited "Follow-Me" 500 Numbers (J Costello) Re: Protest of New Compuserve-Unisys GIF Usage Tax (Marc Collins-Rector) Re: Protest of New Compuserve-Unisys GIF Usage Tax (Brad Hicks) Re: Protest of New Compuserve-Unisys GIF Usage Tax (Tony Waddell) Re: Protest of New Compuserve-Unisys GIF Usage Tax (Wolf) Re: Where Does ISDN Fit In? (John Dearing) Re: NANP 800 Numbers From the UK (Clive D.W. Feather) 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: * telecom-request@eecs.nwu.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: 9457-D Niles Center Road Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 708-329-0571 Fax: 708-329-0572 ** Article submission address only: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu ** Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * 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. * ************************************************************************* Additionally, 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: levin@bbn.com (Joel B Levin) Subject: Re: Chatter Heard on Scanner Leads to Criminal Charges Date: 05 Jan 1995 15:03:13 GMT Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman, Inc. In article Paul_Gloger.ES_XFC@xerox.com writes: > Ball said there was nothing illegal in McGee's listening to the cordless > phone conversations because it was a random scanning. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: That's the first time I have ever heard > of cordless phone monitoring being dismissed as 'nothing illegal' because > it was 'random scanning'. You'd think they would rely on previous court > decisions stating that cordless phones do not have the same protection > as cellular phones ... or something ... but isn't all scanner listening > essentially 'random'? PAT] You're kidding, right? This is policeman ("Sheriff Capt.") talking, not a lawyer or judge. Count on the court decisions coming up when the defense starts arguing in court. Regards, JBL ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Jan 95 17:12 EST From: Christopher Zguris <0004854540@mcimail.com> Subject: Re: Chatter Heard on Scanner Leads to Criminal Charges > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: That's the first time I have ever heard > of cordless phone monitoring being dismissed as 'nothing illegal' because > it was 'random scanning'. You'd think they would rely on previous court > decisions stating that cordless phones do not have the same protection > as cellular phones ... or something ... but isn't all scanner listening =============================== > essentially 'random'? PAT] ==================== Once you have a scanner programmed to scan 46-49 MHz and find a neighbor(s) cordless phone, you're going to keep the scanner programmed for that range. The only thing in the cordless-phone frequency range are cordless phones, no police, no EMS, no fire department, no Secret Service, no FBI, no broadcasts from Air Force One (Okay, cordless baby monitors, wireless headphones, and wireless intercoms and other stuff like that also broadcast in that range). If someone has their scanner set in _that_ range they're probably looking for cordless phones, no? Of course, wireless headphones _also_ use that range, maybe _that's_ what is being "randomly" scanned for :-) ? Cell phones are another matter, a listener with a scanner modified to get that range will hear little "snippets" of conversations before the phone changes frequencies or cells, that's definately "random". But as for cordless phones, most/all will stay on the same frequency for the entire call, much to the delight of the avid snooper with nothing better to do. Christopher Zguris czguris@mcimail.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The most bizarre instance of this I have yet to encounter or hear about was reported to me the other day. It seems some old biddy with nothing better to do was listening in on her neighbor using her cordless phone via her scanner. She overheard what she believed was this woman discussing a plan to murder someone and she reported it to the police. The cops had a big raid of the house, lots of hoopla, the whole routine. It turns out the neighbor and the person she was talking with were *rehearsing lines for a school play they were both in*. They were reading their scripts over the phone and learning their lines. The cops let it slip out who it was that called them; now Biddy has something else to do with her time and money. She had to hire an attorney to defend herself in a suit against her for bearing false witness against her neighbor. Cordless phone monitoring is merely the 1990's version of what nosy people used to do many years ago, long before cordless phones were invented and when four and eight party telephone lines were common. In those days -- I am talking 1930-50 now -- when several people shared the same telephone pair in a 'party line' arrangement, the ringing voltage for the bell was sent at different frequencies (or electrical cycles) so that one bell on the party line would ring but the rest would not. The trouble is, all the other bell clappers would give a slight 'tick' when the ringing voltage came down the line. Unless you were standing right next to the phone listening closely, you'd never hear the 'tick' from your bell clapper when someone else's phone was actually ringing. The way the snoops overcame that 'problem' was to set their phone instrument inside a galvanized wash-tub. That would amplify the 'click' by several magnitudes so that wherever they were in their house, on their front porch or whatever, they would hear it. Someone down the street gets a phone call; everyone else on the block would hear that 'click click' from their own phone. Remember, these were the very old-fashioned, all steel, very heavy desk phones of the 1940's. When they heard that clicking from the bell clapper, in their house they would go, if they were not there already, and soon the legitimate called party would have two or three eavesdroppers on the instruments at their homes listening to the conversation, typically with a rag over the mouthpiece to cover up background noise at their end. When I was twelve years old, I had a freind who was the same age. We had a private line but his parents had a four-party line. We would call each other from time to time and have the sort of conversations on the phone that twelve year old boys have with each other. One day the call got sort of raunchy from his end, and right in the middle of it came that unmistakeable click of a reciever somewhere going off hook. Most party line subscribers were courteous; they would say 'excuse me' and replace their recievers, or maybe just hang up without speaking, but at least you heard that *second* click to assure yourself they were gone from the line. This time the off hook click was heard and I started to shush my friend. "Better shut up! Someone's listening." "Oh," he said gleefully, "that's just Mrs. Winchell. That old witch has been our party line neighbor for years! Why, if she doesn't know everything we do and talk about over here by now, she never will find out!" ... pause, shocked silence on my end ... then that awaited second click as Mrs. Winchell replaced her receiver. PAT] ------------------------------ From: AHDNN1A.SRABIN01@eds.com (Sander J. Rabinowitz) Subject: Re: Procedure for Obtaining a 10XXX Code Date: Thu, 5 Jan 1995 17:10:00 -0500 On 5 Jan 1995, Wayne Huffman writes: > FYI The local cableco here in Fairfax County, VA (Media General > Cable) has a 10XXXX code (106-500), used for ordering Pay-Per- > View movies. I can't seem to get an answer from Bell Atlantic > on how this was arranged. Actually, what you've got there is really 10650+0. The carrier access code, plus zero, gives you the operator for that carrier. For example, 10288+0 gets you AT&T's operator. I don't think anyone has a six-digit carrier access code yet, although I do find it curious that a cable system (presumably not as yet a telephone company) has the use of its own carrier access code. /Sandy/ EDS/Saturn, 100 Saturn Parkway #F10, Spring Hill, TN 37174. Internet: ahdnn1a.srabin01@eds.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Is this any stranger than a newspaper having a three digit number of its own, ie 311, like that newspaper in, where is it, Georgia? PAT] ------------------------------ From: jjs@coolnme.ih.att.com (James J. Sowa) Subject: Re: Procedure for Obtaining a 10XXX Code Organization: AT&T Network Wireless Systems Busines s Unit Date: Thu, 5 Jan 1995 13:51:47 GMT In article , Prime perf wrote: > Does anyone know the procedure for obtaining a 10XXX code? Where does > one begin? What FCC forms and regulations are involved? Having > obtained a 10XXX code, how does one get it incorporated into the PSTN? But welcome to 1995!! I haven't seen the discussion on 101XXXX codes yet. Carrier codes are growing into that fourth digit now. From the information I have seen the carrier code 5000 will be the test number. These new four digit carriers are supposed to be assigned as soon as the available three digit codes run out. I wonder who the lucky carrier will be with the first four digit code assigned to them? Jim Sowa ------------------------------ From: whs70@cc.bellcore.com (sohl,william h) Subject: Re: Noise Introduced by Bit-Robbing? Date: 5 Jan 1995 11:35:17 -0500 Organization: Bell Communications Research (Bellcore) In article , wrote: > In , naddy@mips.pfalz.de (Christian Weisgerber) > writes: >> What kind of noise/distortion does American-style bit-robbing cause to >> voice band signals transmitted through PCM channels? > In the U.S., most intermachine trunks are common channel direct > connections so only the robbed bit at each end of the IC/EC connection > introduces the robbed bit (as well as ny non CCS systems in the EC). Today, most end-to-end voice connections do not include any trunking which uses robbed bit signalling. The great majority of local trunking, especially in metro areas, has all been converted to CCS. One way to determine the probability of what type of local trunking is in your area is if caller ID is available. If you can have caller ID, then the local trunking is using CCS and thus no robbed bit signaling is involved at that end of any connection. Bellcore NISDN Hotline Technical Consultant (1-800-992-ISDN) Bill Sohl (K2UNK) BELLCORE (Bell Communications Research, Inc.) Morristown, NJ email via UUCP bcr!cc!whs70 201-829-2879 Weekdays email via Internet whs70@cc.bellcore.com ------------------------------ From: mpd@adc.com (Matthew P. Downs) Subject: Re: Noise Introduced by Bit-Robbing? Date: 5 Jan 1995 13:23:28 GMT Organization: ADC Telecommunications jcr@creator.nwest.mccaw.com (Jeffrey Rhodes) writes: > I'm not a modem expert but I would answer "none". If a call connection > is made on a bit robbing DS0 within a DS1, then the modems will settle > for some transparent speed (9600bps) during the initial negotiation. I > don't think the V.34 modems will connect at 28k8 when bit robbing is > present. > There really aren't many circuits like these, especially for long > distance calls. Most bit-robbing occurs on intra-LATA (I think) by > LECs that haven't updated circuits that are being depreciated over a > 40 year period. Unless you use ISDN, you are using robbed-bit signalling between your premise and the Cetral Office. Unless like a previous poster had stated, the robbed bits only become inportant during call set-up and tear-down. Ie. going on-hook and off-hook. Otherwise the robbed bits will be 1's. Matt ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Jan 1995 10:28:47 CST From: Andrew C. Green Subject: Re: Seeking White Pages on CD or Disk swar@infinet.com (Scott Warbritton) writes: > I'm not sure if such an animal exists, but I'm looking for white pages > for the entire country on either CD or Disk. [...] > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: They're out there. Some are of dubious > value in terms of accuracy. PAT] You could start with your local library. By coincidence, just last night I was playing with White Page listings for the entire United States on CD-ROM at the public PCs in the Arlington Heights (IL) public library. Several PCs, complete with Canon Bubblejet printers, are available for free public use of a selection of database services, including White Pages and business listings via CD-ROM, current as of August, 1994. The setup obtained by the library is dubbed "InfoNet" and comprises a variety of name brand software which announces itself at the start of the session, so if you like the particular database you're using, you can presumably seek it out for private purchase. Andrew C. Green (312) 266-4431 Datalogics, Inc. Internet: acg@dlogics.com 441 W. Huron Chicago, IL 60610-3498 FAX: (312) 266-4473 ------------------------------ From: jpc@unix.restrac.com (John Costello) Subject: Re: AT&T First to Deliver Long-Awaited "Follow-Me" 500 Numbers Date: 5 Jan 1995 17:36:02 GMT Organization: RESTRAC, INC. Here is the current list of exchanges which AT&T can use for their 500 numbers. This is current as of 1/5/95. 288 346 367 677 437 442 443 445 446 447 448 449 488 673 674 675 679 John ------------------------------ From: Cyber@cris.com Subject: Re: Protest of New Compuserve-Unisys GIF Usage Tax Date: 5 Jan 1995 17:00:32 GMT Organization: Concentric Research Corporation Reply-To: Cyber@cris.com In , PATCLAWSON@delphi.com writes: > An Open Letter to the Senior Management of CompuServe and the Online > Communications Community: We applaud Pat Clawson and Telegraphic's attempt to build a consensus within the industry on how to deal with the LZW issue. > If CompuServe really wants to continue to provide the GIF format under > the conditions of their original royalty-free license, but can't > because of the patented Unisys LZW compression algorithm, the most > painless cure is to substitute another compression scheme. Here's our > fix. See what you think: We urge Compuserve and our fellow Telecommunication Industry peers to adopt this or a similar proposal in order to quickly deal with this issue. Marc Collins-Rector C.E.O. Concentric Research Corporation -- 400 41st Street, Bay City, Michigan 48708 Voice:517-895-0500 or 800-745-2747 Data:517-895-0510 or 800-991-2747 Fax:517-895-0529 Email: Custserv@cris.com The Concentric Network -- Home of BBS Direct, CRIS and Concentric Internet Services. ------------------------------ From: /G=Brad/S=Hicks/OU1=0205465@mhs-mc.attmail.com Date: Thu, 05 Jan 1995 12:22:20 -0600 Subject: Re: Protest of New Compuserve-Unisys GIF Usage Tax In TELECOM Digest 15.9, monty@roscom.COM suggests we replace the GIF "standard," and PATCLAWSON@delphi.com, a VP at TeleGrafix Communications Inc., offers us Yet Another Graphics standard. Will I be lynched if I point out that there is a competing standard to GIF, one that big chunks of The Network are using already? It's called JPEG, or ".jpg". The last time I glanced at any of the alt.binaries.pictures hierarchies, there were more jpg files than GIFs. JPEG may be slightly lossy, but it offers sixteen thousand times the color resolution in files typically a third the size of a GIF. That's ONE THIRD or less of the size ... just think how much happier =that= would make people running Web browsers over 14.4 kb/sec links. OK, so it's an old argument. But with the GIF "standard" now dependent on a UNISYS patent, it looks to me like it's time to re-examine the arguments. PATCLAWSON points out that it would be easy to write a converter from GIF to GEF. There are =already= scads of converters from GIF to JPEG, running on just about every platform. Any more, most graphics packages that can read GIF can also read JPEG. So why reinvent the wheel? So OK, you're determined not to use a lossy algorithm. Fine, there's also =another= bitmapped graphics standard. TIFF. So I repeat, what do we need Yet Another bitmapped graphics standard for? J. Brad Hicks Internet: mc!Brad_Hicks@mhs.attmail.com X.400: c=US admd=ATTMail prmd=MasterCard sn=Hicks gn=Brad ------------------------------ From: Tony Waddell Subject: Re: Protest of New Compuserve-Unisys GIF Usage Tax Date: 5 Jan 1995 15:37:57 GMT Organization: Pacific Bell > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Good luck with this! Let's hope the change > in format can be accomplished with a minimum of effort on the part of all > concerned. If your's will do the job, perhaps CIS should look at it and > see if they can be accomodating. PAT] This reminds me of the time when SEA sued Phil Katz over using the ARC extension. I know its not quite the same thing, but similar results could happen. When was the last time you saw an arc file? And is SEA even still in business? ------------------------------ From: cmwolf@cs.mtu.edu (Wolf) Subject: Re: Protest of New Compuserve-Unisys GIF Usage Tax Date: Thu, 5 Jan 1995 15:47:22 EST Reply-To: cmwolf@cs.mtu.edu Pat, Someone (jadietri@mtu.edu) here at the school contacted Tim Oren of CompuServe Incorporated and received the following reply: ---------------- From: Tim Oren, CompuServe Incorporated In 1987, CompuServe designed the Graphics Interchange Format (GIF) specification for graphics files. The GIF specification incorporated the Lempel Zev Welch (LZW) compression technology. In early 1993, Unisys notified CompuServe of patent rights granted to LZW. At that time, CompuServe began negotiating with Unisys to secure a licensing agreement. This agreement was reached in mid-1994, and CompuServe then initiated a process to secure a similar license that would benefit its GIF developer community. Following the agreement reached between CompuServe and Unisys, CompuServe announced the Graphics Interchange Format (GIF) Developer Agreement, shortly after its completion, on December 29, 1994. This agreement is aimed at GIF developers who are developing programs and shareware primarily for use in conjunction with CompuServe. The service offers a license to these developers to use LZW technology in programs written to the GIF specification. CompuServe remains committed to keeping open the GIF 89a specification both within CompuServe and in areas outside CompuServe. CompuServe continues to strongly support the use of the GIF specification in the entire online community including the Internet and World Wide Web. This agreement will be transparent to end-users and will not result in any charges for people using viewers or transmitting GIF images. The agreement offers software and shareware developers who use the LZW technology in their GIF programs protection under a software license that CompuServe is authorized to grant under the agreement with Unisys. Developers who choose to take advantage of this service would acquire the rights to use the LZW technology in certain software and shareware developed primarily for use in conjunction with CompuServe. Developers who choose to participate in this agreement within the implementation period will also benefit in that Unisys has agreed not to pursue royalty claims for past use of the LZW technology in GIF. The implementation period has been extended to January 31, 1995. CompuServe has presented this new agreement as a service to its GIF developer community. Cost to developers will be a $1.00 one-time licensing fee and a royalty payment of 1.5 percent or $0.15, whichever is greater, per registered copy of a program containing the LZW technology. CompuServe will not profit from this service. CompuServe encourages developers to work with Unisys directly if the GIF Developer Agreement does not meet their needs. Unisys is continuing to make the LZW technology available to any interested parties under reasonable and non-discriminatory terms. Developers are not required to register with CompuServe. Registering with CompuServe is simply one option for addressing the Unisys LZW patent issue. Developers may want to consider consulting with legal counsel. CompuServe is committed to keeping the GIF 89A specification as an open, fully-supported, non-proprietary specification for the entire online community including the World Wide Web. Whether they choose to register with CompuServe or not, developers are encouraged to continue use the GIF specification within their products. A copy of the GIF Developer Agreement is available in the Library section of the CompuServe Graphics Support Forum (GO GRAPHSUP) and will shortly be posted to CompuServes World Wide Web page (HTTP:\\WWW.COMPUSERVE.COM). Developers who are not developing software primarily for use in conjunction with CompuServe should contact Unisys directly at: Welch Patent Desk, Unisys Corp., P.O. Box 500, Bluebell, PA 19424 Mailcode C SW 19. Sincerly, Tim Oren, CompuServe Vice President, Future Technology ------------------------------ From: jdearing@netaxs.com (John Dearing) Subject: Re: Where Does ISDN Fit In? Date: 5 Jan 1995 17:22:12 GMT Organization: Netaxs Internet BBS and Shell Accounts Daniel Ritsma (ritsma@yu1.yu.edu) wrote: > When talking about telecommunications in computer-networking, people > often talk about t-1,2,3 or other type of line that specifically > define the bandwith of the connection. These terms apply to dedicated leased line circuits. They can be either point-to-point or can provide you a circuit into a larger network (like a frame relay network). And you're right, a T-1 is classically defined as a 1.544MB/S digital circuit. > What about ISDN, how do you fit that in these terms? What is the > standard bandwith of ISDN, and how is it when you only use it for > computer-data transfer when we speak about t-1s. Is it like an 15kHz > analoge line, that is used for Radio Signal transfer. ISDN is a different animal. ISDN is switched. There is a telephone number associated with an ISDN line. Garden variety ISDN provides you with 2 64K Bearer channels and a 16K Data channel. This is what is commonly referred to as 2B+D. By using a technique called "bonding" your terminal equipment and take the 2 "B" channels and "bond" them together, giving you 128K of bandwidth. Actually, the bandwidth is a little less than that because of the overhead associated with the bonding process. But it's still a lot more bandwidth than an analog modem! Since ISDN is a switched offering, there are charges in addition to the regular monthly bill for the line. You pay for each call made (usually at business rates, unless your state has a residential ISDN offering). > In short when do I use ISDN, over other alternatives? A quick answer is when you need more bandwidth than an analog modem can provide. Another time is when you have data to transfer but only for short periods of time. ISDN is a good, medium speed, bandwidth-on-demand solution. An example is the remote office that needs a connection to the corporate LAN but doesn't need to keep the connection "nailed up" all day long. They can use ISDN to place a connection to the corp LAN on an as needed basis, dropping the connection when there is no coprorate bound traffic. Just my $.02, John Dearing jdearing@netaxs.com ------------------------------ Subject: Re: NANP 800 Numbers From the UK Date: Thu, 5 Jan 1995 16:10:50 GMT From: Clive D.W. Feather > All of a sudden, I can now dial 1-800 numbers from the UK. There is a > few seconds of silence, and then an American female voice tells me > that this call will *not* be free, but charged at standard direct-dial > rates. If I don't want to pay, I should hang up now. Is anyone reading this in a position, if I called them, to find out whether they paid for the call as well? Clive D.W. Feather | Santa Cruz Operation clive@sco.com | Croxley Centre Phone: +44 1923 813541 | Hatters Lane, Watford Fax: +44 1923 813811 | WD1 8YN, United Kingdom [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I would suspect there will be two charges. You will be charged to wherever the gateway is in the USA for the carrier in particular, and the end user will pay his usual 15-25 cents per minute for the remainder of the call. Isn't that how it always worked when you reached an 800 number from the UK in the past using USA Direct and similar services? PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V15 #11 ***************************** Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa04798; 5 Jan 95 23:56 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (4.1/SMI-4.0-proxy) id AA19603; Thu, 5 Jan 95 19:35:05 CST Return-Path: Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (4.1/SMI-4.0-proxy) id AA19595; Thu, 5 Jan 95 19:35:02 CST Date: Thu, 5 Jan 95 19:35:02 CST From: telecom@delta.eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson)) Message-Id: <9501060135.AA19595@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #12 TELECOM Digest Thu, 5 Jan 95 19:35:00 CST Volume 15 : Issue 12 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Annoucement of Citizen Service Forum (Pete Goss) GLU System Now Available (R. Jagannathan) Help Wanted; PBX Admin, Texas (Thomas Hughes) Cellular NAM and ESN (Greg Segallis) Need ANSI X3.28 Code - x328.rq (Tom R. Valdez) Need an EBCDIC Spec - ebcdic.rq (Tom R. Valdez) More CO Codes For Each NPA - Any Telcos to Take Advantage? (Dave Leibold) Information Wanted on Northern Telecom Phone (Keith Knipschild) SNA Over Token Ring (Timothy S. Chaffee) AP Reporter in Berlin Needs Help With Report (Frank Bajak) Interim Results of FCC Auctions (Brian Miner) 101xxxx: Not Yet (Paul Robinson) Info Wanted: Competitors For Intra-state Leased Lines? (Lance Ware) 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: * telecom-request@eecs.nwu.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: 9457-D Niles Center Road Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 708-329-0571 Fax: 708-329-0572 ** Article submission address only: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu ** Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * 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. * ************************************************************************* Additionally, 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: pgoss@citserv.org (Pete Goss) Subject: Annoucement of Citizen Service Forum Date: Thu, 5 Jan 1995 10:28:27 GMT Organization: Project Colorado Project Colorado, "Demonstrating One-Stop Service to the Citzen" Service to the Citizen '95 A forum on implementing Service to the Citizen through information technology. Where: Convention Center, Denver, CO When: February 22-23, 1995 Background: The National Performance Review had several recommendations aimed at developing a government that works better and costs less. This forum is designed to reenergize the nation to accomplish some of those recommendations. Project Colorado is a collaborative effort of government, industry and academic communities with a mission of developing and demonstrating the effectiveness of one-stop delivery mechanisms from which the citizen can obtain government information and services across all Local, State, Tribal and Federal agencies. The single interface envisioned is in strong contrast to an arcade of kiosks that would be the result of each agency developing its own delivery system. Target Audience: The forum is designed for leaders at all levels of government who want to facilitate the development of governments that more effectively serve the citizen-customer. It is oriented toward: o those with a lead role in developing new ways to deliver government information and services; o those concerned with improving the effectiveness of their department or agency; o those who can impact policy and the way government business is conducted; or o those who are responsible for getting things done. Specifically, the people who should attend include: o heads of departments or agencies at the Local, State, Tribal, or Federal level; o directors of principal operating components of the above; heads of regional divisions; o heads of planning organizations, systems organization, or information resource groups; or o those who report to or aspire to one of the above positions. Participants will: o build an understanding of why it is essential to replace conventional methods of service delivery; o discover available methods of service delivery appropriate to their citizen-customers, including service centers, desktop computers, intelligent telephony and satellite; o build an understanding of issues surrounding electronic delivery of information and service, including privacy, security, funds transfer, and personal identification; o see and hear how others are using information technology in their agencies; o identify solutions for problems that they have encountered while implementing electronic service; o interface with those who are making things happen; and o meet sources with experience and expertise who can help them implement electronic service delivery. Program: The forum will include two plenary sessions, two luncheon speeches, and 40-44 working group sessions on topics including applications, technology, economic benefits, telemedicine, privacy and security issues, system architecture, funding & implementation, reinventing government and the role of the US Postal Service. Plenary #1 Introductions: Representative Patricia Schroeder, D-CO (invited) Welcoming Address: Governor Roy Romer, Colorado (invited) Providing More Service at Less Cost through One-Stop Service Delivery Speaker: Greg Woods, National Performance Review Plenary #2 Motivating the Restructuring Effort: Operating in a Reduced Funding Environment Speaker: Honorable Kim Devooght (invited) Assistant Deputy Minister, Safety and Regulation, Ministry of Transportation, Ontario Luncheon #1 Changing Our Way of Providing Government Services Is Essential to the Continuing Viability of Our Government Speaker: Vice President Gore (invited) and Shirley Chater, Commissioner, Social Security Administration Luncheon #2 New Technologies Bring a New Era to State Governance Speaker: Governor Leavitt, State of Utah Applications: Topic Coordinator: Bob Woods, Associate Administrator for FTS 2000, General Services Administration Community-focused Integration of Services - Project Colorado: Rick Schremp, Social Security Administration Restructuring Delivery of Human Services: Carolyn Marzke, National Center for Service Integration Improving Access to Government Information: Frank Lalley, Veterans Affairs Tailoring Applications to Meet Customer Needs: Session Leader TBD Looking Forward - A Plan for the Future: Bob Woods --------- Technology. Topic Coordinator: Jack Warner, AT&T Citizen/Network Interface - The Multimedia Kiosk: Mike Rich, AT&T Global Information Solutions Citizen Personal Portable Record Keeping Devices - The Role of "SmartCards": Jack Radzikowski, Federal Electronic Benefit Transfer Task Force (invited) Citizen Information Networking Technology - The Access, Switching, Server and Wide Area Networking Technology: Ed Fontenot, US West Technologies Citizen Information Network Trial Status: Johnny Brown, Interactive Communications TeleVideo Citizen Information Network - Looking Forward: Jack Warner ----- Economic Benefits. Topic Coordinator: Jerry Mechling, Ph.D., Harvard University What and Where are the Real Savings?: Session Leader TBD Mechanisms to Measure Economic Benefits: Session Leader TBD Evaluating the Return on the Public Investment - Electronic vs. Alternative Means: Session Leader TBD Dollars and Sense in Public Access - A National Network Approach: Michael North, North Communications Looking Forward - A Plan for the Future: Jerry Mechling ----- Telemedicine. Topic Coordinator: Margaret Cary, MD, MBA, MPH, Regional Director, Region VIII, Health and Human Services Empowering the Rural Citizen - Defining the Need: Mary Gardner Jones, Alliance for Public Technology Technology - Creating the Connection: Peggy Poggio, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory TeleHealth Opportunities - The Perspective of the Service Provider: Jane Preston, MD, American Telemedicine Association Lessons Learned: Ben Sherman, Western American Indian Chamber Looking Forward - A Plan for the Future: Dr. Cary ----- Privacy/Security. Topic Coordinator: Steven Lasky, Security Technology & Design Advantages and Potential Pitfalls of Electronic Benefit Transfer Using SmartCard Technology: Session Leader TBD International Implications of Privacy Regulations: Session Leader TBD Perceptions Regarding Quality of Service and Exercise of Control: Session Leader TBD Ensuring Adequate Safeguards of Personal Data: Session Leader TBD Looking Forward - A Plan for the Future: Steve Lasky ----- System Architecture. Topic Coordinator: Timothy Thomas, Ph.D., Los Alamos National Laboratories Architecting the NII to Facilitate Commerce: Depak Gupta, Nations Bank The Concept of "Services" in the Architecture of the NII: Charles N. Brownstein, Corporation for National Research Initiatives From the Internet to the NII: Lessons Learned: Doug Tygar, Carnegie-Mellon University Interoperability and Distributed Functionality on the NII: Timothy Thomas Looking Forward - A Plan for the Future: Tim Thomas ----- Funding, Implementation and Evaluation. Topic Coordinator: Russ Bohart, California Health and Welfare Agency Data Center Models Across the Country: Sandi Ludwig, IBM Cooperative Ventures Between Industry and Government: Larry Silvey, Info-Texas Enterprising the Citizen Service Center / Potential Revenue Streams: Russ Bohart Getting Started -- Basic Considerations: Hal Ferber, California Health & Welfare Agency Data Center Looking Forward - A Plan for the Future: Russ Bohart ----- Reinventing Government. Topic Coordinator: Jim Flyzik, Department of Treasury Improving Service Through Partnering: Fred McDonald, Government of Canada Roles and Relationships in the Reengineering Process: Renato DiPentima, Social Security Administration Reinventing Government--A State Perspective: Bradley Dugger, Past President, National Association of State Information Resource Executives (Invited) The Intergovernmental Enterprise: Bob Greeves, National Academy of Public Administration Looking Forward - A Plan for the Future: Jim Flyzik ----- Role of the Postal Service in Electronic Government and Electronic Commerce. Topic Coordinator: Robert A. F. Reisner, Vice President, Technology Applications, US Postal Service Transacting Business Online - Electronic Commerce Services: Dick Rothwell, US Postal Service Communicating Electronically - Hybrid Message Products: Wade Henley, US Postal Service The Kiosk Network Solution: Susan Smoter, US Postal Service Privacy Policy for the USPS on the NII: Chuck Chamberlain, US Postal Service Looking Forward - A Plan for the Future: Robert A. F. Reisner ----- List of Sponsors: US Postal Service National Performance Review Social Security Administration University of Colorado at Denver Western Governors Association State of California - INFO/CALIFORNIA International City/County Managers Association United States Department of Agriculture United States Department of Health & Human Services, Region VIII National Congress of American Indians Western American Indian Chamber Federation of Government Information Processing Councils Council of Governors Policy Advisors National Rural Health Association Western Consortium for Public Health Consumer Interest Research Group / Alliance for Public Technology State Technologies Industry Advisory Council - Denver Chapter International Teleconferencing Association Project Colorado Team Members: Social Security Administration, Denver Region University of Colorado at Denver College of Engineering State of Colorado City of Broomfield, Colorado Colorado SuperNet Armed Forces Communications and Electronics Association Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories Los Alamos National Laboratory Price: $295 through 2/1/95, $395 thereafter. Attendance limited to 1000 people. To register, contact Government Technology at (916)363-5000. Hotel accommodations are available at government rates through the Radisson Hotel, (303) 893-3333. Please indicate that you are attending the Service to the Citizen forum sponsored by Project Colorado to obtain the rates. For more information, contact Bob Rantschler, Summit Coordinator, (303) 844-2017 or rdr@cse.cudenver.edu or Pete Goss at pgoss@citserv.org. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Jan 95 12:56:02 PST From: R. Jagannathan Reply-To: jagan@csl.sri.com Subject: GLU System Now Available Just to reiterate that the GLU system for parallel programming using workstation networks can now be obtained from SRI. Please see http://www.csl.sri.com/glu/html/software using Mosaic for details. If you have any questions, please contact me. Thanks, Jaggan ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Jan 1995 14:29:05 -0500 From: THOMAS.HUGHES@sprint.sprint.com Subject: Help Wanted; PBX Admin, Texas HELP WANTED. Position available: Telephone System Administrator-Houston, Tx. Manage two PBX's, 145 Key systems. Northern Telecom SL-1 experiance required. Reply to Tom Hughes 713-967-8300. Fax 713-967-8330. ------------------------------ From: gsegalli@ic1d.harris.com (Greg Segallis) Subject: Cellular NAM and ESN Organization: Harris, GCSD Date: Thu, 5 Jan 1995 18:10:44 GMT Can two cellular phones be programmed to the same NAM, while their ESN's are different, so that either phone can be used on one number? Assume only one phone can be on at a time (e.g. I have a car phone I use while on the road and a portable I use when I'm away from my car). Does the cellular carrier use the NAM to connect calls or the ESN, or both? If the ESN must be the same, can I alter the one to match the other? This would not be done to steal anyone else's service, just to allow me the convenience of using both my phones as the situation requires/allows. What are the legal issues in doing this? Email is prefered, as my news server purges more often than I get to Usenet.) Thanks, Greg [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: If both phones have the same ESN (because you altered one to match the other) then yes, what you are asking can be done, however it is a very big no-no among cellular carriers, to say nothing of technical difficulties you (or the carrier) may encounter if both phones happen to be accidentally turned on at the same time. If the phones each have their own ESN then no it is not possible unless you can convince the carrier to waive ESN-checking when handling your calls, and that is not a very good idea either unless you want to risk having to pay for everyone else who decides to program their phone with your phone number (that part is easy!). Please review some articles here last year on this topic. Long ago, the cell carriers used to give places like Radio Shack (some carriers still do) 'demo phone lines' for the purpose of selling phones. Any phone in the store would work, regardless of ESN when programmed to that phone number; how else could the store have a dozen different models on display and allow users to 'test drive' them with actual calls other than having as many phone lines as he did ESNs, which would be difficult and impractical. The trouble is, phreaks found out the phone numbers used for demos; that is, the phone numbers on which the carrier did not bother doing ESN verifications. Pretty soon everyone was using those numbers for outgoing calls. Ditto with the administrative phones in the cell carrier's customer service and tech departments. They were not bothering to ESN-verify those either when they were used for calls ... now of course they do ... ... after Cell One Chicago and a couple others got eaten alive by phreaks. The best answer to give you is no, it cannot be done. Forget it. PAT] ------------------------------ From: tomv@earthlink.net (Tom R. Valdez) Subject: Need ANSI X3.28 Code - x328.rq [1/1] Date: 5 Jan 1995 05:41:26 GMT Organization: Earthlink Network, Inc. I'm working on a project which requires implementation of the ANSI X3.28-1976 communications protocol on a PC clone. Does anyone know where I can find: 1) a copy of the ANSI X3.28-1976 spec, 2) source code which implements this protocol and/or 1) a library which performs this protocol. Thanks very much! tomv@earthlink.net ------------------------------ From: tomv@earthlink.net (Tom R. Valdez) Subject: Need an EBCDIC Spec - ebcdic.rq [1/1] Date: 5 Jan 1995 05:42:19 GMT Organization: Earthlink Network, Inc. I'm working on a project which requires conversion of EBCDIC to ASCII and visa-versa. Does anyone know where I can find: 1) a spec for the EBCDIC character set, 2) source code which performs such translations and/or 3) a library which performs these translations. Thanks very much! tomv@earthlink.net ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Jan 95 00:30 EST From: dleibold@gvc.com (Dave Leibold) Subject: More CO Codes For Each NPA - Any Telcos Take Advantage? With the introduction of "interchangeable" area code formats officially beginning in a few days, the required dialing changes throughout the North American Numbering Plan mean that all area codes should be able to assign N(0/1)X format prefixes for their local numbers. I saw some recent references to some N(0/1)X format codes in a New Brunswick (NPA 506) list ... 313 for the Saint John, the provincial capital. 506 is not a huge population centre, but if 313 is indeed a forthcoming assignment, it seems telcos will be assigning with the N(0/1)X format because they now can. Elsewhere in Canada, 403 (Alberta) and especially 604 (British Columbia) were nearing capacity under the NNX format. Presumably these regions will be introducing N(0/1)X CO codes as soon as they can. Indeed, it's surprising these regions haven't announced an outright area code split by now. Are there other area codes where introduction of N(0/1)X format CO codes/prefixes is planned? ------------------------------ From: keith.knipschild@asb.com Organization: America's Suggestion Box - BBS (516) 471-8625 Date: Thu, 05 Jan 95 00:44:32 Subject: Information Wanted on Northern Telecom Phone Does anyone have info on a NORTHERN TELECOM Phone that is advertised in the HELLO DIRECT Catalog (Spring 95)-(Page 28) ??? This phone is has a Digital Answering Machine, VOICE Caller ID, Voice Mailboxs, Message Alert, Personal Greetings based on caller ID info, Person Directory, FAX / Modem Jack,Headset jack, Message TRANSFER. All for only $299.00. I don't know the model number as of yet. Any information would be a great help. Thanks, Keith.knipschild@asb.com ------------------------------ From: tchaffee@crl.com (Timothy S. Chaffee) Subject: SNA Over Token Ring Date: 5 Jan 1995 10:10:49 -0800 Organization: CRL Dialup Internet Access (415) 705-6060 [Login: guest] I am looking into moving our print traffic from a SDLC/SNA connection to run over our Token Ring network. Can this be done? Any pointers in the right direction would be greatly appreciated! Thanks in advance, Tim ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Jan 1995 13:21:54 EST From: Frank Bajak Subject: AP Reporter in Berlin Needs Help With Report Greetings, I am working on a story on Deutsche Telekom's bold (ha) leap into privatization and will attempt to explain how a company considered Europe's most consumer-unfriendly but at the same time among its most technically sophisticated is trying to globalize in anticipation of lost domestic revenues when competition sets in at home. I'd be interested in talking to anyone with expertise on the subject. I am also trying to locate John Williamson of {Global Telephony} magazine, who wrote a piece in the {International Herald Tribune} a few weeks back I found quite good. You know him? Thanks, Frank Bajak fbajak@ap.org Correspondent or Frank_Bajak@mcimail.com Associated Press tel: (49-30)-845-090-26 (ISDN) 10559 Berlin fax: 399-4341 Germany office switchboard: 399-925-0 ------------------------------ From: bminer@wireless.ultranet.com (Brian Miner) Subject: Interim Results of FCC Auctions Date: Thu, 5 Jan 1995 15:47:47 GMT Organization: UltraNet Communications, Inc. Has anyone seen results from the FCC auctions of the PCS licenses on the net ? Before today, I assumed the details from the auctions was not made public. In today's {Wall Street Journal}, some information from round 21 was presented. Thanks in advance. Brian Miner ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 05 Jan 1995 03:32:11 EST Subject: 101xxxx: Not Yet Organization: Tansin A. Darcos & Company, Silver Spring, MD USA From: Paul Robinson In attempting to do a carrier check from a 301-587 number in Montgomery County, Maryland, I got a time out and a recording of inability to complete the call, when attempting to dial 1010288 1 700 555 1212 The call timed out as if I was trying to call 10102 881 7005 E.g. making a local call using carrier 10102 instead. So it's not set up yet. Followup Note: Dialing 10288 1 360 555 1212 Still times out ^ at this digit 1, meaning they are not yet ready for the new area codes here yet. Patrick Towson's comments about dialing via 1-800-CALL-ATT were correct; AT&T will put a call through with a calling card, but Bell Atlantic still does not recognize the new area codes, and probably won't until required to, which, isn't it the 15th of January? -------------- (Note to Pat: the following is probably more appropriate to Chicago than to Silver Spring, and yes, the computer picked it, I didn't:) The following Automatic Fortune Cookie was selected only for this message: Now I lay me down to sleep I pray the double lock will keep; May no brick through the window break, And, no one rob me till I awake. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Poor Chicago. The politicians here are starting to get frantic now that the Republicans have taken over so much control. They see the handwriting on the wall; what's left of the city -- not much -- need not expect any financial help. Which in a way is okay with me; pouring money into Chicago is like trying to fill up a Florida sinkhole with buckets of sand: the money just keeps pouring in and pouring in with months or years later nothing to show for it. I guess you saw the latest reports: number of homicides in 1994 was the third highest in history (exceeded only by 1993 and 1974) with 900 plus murders. All kinds of violent crimes by children against other children and now Wednesday this latest slap in the face from the school board: A nine year old girl is raped *in her classroom at school with the teacher in the same room*. Teacher is reading a book he brought to school; the kids are supposed to be studying their school work. Teacher does not see the attack or hear it. So the girl gets raped, okay? Bad enough? Not really. The parents sue the Board of Education saying the teacher was inattentive and might have prevented it had he been properly supervising the class. The Board of Education responds saying (get this now!) *it is the fault of the little girl that she got raped, since she did not speak out or scream or cry during the attack. She did not say, "I am being raped, help me". * Some slimey lawyer for the school board told them to say that. Since when is a nine year old child responsible for a sexual assualt made on them under any circumstances? Well, that's Chicago, as usual. I am so glad my family and myself managed to find a way out. I really hope the Republicans cut off *every nickle from every source for every single program* where Chicago is concerned. PAT] ------------------------------ From: lware@voxel.com (Lance Ware) Subject: Information Wanted: Competitors For Intra-state Leased Lines? Organization: VOXEL Date: Fri, 6 Jan 1995 00:33:40 GMT Can anyone tell me if there is competetion for inter-state (relatively short haul) leased lines. I am interested in a 56K or 128K circuit from Laguna Hills, CA to Los Angeles (LAX) area. PacBell's rate is pretty high. Who can I call? Please respnd via email. Lance Ware IS Manager & VOXEL Guru VOXEL ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V15 #12 ***************************** Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa16753; 6 Jan 95 6:17 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (4.1/SMI-4.0-proxy) id AA27891; Fri, 6 Jan 95 01:40:12 CST Return-Path: Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (4.1/SMI-4.0-proxy) id AA27883; Fri, 6 Jan 95 01:40:07 CST Date: Fri, 6 Jan 95 01:40:07 CST From: telecom@delta.eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson)) Message-Id: <9501060740.AA27883@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #13 TELECOM Digest Fri, 6 Jan 95 01:40:00 CST Volume 15 : Issue 13 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Cellphone Now Giving ANI? (Jeffrey Rhodes) Re: Christmas Greetings From AT&T (Scott A. Montague) Re: More CO Codes For Each NPA - Any Telcos Take Advantage? (Ry Jones) Re: Chatter Heard on Scanner Leads to Criminal Charges (Benjamin P. Carter) Re: Noise Introduced by Bit-Robbing? (Scott Darling) Re: NANP 800 Numbers From the UK (Dik Winter) ANI on an Airphone and More (Ry Jones) Invalid AT&T Prepaid Cards (Jan Mandel) New Area Codes and PBX (Jan Mandel) Value-Added Services in the States and Elsewhere (Lo Kwan Poon Ken) Communications FTP Server in Australia (Iaen Cordell) 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: * telecom-request@eecs.nwu.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: 9457-D Niles Center Road Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 708-329-0571 Fax: 708-329-0572 ** Article submission address only: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu ** Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * 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. * ************************************************************************* Additionally, 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: jcr@creator.nwest.mccaw.com (Jeffrey Rhodes) Subject: Re: Cellphone Now Giving ANI? Date: 6 Jan 1995 00:54:24 GMT Organization: McCaw Cellular Communications, Inc. Reply-To: jcr@creator.nwest.mccaw.com In article 8@eecs.nwu.edu, keith.knipschild@asb.com writes: > I guess NYNEX Mobile has made some progress, Today I dialed 1-800-MY-ANI-IS > from my Cellular phone ... and guess what ... it came back with my > cellular phone number. In the past it would come back with a WEIRD > number. > Is NYNEX Mobile the first company to pass along the ANI from cellular > phones? As I have commented previously, most cellular carriers route 800 calls to a LEC's End Office on Type 1 facilities such that the cellular ANI is lost. It is possible for an Equal Access cellular provider to use Type 2 facilities to a LEC's Access Tandem and deliver the cellular ANI. The carrier transmitted on Feature Group D signaling is 110. This tells the Access Tandem to collect the ANI and Digits Dialed (800+), so that the Access Tandem can dip to a database to find out the carrier assigned to the 800 number (10 digit 800 portability. The Access Tandem then routes the call to that carrier passing the real ANI. Not all LECs permit this. Cellular carriers have little control, unless of course the LEC and the cellular carrier are the same, eg. Nynex. When Equal Access is implemented in Cellular One markets to meet the Consent Decree requirements for the McCaw-AT&T merger, the McCaw recommendation will be to use the Type 2 facilities for 800 traffic when permitted by the LEC. ------------------------------ From: 4sam3@qlink.queensu.ca (Montague Scott A) Subject: Re: Christmas Greetings From AT&T Date: 6 Jan 1995 02:54:26 GMT Organization: Queen's University, Kingston > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: "Slamming" has always been defined in this > context as the unauthorized switching of long distance carriers on a phone > line. If for example you are a customer of AT&T and one day you discover > that your default (one plus or zero plus) carrier has been changed to > Sprint -- just an example -- without your permission or knowledge, then > we say that (in this example) Sprint 'slammed' your line. PAT] Here in Ontario, we use a much softer word (who would have guessed, eh?). Now that we have a similar system of Long Distance Carrier selection, Bell Canada (our original telecommunications monopoly) is running commercials telling why customers are "switching back to Bell". One of the reasons was "I was bounced to another carrier"... which, I guess, is what we now call it here. Compare: 1) Unitel 'slammed' me. 2) Unitel 'bounced' me. Number 2 does sound better to me ... "Slammed" is a little to violent. Of note: When we adopted LD carrier selection, Bell Canada was required to tell all people who subscribe to their service that they can now switch to another LD carrier ... in essence, advertising for them. Bell Canada can not charge people for switching their Equal Access Carrier. Bell also must do the billing for "Casual Calling", at no charge to the carrier or customer. A Bell representive must also tell a person calling their Business Office that they can pick any LD Carrier they want. Bell also had to pay most of the costs related to making their system accept other carriers. Sounds like fair regulations to me ... have Bell shoulder all the costs for my business to set up. Thanks Keith Spicer (CRTC Chair); let's see if we can singlehandedly destroy one of the leaders in R&D in the world in Communications (let alone Canada). Watch the R&D budgets go down. Why would we want a company that subsidizes the local rates with their LD rates? Let's drive Bell into Metered Local Calling (NEVER!). There's no reason why we'd want a LD Carrier that has a better than 99% customer satisfaction rate, year after year. Thank goodness that alot of Canadians are sensible, and staying with Bell. Scott Personal reply? Send E-Mail to 4sam3@qlink.queensu.ca for a PGP public key. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, a lot of what you are complaining about above are the very topics many of us complained about several years ago here in the United States ... look how far our complaints got us. There is both good and bad in the current arrangement here, although many of us could not see the good parts a decade ago. PAT] ------------------------------ From: rjones@rjones.oz.net (Ry Jones) Subject: Re: More CO Codes For Each NPA - Any Telcos Take Advantage? Date: 6 Jan 1995 03:03:40 GMT Organization: The SenseMedia Network, http://sensemedia.net/ Dave Leibold (dleibold@gvc.com) wrote: > Are there other area codes where introduction of N(0/1)X format CO > codes/prefixes is planned? 206-803 is valid. See my previous post on 360-NXX's that contains many N[01]X exchanges. I think this is very, very widespread. Please reply to user%rjones@oz.net or directly to rjones@oz.net. Other mutations may bounce, such as user@rjones.oz.net. ------------------------------ From: bpc@netcom.com (Benjamin P. Carter) Subject: Re: Chatter Heard on Scanner Leads to Criminal Charges Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Date: Fri, 6 Jan 1995 03:27:40 GMT Paul_Gloger.ES_XFC@xerox.com writes: > Cordless telephones use radio waves to communicate between the handset > and the base. Those radio waves can easily be intercepted by a police > scanner. > Ball said there was nothing illegal in McGee's listening to the cordless > phone conversations because it was a random scanning. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: That's the first time I have ever heard > of cordless phone monitoring being dismissed as 'nothing illegal' because > it was 'random scanning'. You'd think they would rely on previous court > decisions stating that cordless phones do not have the same protection > as cellular phones ... or something ... but isn't all scanner listening > essentially 'random'? PAT] It's random within the categories (police, fire, airport, etc.) corresponding to allocated frequency bands. At least it's random when you first turn the scanner on. After a while, though, you will have learned which specific frequencies are of interest, and you can set the scanner to ignore all other frequencies. I believe it's illegal for a store to sell a scanner capable of picking up cellular phone conversations. Cordless phones however can listen in on each other if they are nearby; and any law to prevent scanners from picking up those frequencies would not really insure privacy of cordless phone conversations. Ben Carter internet address: bpc@netcom.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Not only is it illegal for a store to sell such units, it is often times against corporate policy to even discuss the possibility of modification. Take Radio Shack as one example: it used to be when you bought any kind of radio from them, whether it was a CB, or a scanner, the clerks took much delight in handing you a customer-prepared ('a customer brought it in and left it here', or so they claimed) 'mod sheet' telling how to do the various mods to their equipment. In the era of CB, the mods would be to get the radio up to ten meters (what traces to cut on the board and what chips had to have pins held high; and what cores to adjust to get the radio to oscillate [or 'key-up'] when you got it that far off the original center frequency); with the old crystal-controlled scanners the mods handed out by RS clerks would discuss ways of swapping out the master crystal with another one to get 'secret frequencies'; with one of their very early digital scanners there was a programming error in the ROM which allowed the user to punch in the decimal point a couple extra times and get the scanner to receive stuff in the 350-400 megs area -- now commonplace in scanners but back then 'secret government radio stations' -- oh, the RS clerks knew them all. Then about ten years ago as 800 meg scanners were becoming more common, those mysterious mod sheets ("I dunno who left it here in the store, but we made some copies for customers ..") discussed how to change RS scanners to pick up cellular phones by clipping a diode here and there. But then the feds came to Fort Worth one day with a blunt message for all concerned: "Can the shit!" said the FCC. You betcha! Within a few days a memo was hanging on the back wall in the office of every Radio Shack store which said there would be no further discussion of 'mods' with customers under any circumstances. Not only that, if the customer mentioned making mods, the clerk was to *decline the sale* rather than possibly be later found to be part of a conspiracy or a scheme. And they are serious about it. RS corporate policy now is any clerk who so much as discusses with a customer the possibility that an item sold by RS might concievably be used in an illegal way is subject to discharge. No bull or backtalk about freedom of speech and all that. They are *so* serious about this policy now that about six months ago, they pulled their two top-of-the-line scanners off the market for retrofitting when someone found out there was another programming error in the ROM that customers could 'abuse'. And where before all their CB radios were using the Motorola 02-A chip for channel (or frequency) selection (or sometimes a similar chip from Uniden), now all that stuff is in the ROM, or read-only memory. The feds got after Motorola on account of that 02-A chip also, and the FCC made them quit manufacturing it. Easily programmable with a snip snip here and a drop of solder there, all the guys were using them for pirate radios. Uniden also got a rap on the knuckles from Uncle when the company came out with its 'Digi-Scan' unit. PAT] ------------------------------ From: dsd@aol.com (DSD) Subject: Re: Noise Introduced by Bit-Robbing? Date: 5 Jan 1995 21:50:44 -0500 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: dsd@aol.com (DSD) Previously written..... >> What kind of noise/distortion does American-style bit-robbing >> cause to voice band signals transmitted through PCM channels? >> In the U.S., most intermachine trunks are common channel direct >> connections so only the robbed bit at each end of the IC/EC >> connection introduces the robbed bit (as well as ny non CCS systems in >> the EC). > Today, most end-to-end voice connections do not include any trunking > which uses robbed bit signalling. The great majority of local > trunking, especially in metro areas, has all been converted to CCS. > One way to determine the probability of what type of local trunking > is in your area is if caller ID is available. If you can have caller > ID, then the local trunking is using CCS and thus no robbed bit signaling > is involved at that end of any connection. > Bellcore NISDN Hotline Technical Consultant (1-800-992-ISDN) > Bill Sohl (K2UNK) BELLCORE (Bell Communications Research, Inc.) > Morristown, NJ email via UUCP bcr!cc!whs70 > 201-829-2879 Weekdays email via Internet whs70@cc.bellcore.com Whoa there big guy!! First define CCS, I think I know what it is but humor me! Second, CLASS Features use SS7 which is NOT any part of trunking. And if you insist they are then why can't an ATT 2B processor do class features!? TRUNKING is still running MOSTLY on AMI/D4 56k channels T-1 carrier, even if it runs under DS3 over fiber. I agree more and more B8ZS ESF banks are going in. But, to blantantly say that every or most trunks are CCS is not something you want to bet money on. ALSO, in my local WE don't provide Caller-ID on Foreign Exchange circuits over T-1 carrier because of the 2FXS card incompatibilty with it. Be they WECO, Pulsecom, or any other card. WECO 2FS-GT cards eat the analog packet big time. I haven't tried any other brands of the same card. Scott Darling US WEST Specials ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Jan 1995 03:25:09 +0100 From: Dik.Winter@cwi.nl Subject: Re: NANP 800 Numbers From the UK > All of a sudden, I can now dial 1-800 numbers from the UK. There is a > few seconds of silence, and then an American female voice tells me > that this call will *not* be free, but charged at standard direct-dial > rates. If I don't want to pay, I should hang up now. I tried from the Netherlands, here I get (for 1-800-MY-ANI-IS) a recording "het door u gekozen nummer is niet in gebruik" ("the number you dialed is not in use"); however the message came only after dialing 1-800-MY-A. dik t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj amsterdam, nederland, +31205924098 home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; e-mail: dik@cwi.nl ------------------------------ From: rjones@rjones.oz.net (Ry Jones) Subject: ANI on an Airphone and More Date: 6 Jan 1995 04:13:55 GMT Organization: The SenseMedia Network, http://sensemedia.net/ I called 1-800-My-ANI-Is from an Airtouch cell phone on a Boeing 767-300 over DFW. It returned a 313 number. I then called that number from the next seat (also an Airtouch GTE phone) and, shocker, nothing. To arrange for inbound calls (an option on the phone) seems to be more complex than just getting the ANI for the phone. I asked a ClairCom ex-employee how they did it, he said it was pretty involved. Sigh. Also, USWest is running a promo in 206 / (360 ?) where one phone call in the same NPA is $1, flat rate. This is only valid from USWest payphones in 206 when calling another 206 number. Please reply to user%rjones@oz.net or directly to rjones@oz.net. Other mutations may bounce, such as user@rjones.oz.net. ------------------------------ From: jmandel@carbon.cudenver.edu (Jan Mandel) Subject: Invalid AT&T Prepaid Cards Date: 5 Jan 1995 22:26:55 -0700 Organization: University of Colorado at Denver On a recent Delta flight to Europe my wife and I got free $5 AT&T USA Direct cards, a marketing effort to have us start using the service. But none of the cards worked! AT&T operator said that the numbers on the cards were invalid. So I used my own AT&T calling card number for the call. You get what you pay for. Not a good advertisement for AT&T. To be fair, I used the service from Europe for years and it works well except that it is sometimes difficult to reach the access number. Jan Mandel, Center for Computational Math, University of Colorado at Denver jmandel@colorado.edu ------------------------------ From: jmandel@carbon.cudenver.edu (Jan Mandel) Subject: New Area Codes and PBX Date: 5 Jan 1995 22:44:45 -0700 Organization: University of Colorado at Denver We have recently got a memo that because of new area codes we may not be able to reach numbers with some new codes from the office, and that the school phone people will reprogram the PBX quickly to add a new area code when someone requests it. This appears to be a rather silly way to cope with the situation. Why cannot they get new area codes from whoever creates the codes and add them as they come into being? Is there one single place somewhere that assigns the area codes? Jan Mandel, Center for Computational Math, University of Colorado at Denver jmandel@colorado.edu ------------------------------ Date: 06 Jan 1995 08:36:44 +0800 From: eelkp@uxmail.ust.hk (Lo Kwan Poon Ken) Subject: Value-Added Services in the States and Elsewhere Organization: Hong Kong University of Science and Technology Hi everyone, I am looking urgently for information on value-added service on cellular, such as voice-mail and call forwarding, etc. In particular, I am after information on: 1. How much are the value-added services? 2. What is the percentage of cellular subscribers who subscribe to VAS? I am interested in figures from all over the world, although I realize that most data will be of the US. Please help! ------------------------------ From: iaenc@sydney.DIALix.oz.au (Iaen Cordell) Subject: Communications FTP Server in Australia Date: 6 Jan 1995 07:13:11 +1100 Organization: DIALix Services, Sydney, Australia. The following is an index file for the communications futures project group, this group has an ftp server at ftp.happy.doc.gov.au. This group has placed many reports on the future of communications in Australia. This directory includes material produced by the Australian Communications Futures Project (CFP). The CFP is a research team within the Commonwealth Bureau of Transport and Communications Economics. Stored on this site are full ASCII text versions of recent CFP papers, as well as binary files of the papers in their original Microsoft Word for Windows format, and files in Postscript, Rich Text Format (RTF) and Replica format. All material (C) Commonwealth of Australia 1994. File directory: overview of the papers available here * COMMUNICATIONS FUTURES PROJECT OVERVIEW PAPER * EMERGING COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES - AN ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK (CFP Module 1 Paper 1) * DELIVERY TECHNOLOGIES IN THE NEW COMMUNICATIONS WORLD (CFP Module 5, Paper 2) * NEW FORMS AND NEW MEDIA: COMMERCIAL AND CULTURAL POLICY IMPLICATIONS (CFP Paper 3, Mod 2,3 & 14) * COSTING NEW RESIDENTIAL COMMUNICATIONS NETWORKS (CFP Work in Progress Paper 5, addressing CFP modules 6,7, 8, and 15) File directory: details of papers, organised by release sequence: COMMUNICATIONS FUTURES PROJECT OVERVIEW PAPER crfpapr2.txt - Ascii text - crfpapr2.doc - WinWord 2.0c - Description: Paper delivered at Communications Research Forum in 1993, announcing the CFP and describing its workplan. EMERGING COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES - AN ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK (CFP Module 1 Paper 1) mod1pap1.txt - ASCII text - (NO GRAPHICS) mod1pap1.doc - WinWord v2.0c version mod1pap1.ps - Postscript format A big file: 2.3MB mod1p1ps.zip - Postscript format compressed with PKZIP 2.04g First work in progress paper of the CFP, designed to provide a framework for analysing developments in the communications industry structure and performance (in terms of service provision). The paper assesses emerging services in terms of the technological combinations and the distinctive market needs they are expected to meet. DELIVERY TECHNOLOGIES IN THE NEW COMMUNICATIONS WORLD (CFP Module 5, Paper 2) mod5pap2.doc - WinWord 2.0c - mod5pap2.txt - ASCII text mod5pap2.ps - Postscript - mod5p2ps.zip - ZIPped Postscript file Description: Even a casual reader of the communications (and increasingly the popular) press both in Australia and overseas would quickly become aware that one of the major themes of discussion relates to the delivery platform(s) for future communications services. Among the more common questions that are raised, often implicitly, are the following: * What sorts of delivery systems can be used to provide the range of new communications services that are often being mooted, and how do these delivery systems line up against each other? * How are the various technological solutions likely to fare in the market place over the next few years? * Is an optic fibre network the inevitable, all-embracing solution for satisfying all our communications needs in the future? (And, if so, should the Government be actively supporting this technology in preference to other solutions?) This paper provides some early insights into these and similar questions, and sets a foundation for future Communications Futures Project (CFP) work on the current and future development of communications markets and the policy implications arising from this development. NEW FORMS AND NEW MEDIA: COMMERCIAL AND CULTURAL POLICY IMPLICATIONS (CFP Paper 3, Mod 2,3 & 14) culture.doc - WinWord 2.0c version cultword.zip - WinWord 2.0c version compressed with PKZIP culture.txt - ASCII text version (no graphics) culture.rtf - Rich Text Format (RTF) cult_rtf.zip - Rich Text Format (RTF) compressed with PKZIP culture.ps - Postscript version cult_ps.zip - Postscript version compressed with PKZIP culture.exe - Farallon Replica version with self installing Windows Replica viewer culture.rpl - Farallon Replica format Description: This paper provides a survey of the more foreseeable technological developments that are likely to affect, to varying degrees, the various content industries in Australia over the next decade. While claims of an impending 'multimedia revolution' need to be treated with caution, the expansion of digital technologies into content creation appears to be entering a new phase which is changing product forms. When combined with computer networks, this is likely to have a substantial longer term effect on the way the content industries conduct their business. The content industries are not only an interesting and important sector in their own right, but they are also important to some other more general issues of interest to the CFP's wider work, including the following: * Content as factor of production: Content is likely to be among the most visible and important inputs in many of the mooted future information and communications services such as education, video on demand, games, advertising, home shopping. Hence, the ability of suppliers to provide quality content in volume at reasonable cost is likely to be among the critical success factors for the industry as a whole. * Content and cultural policy: A second area of wider interest is the important (two-way) relationship between the content of the electronic media and the pursuit of cultural policy objectives. The new technologies are likely to generate new access opportunities both for existing cultural products and forms, as well as opening up some quite new forms of expression and creativity. It is important to capitalise on these changes, not only economically, but culturally. * Content and industry policy: A related reason for the interest in the content industries is the growing perception that, in the longer term, content will probably be one of the areas of economic activity most likely to be profoundly affected by emerging developments in information and communications technologies. A focus on content and culture is increasingly being seen as strategically important for the wider economy. This paper aims to contribute to the discussion on emerging content industries by identifying some of the technological and market context in which they will be developing. The major content industries are taken to be the creative and many of the organisational elements (see below) of the print media (newspapers, magazines, books, pamphlets), the recorded music industry, the electronic media (the production industry for television and radio), film, games, software and on-line information services. Sitting behind all of these particular media is advertising which has a pervasive influence on products and revenues. Work in Progress Paper No. 5 COSTING NEW RESIDENTIAL COMMUNICATIONS NETWORKS costing2.doc - WinWord 2.0 version costing2.zip - WinWord 2.0 version compressed with PKZIP costing.txt - ASCII text version (no graphics) costing.rtf - Rich Text Format (RTF) cost_rtf.zip - Rich Text Format (RTF) compressed with PKZIP costing.ps - Postscript version cost_ps.zip - Postscript version compressed with PKZIP costing.exe - Farallon Replica version with self installing Windows Replica viewer costing.rpl - Farallon Replica format This paper reports on one aspect of work being undertaken by the Communications Futures Project on likely market and network developments for information services in Australia over the decade from 1995 to 2005 and beyond. It presents the results of an examination of the costs of providing residential information services using a range of delivery platforms. It was foreshadowed in CFP paper DELIVERY TECHNOLOGIES IN THE NEW COMMUNICATIONS WORLD that the CFP would undertake further analysis of the relative costs of providing these services on a range of delivery platforms. This paper reports preliminary results of this analysis. It presents broad estimates of the costs of rolling out various delivery platforms, although much of the discussion in this paper focuses on HFC networks. METHODOLOGY AND SCOPE The approach taken in this paper involves estimating the costs of the various components of each of the platforms. An estimated cost per household was derived for 1994 for each of the platforms identified in the earlier work. That is: wireless platforms: * direct broadcasting to the home by satellite (DBS) using digital signals, and * microwave multipoint distribution systems (MDS) cable-based systems: * optic fibre systems, particularly hybrid optic fibre - coaxial cable (HFC) systems, and * the asymmetrical digital subscriber line (ADSL) system using existing twisted pair telephone lines. Estimates were made of the likely movements in component costs over time and between different geographic areas. Using a spreadsheet based model cost estimates were then derived for all households in different geographic areas and in Australia in total for each year form 1995 to 2005. This approach is part of a structured modelling approach to costs to be revealed more fully in a subsequent paper. CFP FTP SITE TECHNICAL NOTES: * Postscript format documents were created by printing the original Word document to a Postscript printer setup to print to file under Windows 3.1. * Where files have been ZIP'ped, MSDOS PKZIP v2.04g has been used to compress the files. * Farallon Replica(R) is a cross-platform document viewer similar to Adobe Acrobat. It allows you to view documents complete with fonts, graphics etc as they were originally composed, even if you don't have the fonts or word processor the document was originally created in. * If you don't already have a copy of a Replica viewer, and if you have a MS Windows system, downloading and running under Windows the copy of the respective CFP paper with an .EXE extension will install Replica on your local PC and then open up the document for viewing under Windows. If you have any enquiries about the CFP or the documents available from this site (for example if you want hard copies, or you are having difficulty reading them), please contact: Steven Byrne Principal Research Officer Communications Futures Project Bureau of Transport and Communications Economics Commonwealth Department of Transport GPO BOX 501 Canberra ACT 2601 AUSTRALIA Internet email: Steven=Byrne%cfp%btce@smtpgate.dotc.gov.au Telephone: +61 6 274 7078 Current at 4 October 1994 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V15 #13 ***************************** Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa24618; 6 Jan 95 22:11 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (4.1/SMI-4.0-proxy) id AA22640; Fri, 6 Jan 95 16:51:43 CST Return-Path: Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (4.1/SMI-4.0-proxy) id AA22631; Fri, 6 Jan 95 16:51:39 CST Date: Fri, 6 Jan 95 16:51:39 CST From: telecom@delta.eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson)) Message-Id: <9501062251.AA22631@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #14 TELECOM Digest Fri, 6 Jan 95 16:51:30 CST Volume 15 : Issue 14 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Protest of New Compuserve-Unisys GIF Usage Tax (Rahul Dhesi) Re: Protest of New Compuserve-Unisys GIF Usage Tax (John Murray) Re: Chatter Heard on Scanner Leads to Criminal Charges (Steve Brack) Re: Noise Introduced by Bit-Robbing? (William H. Sohl) Re: Procedure for Obtaining a 10XXX Code (Heath Chandler) Re: Need an EBCDIC Spec - ebcdic.rq [1/1] (Brent E. Boyko) Re: More CO Codes for Each NPA; Any Telcos Take Advantage? (L.Westermeyer) Re: Phone Card Reader Wanted (Adam Dingle) Re: Seeking White Pages on CD or Disk (jayk372@aol.com) Re: PCN Auction Info (Steve Samler) New Alert - 911 Access (Jim Conran) Information Wanted on Novatel 825 (Greg Segallis) Need Information on EXCEL (Bill Dankert) GSM in Canada? (Dan Matte) Request For Information on Local Rates (Erik Naggum) International Callback Co-Locating With Telco (Subroto Mukerjea) ISDN Over Wireless (Jared Enzler) Campus Wiring Innovations (routers@halcyon.com) MANs in USA (Roman Rumian) Re: Memorized Area Codes (Rob Boudrie) 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: * telecom-request@eecs.nwu.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: 9457-D Niles Center Road Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 708-329-0571 Fax: 708-329-0572 ** Article submission address only: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu ** Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * 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. * ************************************************************************* Additionally, 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: Rahul Dhesi Subject: Re: Protest of New Compuserve-Unisys GIF Usage Tax Date: 6 Jan 1995 14:22:27 GMT Organization: a2i network In cmwolf@cs.mtu.edu (Wolf) writes: > From: Tim Oren, CompuServe Incorporated [ An explanation from CompuServe ] The explanation provided sounds much less draconian then the official GIF Agreement itself. However, it's worth pointing out that this explanation is not part of the GIF Agreement, and has no legal value should somebody (Unisys or CompuServe) ever sue you for violating the Agreement. So, your actions should be based ONLY on what the official Agreement says. That is all that a court will consider. > CompuServe remains committed to keeping open the GIF 89a specification ... > ...continues to strongly support the use of the GIF specification in the > entire online community including the Internet and World Wide Web ... > CompuServe will not profit from this service. These statements may be true. But they are not part of the Agreement and not legally binding on you or CompuServe. It's very dangerous to let a nice friendly explanation make you feel better about a nasty contract. The friendly explanation does not make the contract itself any better! Rahul Dhesi ------------------------------ From: murray@ibm8.scri.fsu.edu (John Murray) Subject: Re: Protest of New Compuserve-Unisys GIF Usage Tax Date: 6 Jan 1995 20:25:02 GMT Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute Brad Hicks writes: > So OK, you're determined not to use a lossy algorithm. JPEG is not necessarily lossy. The loss is variable from 0% loss to 99% loss, and user-settable (if you're using a JPEG emitter that allows access to this feature, e.g. saving an image in JPEG fmt using xv) > Fine, there's also =another= bitmapped graphics standard. TIFF. So > I repeat, what do we need Yet Another bitmapped graphics standard for? There are advantages to the GIF format that some people will be reluctant to lose. Particularly, the fact that GIFs are faster than JPEGs to decode and smaller for certain kinds (few colors) of images, and the interlaced data arrangement, which gives you that nice fade-in (perceptually apparently faster) effect you get when you're using e.g. Netscape. The nice thing about the proposed GEF or whatever they're going to call it is that it retains the advantages of GIF unchanged, while getting UniSaurus' greedy claws off of it. Go for it, guys. For in-depth discussion, check out comp.graphics and comp.infosystems.www. {providers,users}. John R. Murray ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Jan 95 08:46:06 -0500 From: Steve Brack Subject: Re: Chatter Heard on Scanner Leads to Criminal Charges {} in quoted text are mine. - SSB In article Paul_Gloger.ES_XFC@xerox.com wrote: > From the Associated Press, as reported in the {Los Angeles Times}, > Sunday, January 1, 1995: > Chatter Heard on Scanner Leads to Criminal Charges > Memphis, Tenn. - A woman listening to a police scanner she had gotten > for Christmas picked up a conversation over cordless telephones and > heard what turned out to be a murder plot unfolding, investigators > say. > Cordless telephones use radio waves to communicate between the handset > and the base. Those radio waves can easily be intercepted by a police > scanner. > Ball {a police official} said there was nothing illegal in McGee's listening > to the cordless phone conversations because it was a random scanning. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: That's the first time I have ever heard > of cordless phone monitoring being dismissed as 'nothing illegal' because > it was 'random scanning'. You'd think they would rely on previous court > decisions stating that cordless phones do not have the same protection > as cellular phones ... or something ... but isn't all scanner listening > essentially 'random'? PAT] Courtesy of tls@gate.net (Terry Steinford) Public Law 103-414 signed Oct 25, 1994 (was H.R. 4922) SEC. 202. CORDLESS TELEPHONES. (a) Definitions. - Section 2510 of title 18, United States Code, is amended - (1) in paragraph (1), by striking `, but such term does not include` and all that follows through `base unit`; and (2) in paragraph (12), by striking subparagraph (A) and redesignating subparagraphs (B), (C), and (D) as subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C), respectively. (b) Penalty. - Section 2511 of title 18, United States Code, is amended - (1) in subsection (4)(b)(i) by inserting `a cordless telephone communication that is transmitted between the cordless telephone handset and the base unit,` after `cellular telephone communication,`; and (2) in subsection (4)(b)(ii) by inserting `a cordless telephone communication that is transmitted between the cordless telephone handset and the base unit,` after `cellular telephone communication,`. With a nip here and a tuck there, apparently the government has made listening in on cordless phones illegal. Steve Brack, Consultant sbrack@eng.utoledo.edu Toledo, OH 43613-1605 sbrack@cse.utoledo.edu MY OWN OPINIONS Tel: +1 419 534 7349 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, this is news to me. I guess we should all take note that listening to cordless phones is now just as illegal as listening to cellular. I had not been aware until now that the law had been changed to include cordless. Anyone else? PAT] ------------------------------ From: whs70@cc.bellcore.com (sohl,william h) Subject: Re: Noise Introduced by Bit-Robbing? Date: 6 Jan 1995 11:02:04 -0500 Organization: Bell Communications Research (Bellcore) In article , Matthew P. Downs wrote: > jcr@creator.nwest.mccaw.com (Jeffrey Rhodes) writes: >> I'm not a modem expert but I would answer "none". If a call connection >> is made on a bit robbing DS0 within a DS1, then the modems will settle >> for some transparent speed (9600bps) during the initial negotiation. I >> don't think the V.34 modems will connect at 28k8 when bit robbing is >> present. >> There really aren't many circuits like these, especially for long >> distance calls. Most bit-robbing occurs on intra-LATA (I think) by >> LECs that haven't updated circuits that are being depreciated over a >> 40 year period. > Unless you use ISDN, you are using robbed-bit signalling between your > premise and the Central Office. Unless like a previous poster had > stated, the robbed bits only become important during call set-up and > tear-down. Ie. going on-hook and off-hook. Otherwise the robbed bits > will be 1's. If we are only talking about analog modems then the premise to Central Office is probably not a DS0 channel, but rather a two wire circuit ... and if the premise to the central office is an analog two wire circuit, then there is NO bit-robbing from the premise to the Central Office. Bit robbing is an inter-office trunk signaling methodology to indicate the off-hook, on-hook status of each end of the connection. The off-hook/ on hook signaling from the premises to the central office over a typical two wire analog phone line is indicated by the completeion of a circuit path when the premise equipment goes off hook (that is either a loop start or ground start arrangement). Note that on a regular two wire analog phone line (even if there's a modem on it) there is no on-hook/off-hook indication for the distant station other than the audible indication that the ringing to the distant end has ceased. At the completion of a call, the on-hook indication of a distant station is not sent all the way back to your premises ... the on-hook is sent as far as your local central office (again, for a two wire analog line) which ecognizes the remote disconnect (on-hook) and takes down the connection. It is, therefore, quite possible with today's trunking network to have an end-to-end analog phone call (both ends are two wire, conventional POTS lines) and the entire interoffice trunking for the call consisting of 64 clear trunking (i.e. no robbed-bit signaling trunking at all). As the network continues to evolve, that will be more and more the likely connection until, at some future time, all robbed-bit trunking is gone. Final comment, where you would possibly have ribbed bit signaling from the premise to the central office is if there is a PBX which is connected to the central office using a DS-1 trunk/tie line arrangement, but I don't think that was what the original poster was questioning. Bellcore NISDN Hotline Technical Consultant (1-800-992-ISDN) Bill Sohl (K2UNK) BELLCORE (Bell Communications Research, Inc.) Morristown, NJ email via UUCP bcr!cc!whs70 201-829-2879 Weekdays email via Internet whs70@cc.bellcore.com ------------------------------ From: heath.chandler@norstan.com Subject: Re: Procedure for Obtaining a 10XXX Code Date: Fri, 06 Jan 95 10:45:25 cdt Organization: StarNet Communications, Inc > FYI The local cableco here in Fairfax County, VA (Media General Cable) > has a 10XXXX code (106-500), used for ordering Pay-Per-View movies. I > can't seem to get an answer from Bell Atlantic on how this was > arranged. Is this a common practice, I wonder. And yet there was a hole in the security in that system. I lived in Centreville and subscribed to Media General. By dialing 10650 + AREACODE + Number, I was able to make calls to say ... Waterford and Catoctin and never received a bill. I even tried a call to NY same thing. Give it a try ... Chandler ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Jan 1995 11:20:43 -0800 From: Brent E. Boyko Subject: Re: Need an EBCDIC Spec - ebcdic.rq [1/1] Organization: Loma Linda University In article is written: > I'm working on a project which requires conversion of EBCDIC to > ASCII and visa-versa. Does anyone know where I can find: > 1) a spec for the EBCDIC character set, > 2) source code which performs such translations and/or > 3) a library which performs these translations. The Unix utility "dd" can be used to convert USASCII to EBCDIC and vice versa. For example, the following command would read the ascii file "text.file" and write it in 80-column EBCDIC format to mag tape drive 0, using 8000 byte blocks: dd if=text.file of=/dev/rmt0 obs=8000 cbs=80 conv=ebcdic Source code is available as part of the GNU fileutils package. Get the file fileutils-3.12.tar.gz from the GNU ftp archive at prep.ai.mit.edu, gatekeeper.dec.com, or ftp.uu.net. Hope this helps. Brent E. Boyko Telecom Engineer Loma Linda University Medical Center bboyko@brent.llu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 06 Jan 95 09:25:45 CST From: L.W.Westermeyer Subject: Re: More CO Codes for Each NPA; Any Telcos Take Advantage? In response to Dave Leibold's note in volume 12 of the Digest, Southwestern Bell Telephone is opening up 314-516 on January 20, 1995. Voice: (314) 553-6010 SLWWEST@UMSLVMA.BITNET (Bitnet) Fax: (314) 553-6007 SLWWEST@UMSLVMA.UMSL.EDU (Internet) Mailing Address: University of Missouri - St. Louis 8001 Natural Bridge Road St. Louis, MO 63121 USA ------------------------------ From: dingle@ksvi.mff.cuni.cz (Adam Dingle) Subject: Re: Phone Card Reader Wanted Date: 6 Jan 1995 14:29:54 GMT Organization: Charles University Reply-To: kotas@milada.troja.mff.cuni.cz This topic is described in: ftp.funet.fi/pub/doc/telecom/phonecard/chips/How_chips_work I tried it. There are bugs but it works! Jan Kotas ------------------------------ From: jayk372@aol.com (JayK372) Subject: Re: Seeking White Pages on CD or Disk Date: 6 Jan 1995 08:50:29 -0500 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: jayk372@aol.com (JayK372) NYNEX offers a CD based product that I believe has nationwide listings. It is available through the NYNEX Information Resources Co., which pub- lishes NYNEX directories. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Jan 1995 09:42:59 EST From: Steve Samler Subject: Re: PCN Auction Info Total bids now over two billion; ALAACR is now at 253 for NYC; Chicago licenses now at 63 (PCS Primeco) and 65 ATT. ------------------------------ From: jconran@watson.policy.net (Jim Conran) Subject: New Alert - 911 Access Date: 6 Jan 1995 22:22:18 GMT Organization: Capital Area Internet Service info@cais.com 703-448-4470 ACTION ALERT...ACTION ALERT The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Notice)(Docket Number 94-102) on October 19, 1994 in the Matter of Revising the FCC Rules to ensure Compatibility with Enhanced 911 Systems. The rulemaking states as one of its primary objectives that all 911 enhanced services be broadly available to all consumers. We believe that this rulemaking will not guarantee 911 emergency access to cellular phone users. The proposed rulemaking requires wireless carriers to provide this service only to "service initialized" users or users that purchase their cellular phones from a wireless service provider. This proposed arcane requirement is quite contradictory to the FCC's ultimate objective of providing "broad accessibility" to 911 services. Cellular users will have the expectation that when they use their phone to contact 911 during an emergency, they will have immediate contact with the operator. Consumers will not think to question the reliability of their cellular phone or the wireless service providers, instead public confidence on the 911 emergency system will be jeopardize. The Alliance for Public Access to 911 (Alliance) believes that in order for the FCC's proposed rulemaking on the "broad availability of 911 and enhanced 911 services" to be fully recognized, the FCC must require all cellular switches to accept all 911 calls. In addition, the FCC should require all cellular phones to be equipped to access the strongest cellular base station signal when 911 is called. Finally, the FCC should make the 911 provision an issue as it currently reconsiders cellular license renewal applications. The issue of safety and security for all Americans is too important an issue to be compromised. The Alliance has submitted comments to the FCC which address the concerns of several of the country's leading consumer interest organizations. These organizations have collectively come together for the purpose of presenting their shares views of the Notice. The Alliance is a collective of non-profit, safety concerns whose members include Consumers First, the Center for Public Interest Law, Consumer Coalition of California, Consumer Action, the Alliance for Technology Access, Towards Utility Rate Normalization (TURN), and the Utility Consumer Action Network (UCAN). Internet users concerned with this issue can find more information including a copy of the rulemaking, comments prepared by the Alliance and a sample letter that can be forwarded to the Commissions at the FCC. This information is located at: http://watson.policy.net/cf/cf.html gopher://watson.policy.net:70/11/.cf email: jconran@911.policy.net Jim Conran Executive Director Consumers First jconran@911.policy.net P.O. Box 75237 Los Angeles, CA 90010 213/251-4620 510/253-1937 510/253-1359 (Fax) ------------------------------ From: gsegalli@ic1d.harris.com (Greg Segallis) Subject: Information Wanted on Novatel 825 Organization: Harris, GCSD Date: Fri, 6 Jan 1995 17:19:30 GMT I am looking for info on how to program the Novatel 825 handheld cellular phone. I am also looking for tech info on the jacks located on the bottom of the phone. If you can help please email me (or post here). Thanks, Greg ------------------------------ From: graphite@netcom.com (Bill Dankert) Subject: Need Information on EXCEL Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Date: Fri, 6 Jan 1995 17:58:20 GMT Has anyone heard of, or participated in, Excel Telecommunications, Inc.? It is a long distance service provider that uses network marketing instead of a sales force. Please post, or email me directly, any comments concerning Excel. Your help will be greatly appreciated. Bill graphite@netcom.com ------------------------------ From: Reon_Can@mindlink.bc.ca (D. Matte) Subject: GSM in Canada? Date: Fri, 06 Jan 95 11:41:05 -0800 Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada I have been doing some initial research on the development of the PCS market in Canada. Recently some of the players that have received licenses to test 1.9GHz systems have been touting GSM as the way to go (Telezone & Microcell 1-2-1). If GSM is implemented would it mean that users would not be able to make use of their terminals in the U.S. as GSM is not likely to be adopted by the U.S. on a large scale? It would seem to me that having a system that is compatible with our largest trading partner would make for a more attractive service offering. Any thoughts or insight on this would be appreciated. Cheers, Dan Matte REON reon_can@mindlink.bc.ca ------------------------------ Date: 06 Jan 1995 19:31:48 UT From: Erik Naggum Organization: Naggum Software; +47 2295 0313 Subject: Request For Information on Local Rates I'm covering Norway's telecommunication privatization effort for a local newspaper, and need some information that I have not been able to collect from Telenor (the newly renamed Norwegian telephone company) or other PTT's directly. Please mail me answers -- I'll post the article here after it has been published. 1. Local, analog, single-pair leased lines, i.e., the basic local loop for ordinary telephone service, only now as a leased line to another subscriber in the same CO. I'm looking to compare the cost of acquisition and rent for one year. 2. Local, digital, 64 kbps leased lines, i.e., the base rate ISDN subscriber loop, only now as a leased line to another subscriber in the same CO. Similarly to (1), I'm looking to compare the cost of acquisition and rent for one year. 3. 24-hour local phone call, i.e., an ordinary phone call to a subscriber in the same CO as yourself -- one call that lasts 24 hours straight on a weekday. A 24-hour call is used to obtain comparable numbers across all kinds of reduced rates. 4. 24-hour local ISDN call, same as (3), but now with one 64 kbps B channel. If there are differences between business and residential rates, please let me have both, or specify which you include. Please let me know which service provider you use if there is a choice. The purpose of this comparison is to tablate the cost of calling a local point-of-presence for Internet providers, competing telephone companies, and other service providers that may have their own networks. This will be one data point in a comparison of countries as to how easily the regulated services allow access to private services over the regulated access lines. Your help will be highly appreciated. # ------------------------------ From: Subroto Mukerjea Organization: E & A Services, Univ. of Maryland Date: Fri, 6 Jan 1995 15:19:13 EDT Subject: International Call Back Co-Locating With Telco Dear Editor: Recently there has been much talk about International Call back companies co-locating their switches with national telecom companies. Sort of having a direct connect agreement with a country in Europe, preferably. Does anyone have any experience with this or can point me to a source that would deal with this. Thanks in advance, Subroto Mukerjea ------------------------------ From: jenzler@olympus.net (Jared Enzler) Subject: ISDN Over Wireless Date: Fri, 6 Jan 1995 00:17:32 UNDEFINED Organization: Internet for the Olympic Peninsula I live in an area where the telephone co. shows no interest in offering ISDN. But the area is well covered by cellular phone systems. Questions: There appear to be several varieties of digital cellular on the way. Do any of these have the potential to offer ISDN? Which ones? What sort of technical or other barriers are there to wireless ISDN? ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Jan 1995 01:18:47 -0800 From: routers@halcyon.com Subject: Campus Wiring Innovations This information may be of interest to network services -- voice and data network groups. I can provide information on how to change existing utp from a single voice circuit to 24 or 32 64Kb voice circuits up to seven miles (11 km). Change existing utp to E-1 or T-1 for lan to lan connections up to seven miles (11 km). Allow ethernet to be extended on existing two wire copper up to 3000 feet (990 m) at lOMbps. Also latest information on wireless lan bridges at 2Mbps for campus area networks. Works both inside with roaming range of 800ft(260m), and outside to remote locations up to 3 miles (5km). No FCC license required in North or South America. Includes SNMP management. For specific product information, please contact: Router Solutions 5527 Preston Fall City Road Fall City, Wash. 98024 USA 800-837-4180 (USA and Canada) 206-644-6082 (elsewhere) 206-222-7622 (FAX) routers@halcyon.com (Email) Or check our FTP site: ftp.halcyon.com /pub/local/router_solutions ------------------------------ From: rumian@uci.agh.edu.pl Subject: MANs in USA Date: 6 Jan 1995 09:55:49 GMT Organization: AGH, Krakow, POLAND [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: This message appeared a week or so ago here, but for whatever reason did not get very good circulation in the comp.dcom.telecom group. I'm repeating it in the hopes someone can provide some answers to this fellow. PAT] Hi netters ! I need some help in getting info about Metropolitan Area Networks in USA. The questions are: 1. What is the physical structure of MANs (fiber, coax)? 2. If fiber what is the protocol (fddi, atm)? 3. Who is the main investor (banks)? 4. Does banks use MAN for data transmission? 5. What services are provided, and which are most popular? I will appreciate any help. Roman Rumian rumian@uci.agh.edu.pl ------------------------------ From: rboudrie@ecii.org (Rob Boudrie) Subject: Re: Memorized Area Codes Date: 6 Jan 1995 16:51:51 -0500 Organization: Center for High Performance Computing of WPI > At one of the large theatres at the park, there is a fellow who does > an audience warm-up act for a show. As part of his act he has the > audience call out their favorite area codes and he tells them their > location. He is quite good and is virtually never stumped. I wonder how he answers "710" [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: If he is smart, he answers by saying 'government special services' or 'special government services'; whichever is actually correct I don't know. I sure wish someone who does have more detailed knowledge of this one would write a nice article for the Digest explaining it all. The last time I even alluded to 710 here, some people in the Defense Department were shocked that their 'top secret' was not all that secret. Let's shock them even further! Details on 710, please. Now if he is really clever, he would answer by saying "710 is *not* an 'area code', any more than '500' or '800' or '900' are area codes. It, like 500, 800 and 900 is an 'access code'. It accesses certain features in the nationwide telephone network which are not geographically dependent on any certain state or city." Yes, we say 'area code 800' when talking about toll free numbers, but check it out sometime; to be precise about it, when we dial an eleven digit number, we dial 1 plus [area code *or* access code] plus the seven digit local number. I hope all of you have a great weekend. If you have not yet checked out the book reviews and other re-organized features in the Telecom Archives please do so. Also, please give some thought to the idea I proposed a couple days ago of having short biographies of readers on line in the Archives available for review *by others who have also submitted a biographical sketch of themselves*. The response thus far has been good but I'd like a wider sampling from readers. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V15 #14 ***************************** Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa17659; 9 Jan 95 15:56 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (4.1/SMI-4.0-proxy) id AA21407; Mon, 9 Jan 95 08:01:11 CST Return-Path: Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (4.1/SMI-4.0-proxy) id AA21396; Mon, 9 Jan 95 08:01:07 CST Date: Mon, 9 Jan 95 08:01:07 CST From: telecom@delta.eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson)) Message-Id: <9501091401.AA21396@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #15 TELECOM Digest Mon, 9 Jan 95 08:01:00 CST Volume 15 : Issue 15 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Chatter Heard on Scanner Leads to Criminal Charges (Gary Sanders) Re: Chatter Heard on Scanner Leads to Criminal Charges (Michael J Graven) Re: Chatter Heard on Scanner Leads to Criminal Charges (Bill Sohl) Re: Chatter Heard on Scanner Leads to Criminal Charges (Richard Solomon) Re: Cellular NAM and ESN (Alan Shen) Re: Christmas Greetings From AT&T (Alan Boritz) Re: Christmas Greetings From AT&T (Ari Wuolle) Re: 101xxxx: Not Yet (Wally Ritchie) Re: British Telecom Cuts Rates to Canada and U.S. (Wally Ritchie) Re: Noise Introduced by Bit-Robbing? (Wally Ritchie) 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: * telecom-request@eecs.nwu.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: 9457-D Niles Center Road Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 708-329-0571 Fax: 708-329-0572 ** Article submission address only: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu ** Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * 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. * ************************************************************************* Additionally, 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: gws@gwssun.cb.att.com (Gary Sanders) Subject: Re: Chatter Heard on Scanner Leads to Criminal Charges Reply-To: gary.w.sanders@att.com Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Columbus Ohio. Date: Sun, 8 Jan 1995 18:18:23 GMT In article , Christopher Zguris <0004854540@ mcimail.com> wrote: > Cell phones are another matter, a listener with a scanner modified to > get that range will hear little "snippets" of conversations before the > phone changes frequencies or cells, that's definately "random". But as > for cordless phones, most/all will stay on the same frequency for the > entire call, much to the delight of the avid snooper with nothing > better to do. You have been listening to to many cell phone sales guys. First, many scanners don't need to be modified (although new ones may) to listen to cell phones. They come out of the box with cellular. As for snippets I would beg to differ, I know some one who is an active cell listner (-:)) and depending on your local cell configuration you will hear most of all phone calls that are placed. "my friend" listened to someone trying to explain how secure a cell phone is becuase its allways changing freq. Was interesting considering the entire call was 15 minutes long and never changed cells/freq. As for me, I dont have a scanner. I have an R7000 communications receiver -:) Gary W. Sanders (N8EMR) gary.w.sanders@att.com AT&T Bell Labs 614.860.5965 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I don't know where you shop, but all the Radio Shack units make a point of cutting out the cellular frequencies. So do quite a few others, and they have for a few years now. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 8 Jan 1995 13:27:23 -0500 Subject: Re: Chatter Heard on Scanner Leads to Criminal Charges From: mjg@ulysses.homer.att.com (Michael J Graven) Reply-To: mjg@ulysses.homer.att.com (Michael J Graven) Pat wrote: > Cordless phone monitoring is merely the 1990's version of what nosy people > used to do many years ago. [...] I am reminded of my great-uncle, who lived on an out-of-the-way farm near Shepherdsville, Kentucky, in the early part of the century. According to his sister, my grandmother, their house was the first drop on the loop ("two shorts on six, please, operator.") Dwight appeared to be a bit ahead of his time: he inserted a knife switch into the loop after the home telephone so he could cut off the eavesdroppers while he was talking with his girlfriend. A man after your own heart, Pat. Michael J. Graven mjg@ulysses.homer.att.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Telco used or uses the same concept to afford absolute privacy from being overheard by extensions on the same line. They call it an 'exclusion key'. Remember the old two-line turn button phones and how the switchook plunger on the left side was made a little differently than the one on the right side? You would lift it to put the line you were *not* talking on on hold ... well some single line phones had that funny plunger on the left side also, but in those cases it would split the pair. To provide an exclusion, one of the phones on the premises had to serve as the 'master phone'. The pair from the telephone exchange came to that instrument first. It came in on the first (red/green) pair, the looped back out on the second (yellow/ black) pair. Lifting that plunger a quarter inch or so forced a couple of metal contacts inside the phone to spread apart, thus preventing the loop out from ever getting out of the phone. From the phone it went out on the second pair, *then* back to the demarc where normal distribu- tion began. When the user of the master phone wanted no one else to hear what was being said, he would raise that plunger; instantly all the other extensions in the house went dead. When old style answering services were very common, and a subscriber line was simply bridged or jumpered in the central office to a pair going to the answering service, exclusion keys were used a lot so the answering service would not 'see' your calls. It was the same principle, but an 'exclusion switch' would generally be mounted near the front door of your premises. The CO sent your calls in on a pair; someway or another it got looped back through that switch mounted near your front door, and back to the CO for the jumper to the answering service. When you came in you were expected to remember to flip that switch one way, to cut off the extension going to the answering service. When you left for lunch for for the day or the weekend or whatever you were expected to remember to flip the switch the other way, thus putting the answering service back on line for your calls. PAT] ------------------------------ From: billsohl@earth.planet.net (Bill Sohl Budd Lake) Subject: Re: Chatter Heard on Scanner Leads to Criminal Charges Date: 9 Jan 1995 04:15:51 GMT Organization: Planet Access Networks - Stanhope, NJ In response to several prior comments, Pat wrote: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Not only is it illegal for a store to > sell such units, it is often times against corporate policy to even > discuss the possibility of modification. Pat, the sale of such scanners is NOT illegal, see my proposed FAQ on this subject below. > but back then 'secret government radio stations' -- oh, the RS clerks > knew them all. Then about ten years ago as 800 meg scanners were > becoming more common, those mysterious mod sheets ("I dunno who left > it here in the store, but we made some copies for customers ..") > discussed how to change RS scanners to pick up cellular phones by > clipping a diode here and there. > But then the feds came to Fort Worth one day with a blunt message > for all concerned: "Can the shit!" said the FCC. You betcha! Maybe that was true, maybe not, regardless, all the MODS are readily available today and are often written up in publications such as "Monitoring Times" and other communications hobbyist magazines. > Within a few days a memo was hanging on the back wall in the office > of every Radio Shack store which said there would be no further > discussion of 'mods' with customers under any circumstances. Not only > that, if the customer mentioned making mods, the clerk was to *decline > the sale* rather than possibly be later found to be part of a > conspiracy or a scheme. What kind of "conspiracy"? Not meant as a flame, but other than modifying CBs for out-of-frequency operation or for illegally increasing the CBs power, modifying most other equipment such as scanners violates nothing. The above response by Pat, comp.dcom,telecom moderator, contained a few errors with regard to the sale of equipment (i.e. scanners) that can or could be used to listen to cellular telephone calls. To clarify things a bit, here's the current perspective on the laws that affect the actual act of listening versus the equipment that might be used to listen. I have written this as a set of Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) which I offer to Pat (or anyone else) to use as they see fit. FAQ: Listening to CELLULAR or CORDLESS Telephone Conversations Version 0.1 (draft), last updated 1/8/94 Send any suggested text changes/corrections updates to Bill Sohl. email: billsohl@planet.net Q1 - Is it illegal to listen to CELLULAR telephone converstaions? YES - The 1986 Electronics Communication Privacy Act made it illegal for anyone to listen to cellular telephone conversations. Doing so since then has been and still is a federal violaion of the ECPA. Q2 - Did the 1986 ECPA impact the legality of scanners and/or other radio receivers that can be used to receive CELLULAR telephone conversations (segments of the 800 MHz band)? NO - The ECPA did NOT in any way make it illegal to own, manufacture, import, sell or personally built yourself, the equipment that could be used to listen to cellular telephone calls. Q3 - Didn't manufacturers alter their scanner designs to exclude the CELLULAR frequencies? YES - Some manufacturers did modify their line of scanners to eliminate the ability to receive or tune to cellular frequencies (e.g. the Tandy line of Radio Shack scanners). Even in the case of those manufacturers that changed their design to eliminate the CELLULAR frequencies, the design change usually was a simple memory lock-out that was easily "restored" by simply clipping a diode inside the scanner. Additionally, some other manufacturers continued to offer radio receivers and scanners that covered the entire spectrum of frequencies including celllar (800 MHz). Q4 - Are manufacturers still making scanners that can receive CELLULAR? NO, not in the USA - As mentioned above, the original ECPA legislation in no way made such equipment illegal The current REGULATIONS covering radio scanning receivers (i.e. the receiving equipment) came about by order of Congress in 1993 (at the prompting of the CELLULAR industry) to force the Federal Communications Commission to promulgate design requirements to eliminate "Scanner" manufacturers from making or importing scanners which could receive CELLULAR frequencies. The FCC did promulgate such rules and as of April 26, 1994 it became illegal to manufacture or import any scanner which could receive CELLULAR frequencies OR which could be "easily modified" to receive cellular frequencies. Q5 - How come scanners are still being advertised for sale as being capable of receiving CELLULAR? It is important to note that the FCC design rules impact only NEW equipment built or imported after April 26, 1994. Thus, any store which has any existing stocks of "pre-4/26/94" CELLULAR capable scanners can continue to sell them until they have no more stock. Q6 - What is the legality of owning a scanner that can receive CELLULAR? It is perfectly legal. None of the already existing scanners in the USA (probably a million or more) which can receive CELLULAR or be easily modified to receive CELLULAR are illegal to own or sell. Thus, it is perfectly legal to offer for sale any scanners which may be cellular capable and where built before the 4/26/94 FCC deadline. Q7 - Is it illegal to modify a scanner so it can receive CELLULAR? NO - There is no law which makes it illegal to modify an existing radio (or scanner) to receive CELLULAR...or, for that matter if one has the technical ability to do so, from building their own CELLULAR receiver from scratch. The FCC regulations against manufacture and importation are design requirements placed on MANUFACTURERS and not on individuals who might construct their own radio receiving equipment, even if it happens to be capable of receiving CELLULAR. Q7 - What are converters which make it possible to receive CELLULAR frequencies on scanners that can't receive CELLULAR? Converters (AKA block converters) receive a range of frequencies and convert them to another range of frequencies. A CELLULAR converter typically will receive the entire 800-900MHz band and convert it to a range of 400-500MHz which can easily be received by almost any scanner ever built. Q8 - Are converters for CELLULAR illegal to manufacture or import? YES - The same FCC April 26, 1994 deadline for CELLULAR capable scanners also affected CELLULAR Converter manufacture and importation. BUT ... the design and construction of a block converter involves, in general electronic terms, a relatively trivial circuit. Today there are several converter "kits" on the market which provide to the purchaser the circuit design, a how to set of instructions and all the electronic components to build such a converter themselves with just a small soldering iron. Q9 - What about listening to CORDLESS telephone conversations? A late 1994 congressional action amended the ECPA's listening prohibition to now include CORDLESS phones. Prior to that change, it was completely legal (except in a handful of states with state laws prohibiting CORDLESS listening) to listen to CORDLESS telephone conversations. With the amended ECPA, it is now illegal on a federal basis (and thus everywhere in the USA) to listen to CORDLESS telephone conversations as well as CELLULAR conversations. Q10 - What about scanners that can receive CORDLESS frequencies. There are no design regulations which prohibit the manufacture or importation of scanners that can receive the CORDLESS frequenices. Unlike CELLULAR frequencies which are in the Ultra High Frequency (UHF) range which was not included in many inexpensive scanners, the CORDLESS frequencies (46-49 MHz) are in the Very High Frequency (VHF) range and can be received by literally EVERY scanner ever made (probably several million). Q11 - Will it ever be illegal to own receivers (scanners) that can recieve CELLULAR and/or CORDLESS frequencies? Speculative answer follows: In as much as there are millions of such recievers/scanners already legally owned, it is quite unlikely that any federal or state law would be passed that would make such equipment illegal to own and, therefor, force peole to turn in to some government entity. This is further underscored by the fact that the CORDLESS and CELLULAR frequencies are only a small segment of the frequencies that are receivable by any scanner and thus all such scanners have numerous legal listening capabiliies (police, fire, rescue, amateur radio, TV, aircraft, etc.) despite their ability to be used illegally to listen to either CORDLESS or CELLULAR frequencies. Q12 - How effective are these laws in stopping people from listening (eavesdropping) on CELLULAR or CORDLESS conversations? Probably not very effective at all. Since millions of receivers/scanners exist already, such listening, although illegal, probably goes on all the time. Illegal listening is impossible to detect and thus impossible to stop. The only possible way to learn of someone eavesdropping on CORDLESS or CELLULAR is if the individual admits doing so on their own and that isn't very unlikely. Q13 - Should I be concerned that my CORDLESS or CELLULAR conversation is being listened to? The probability that any individual call is being listened to is very low, however, it makes good sense to treat any CORDLESS or CELLULAR conversation as if it was being listened to .. .don't discuss highly confidential information (especially credit card numbers) on such calls. Q14 - Will CELLULAR or CORDLESS conversations ever be safe from eavesdropping? If and only if such calls are encrypted will any measure of increased security be available to users. The technology is available, but the deployment of encryption will take time and require current users to change their equipment (their current non-encrypted CORDLESS and CELLULAR telephones). -----end of FAQ----- Bill Sohl K2UNK (Budd lake, New Jersey) (billsohl@planet.net) [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You are wrong on a couple things, however that is because of confusion over contradictory laws. Aside from what the Electronic Commuications Privacy Act says, the Federal Communications Commission addresses the question of radios which have been modified. Illegal modification (i.e. modification by an unlicensed person) voids your FCC authority to operate the radio. Furthermore, no *licensed* person is going to make illegal modifications to a radio and risk having such handiwork be traced back to his bench, at the possible risk of his loss of his license. Quoting from memory from a conversation over a year ago with Bill Bartels, District Sales Manager for Radio Shack for the northern district of Illinois (this does not include Chicago, considered a district of its own), after seeing the memorandum sent to RS store managers on this topic, I noted to Mr. Bartels that 'it looks to me like the feds put some heat on RS corporate in Fort Worth ...' and he responded that he and several of the DSMs and RSMs (District and Regional Sales Managers) had met in Fort Worth when 'the topic came up', and 'I would have to say you are correct, but I cannot discuss it further ...'. There was no EPCA discussion in this, other than as it coincidentally occurred. It was simply a case of the FCC telling Radio Shack to 'get your clerks to quit screwing around with all this illegal stuff', and Tandy's attornies were sufficiently impressed with what they had been instructed by the FCC that down through channels it went. The store here in Skokie has it hanging in the office in back; a newspaper account of some company which got banged hard by the FCC; a memo from Tandy to the RSM/DSM people (that's the *only* people corporate speaks with; they never deal direct with the store managers, and certainly never the clerks, that is the job of the DSM's), and the manager's note to his employees: "*NEVER* discuss illegal mods with any customer for any reason." The 'conspiracy connection': the law provides that if you knowingly transfer ownership of some item to some other person, knowing (or if you should have known) that the person intends it to be used illegally then whatever beef the government has with him later on, if it can be demonstrated that you knew his intentions then you can be charged as a co-conspirator. It does not have to be radios. For example, you go to a store and buy a device to automatically tape record what is said over the phone. You say to the clerk, "I am buying this so I can spy on my neighbor's (wife's, whoever) phone calls ..." If the clerk sells it to you knowing your intended use, he aided and abetted you in the commission of your crime. Haven't you ever noticed how when someone famous gets shot or killed, along the way there is always an attempt to drag the gun dealer who sold the weapon to the deranged person into the process? Apparently Radio Shack has gotten sued here and there by the victims of someone spying on them over the radio or telephone, etc. No one is saying it is against the law to *discuss* illegal things; merely that you cannot *do* illegal things. Radio Shack says you won't even *discuss* illegal things if you want to remain on their payroll. As it was told to me, a few years ago when FCC agents were raiding the homes/workshops of guys who specialized in building/selling pirate, out of band CB radios, and guys who were willfully causing interference on cellular phone frequencies, time and again they'd find RS equipment being used, and crude typewritten notes 'published' by RS clerks showing how to do whatever was being done. The FCC said that could be taken as conspiracy and the Tandy attornies agreed with the assessment. How seriously does RS take this? They even send 'shoppers' out from corporate unknown to local store personnel who go to the local RS store to check the store out secretly for general purposes. In the process, they wave a big wad of money around implying they want to buy every peice of radio equipment in the store's inventory, cash of course, 'but I would rather not give my name for your computer, and I will need some advice on how to fix these units to work the way I want them to ...' In other words, they egg the hungry, paid by commission clerk on, trying to get him to spill his guts right there in the store. They'll ask the same questions over and over, a half-dozen different ways, and let the clerk keep politely dodging the issue. It makes no difference what magazines publish articles on these things any more than it matters that 'true detective' magazines publish articles on bank robberies and how they were done. It's just that you cannot drive the getaway car for the bank robber any more than you can be the person who actually robbed the bank. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 7 Jan 1995 16:32:35 -0500 From: rjs@farnsworth.mit.edu (Richard Jay Solomon) Subject: Re: Chatter Heard on Scanner Leads to Criminal Charges Patrick: In Digest #9 you ran an AP story, "Chatter Heard on Scanner Leads to Criminal Charges." Is your bracketed comment in #11 that this was an overheard play rehearsal related to the original story? Am I missing something here? I never saw an official press item about the play rehearsal, just your bracketed comments? Richard Solomon [TELECOM Digest Egitor's Note: That part (the overhearing of play rehersal and the inappropriate actions taken) was a separate incident not related at all to the originally reported event. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Alan Shen Subject: Re: Cellular NAM and ESN Date: Sun, 8 Jan 1995 21:13:53 -0800 Organization: University of Washington On Thu, 5 Jan 1995, Greg Segallis wrote: > Can two cellular phones be programmed to the same NAM, while their > ESN's are different, so that either phone can be used on one number? > Assume only one phone can be on at a time (e.g. I have a car phone I > use while on the road and a portable I use when I'm away from my car). > Does the cellular carrier use the NAM to connect calls or the ESN, or > both? If the ESN must be the same, can I alter the one to match the > other? This would not be done to steal anyone else's service, just to > allow me the convenience of using both my phones as the situation > requires/allows. What are the legal issues in doing this? Call your cellular carrier about this. Some will allow you to have one NAM for two different phones (with different ESN numbers) for an extra charge usually from about $5-$8 a month. Of course, you are correct in stating that you can use only one phone at a time. But it sure does beat the heck outta paying for another monthly service! Daniel Kao ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Christmas Greetings From AT&T From: drharry!aboritz@uunet.uu.net (Alan Boritz) Date: Sun, 08 Jan 95 17:32:36 EST Organization: Harry's Place - Mahwah NJ - +1 201 934 0861 zanolla@agouti.cig.mot.com (Donald J. Zanolla) writes: >> You might want to call AT&T up and tell them you don't appreciate them >> slamming your line. (Their ears perk up nicely when they hear "slam" >> too). > Please define SLAM in this context. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: "Slamming" has always been defined in this > context as the unauthorized switching of long distance carriers on a phone > line. If for example you are a customer of AT&T and one day you discover > that your default (one plus or zero plus) carrier has been changed to > Sprint -- just an example -- without your permission or knowledge, then > we say that (in this example) Sprint 'slammed' your line. PAT] Here's how the FCC defines "slamming": NEWS Report No. DC-2681 ACTION IN DOCKET CASE November 10, 1994 FCC TAKES FURTHER ACTION TO PREVENT UNAUTHORIZED SWITCHING OF LONG DISTANCE CARRIERS (CC DOCKET NO. 94-129) Citing over 4,000 complaints received in the last two years, the FCC today asked for comments on ways to eliminate the practice of changing a customer's long-distance telephone company without the customer's knowledge or approval. This practice is commonly known as "slamming." Current FCC rules require that a company must obtain the customer's authorization in order to change his or her long distance service. One method of obtaining this authorization is by a Letter of Agency (LOA), by which the customer indicates, in writing, that he or she wishes to switch long distance companies. The Commission's investigation of "slamming" complaints has revealed that a significant cause of the problem has been confusion regarding the purpose of the LOAs. The Commission's proposed rules are designed to prevent such consumer confusion. At present, many long distance carriers combine LOAs with promotional inducements, such as contest entries, prize giveaways, and checks, which are designed to attract new customers. As a result, recipients may be unaware that by signing the document to enter the contest, claim the prizes, or cash the checks, they also are supposedly "authorizing" the company to change their long distance carrier. In order to further protect consumers from these misleading inducements, the Commission has proposed to require (1) that LOAs be separate from other promotional or inducement materials; (2) that the LOAs be limited strictly to authorizing a change in long distance carriers; and (3) that they be clearly identified as an LOA. Further, the Commission has proposed that the language in the LOA be clear and unambiguous and that the print be of sufficient size and readable style to be clear to the consumer that the document, if signed, would change his or her long distance company. Noting that it is very concerned about the problem of slamming in the non-English speaking community, the Commission is also seeking comment on whether it should adopt rules to govern bilingual or non-English language LOAs. For example, the Commission seeks comment on whether it should require all parts of the LOA to be fully translated if any parts are translated. Finally, the Commission seeks comment on several other issues pertaining to unauthorized changes of consumers' long distance companies that have come to its attention as a result of consumer complaints. For example, comments are requested concerning: (1) whether and to what extent consumers should be liable for the long distance telephone charges billed to them by the unauthorized carrier; and (2) whether all LOAs should be captioned "An Order to Change My Long Distance Telephone Service Provider" or a similar title that makes it clearer to consumers that the LOA authorizes a change in their long distance service. Action by the Commission, November 10, 1994, by Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FCC 94-292). Chairman Hundt, Commissioners Quello, Barrett, Ness and Chong. -FCC- News Media contact: Susan Lewis Sallet at (202) 418-0500. Common Carrier Bureau contacts: Donna Lampert at (202) 418-1580 and Wilbert Nixon, Jr. at (202) 418-0960. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 8 Jan 1995 03:10:03 +0200 From: Ari.Wuolle@hut.fi (Ari Wuolle) Subject: Re: Christmas Greetings From AT&T > Well, we'll find out how this works over here in a couple of years. > Austria just joined the EU, and the EU has decreed the end of telecom > monopolies by the end of 1996 (or is it 1998)? We will all be faced > with the same problems and privileges then. Finland also just joined EU, but our local and long distance monopolies ended already 1st January 1994. International call traffic was deregulated fully in summer 1994. So far none of the three LD carriers have started sending checks to persuade customers selecting their service as default service. Only one carrier offers extras others don't. Since switching carriers doesn't cost anything here in Finland, LD carriers don't even need to offer to pay for swiching. There were few small price cuts last spring, but since then prices have been steady. (Telecom Finland had been reducing their rates already before LD competition, so their charges were competitive to other carriers right from begining of 1994.) Even new year didn't change long distance call rates here in Finland. If you choose Telecom Finland to be your default carrier and accept direct billing from them, you will get three extras - free itemised bill on your Telecom LD calls, 1 second increment billing and "Tasarahaetu". Tasarahaetu means that if your LD calls (within one billing period, two months) are over 100 FIM, your LD bill will be rounded down to next 50 FIM. E.g. 149 FIM will round to 100 and 155 FIM will round to 150 FIM. If you have meter pulses sent down on your line for e.g. payphone or hotel PBX then you cannot have these three extras - result would be getting meter pulses only for local call part and not for LD call. Other two carriers bill traditionally only through your local telco in meter pulses. You can always choose different carrier by dialling its carrier code before telephone number you are calling to. Telcom Finland is 101, Telivo 1041 and Kaukoverkko Ysi 109. Currently you cannot choose default international carrier - you must use correct international access code, which are now carrier dependent, 990 for Telecom Finland, 994 for Telivo and 999 for Finnet. (Old international access code was 990.) Hopefully this will change in 1996 when new 00 international access code will take over old ones. If someone is interested, here are current Finnish LD rates: FIM/minute Mon-Fri Mon-Fri & Sat-Sun Everyday incl. tax 08-17 17-20 08-20 20-08 Telecom Finland 0.40 1) 0.33, 0.09 1) 0.33, 0.09 Telivo 0.33 0.23 0.23 Kaukoverkko Ysi 0.40 0.25 0.20 NoZj} carrier 2) 0.40 0.33 0.33 1) First 5.6 minutes of call is charged 0.33 FIM/minute, following minutes are charged 0.09 FIM/minute. 2) If you do not choose any carrier you are charged a rate defined by ministry of traffic and communications (read: the highest rate any carrier uses. Actually now it is higher than with any carrier after working hours.) This type of calls are divided between LD carriers in respect of their market share. All money also goes to LD carriers - ministry won't get any leftovers. 1 FIM is about US$ 0.21 Distance doesn't matter with LD calls - if it is within a telecommunications region it is local, if it is to another telecommunications region it is long distance. Finland is divided into 13 telecommunications regions. Ari Wuolle Disclaimer: All opinions are mine, not HUT's. e-mail Ari.Wuolle@hut.fi s-mail Kolkekannaksentie 10 B 4 telephone + 358 0 509 2073 02720 ESPOO cellphone + 358 49 431 140 FINLAND fax + 358 0 428 429 (temporary) ------------------------------ From: writchie@gate.net Subject: Re: 101xxxx: Not Yet Date: 8 Jan 1995 04:19:41 GMT Reply-To: writchie@gate.net In , Paul Robinson writes: > In attempting to do a carrier check from a 301-587 number in > Montgomery County, Maryland, I got a time out and a recording of > inability to complete the call, when attempting to dial >1010288 1 700 555 1212 > The call timed out as if I was trying to call > 10102 881 7005 > E.g. making a local call using carrier 10102 instead. > So it's not set up yet. I tried the same thing on the 3rd and it worked fine in Southern Bell Ft. Lauderdale. 1010XXX calls all route permissivly with 10XXX, regardless of IXC. Wally Ritchie Ft. Lauderdale, Florida ------------------------------ From: writchie@gate.net Subject: Re: British Telecom Cuts Rates to Canada and U.S. Date: 8 Jan 1995 04:34:24 GMT Reply-To: writchie@gate.net In , dleibold@gvc.com (Dave Leibold) writes: > British Telecom calls from the UK to Canada and the U.S. will cost > about 20% less effective February 1995, according to a BT announcement > reported by the Associated Press. The cuts were reportedly authorized > by the UK regulator last year as part of a price reductions scheme. > The sample rate given was for a three minute call at the lowest rate > period: the former rate was equivalent to CAD$3.14; the new rate will > be CAD$2.49. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Do you think this price reduction is > somehow tied in with the recent ability to dial 1-800 numbers in the > USA from the UK as Clive pointed out a couple days ago? PAT] Wow! How is BT going to survive. This reduction reduces there gross margin from about 89% to 85% on these calls. Poor monopoly. :) If they only realized that it works like a tax cut. Reduce the rate and you take in more revenues. In a truly competitive environment at both ends, US/UK calls would be about $0.25 per minute in either direction. Wally Ritchie Ft. Lauderdale, Florida ------------------------------ From: writchie@gate.net Subject: Re: Noise Introduced by Bit-Robbing? Date: 8 Jan 1995 05:02:38 GMT Reply-To: writchie@gate.net In , woof@telecnnct.com (Andy Spitzer) writes: > naddy@mips.pfalz.de (Christian Weisgerber) writes: > On a "quiet" idle channel (AB bits both 0), using u-Law PCM, pattern sent > over the channel would be: (in hex, LSB last) > FF FF FF FF FF FE FF FF FF FF FF FE ... > The difference in voltage of a standard CODEC (A/D converter for PCM) > from FF to FF is about 2 mV (on a scale from -8031 to +8031 mV). So, > converted to an analog signal, the above waveform is a series of 2 mV > impulses occuring every 8000/6 = 1333.3 Hz. This waveform is rich in > harmonics, so it "sounds" like a very high pitched, (although rather > quiet) whine, similar to the "ringing in your ears" sound. > Once the line is taken offhook (aka AB bits both become 1), then the > pattern becomes: > FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF ... > which is dead quiet. (And since LSB=1, and AB=1 there is no distortion!) > Thus the noise associated with robbed bit signalling can be viewed as > superimposing the intended signal with the above impluse train. > Perhaps armed with this information, someone else can calculate the > noise/distortion measurments you are seeking. The above discussion concerns only idle circuit noise. For voice-band modem transmission (or actual speech) the bit stolen bit will be wrong on average 1/2 of the time. The absolute magnitude of the error will depend on the absolute level being encoded. The impact on the S/N ratio is on the order of 2db. Other types of bit errors are much more serious that robbed bit because they are likely to affect more signficant bits and are likely to cause a great enough error to affect the demodulation resulting in an error in one more data bits. In , whs70@cc.bellcore.com (sohl,william h) writes: > Final comment, where you would possibly have ribbed bit signaling from > the premise to the central office is if there is a PBX which is connected > to the central office using a DS-1 trunk/tie line arrangement, but I don't > think that was what the original poster was questioning. .. Or a D4/AMI channel bank in the loop plant at either or both ends. .. Or a D4/AMI EC interoffice trunk at either or both ends. .. Or a D4/AMI Feature Group D trunk at either or both ends. .. Or a D4/AMI Intermachine Trunk in the IC's network. There must have been about four godzillion lines of D4 equipment deployed in the networks. If you guys have replaced it all with B8ZS, where I can I buy the "old" D4's and M13's :) Or are they all buried in a hole somewhere so they stay in the rate base ? ;) Also, I'm interested in the number of Feature Group D trunks that are now both B8ZS ... AND ... SS#7. If this number is more than a few percent it means that the LEC's and IC's together accomplished the quickest large scale technical deployment in the history of the world. I can believe that SS#7 penetration is growing fast. This, however, does imply elimination of the AMI trunks. The IC's can selectively route the few clear channel calls over B8ZS tandem trunks and take years to slowly replace the AMI trunks. Wally Ritchie Ft. Lauderdale, Florida ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V15 #15 ***************************** Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa19899; 9 Jan 95 20:30 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (4.1/SMI-4.0-proxy) id AA06062; Mon, 9 Jan 95 14:52:06 CST Return-Path: Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (4.1/SMI-4.0-proxy) id AA06054; Mon, 9 Jan 95 14:52:03 CST Date: Mon, 9 Jan 95 14:52:03 CST From: telecom@delta.eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson)) Message-Id: <9501092052.AA06054@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #16 TELECOM Digest Mon, 9 Jan 95 16:52:00 CST Volume 15 : Issue 16 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Bell Atlantic Mobile Joins the PIN Crowd (Mark Robert Smith) New: Telecom Policy On-line (Jeff Richards) EtherFRAD for T1? (Pete Kruckenberg) Sprint and Calls Within Your Service Area (Javier Henderson) Phone Rates (Paul Robinson) Vice President Al Gore to Speak on Telecom at Summit Jan. 9 (Nigel Allen) FCC Proposes To Fine AT&T $1,000,000 For Comm Act Violations (Alan Boritz) Phone Rates From Israel (Jean B. Sarrazin) PABX/IVR/Computer Integration Help Wanted (Alan Meier) Hayes Optima VS DEC SERVER 200 Revised (John Stewart Pinnow) 1-900 = $100,000 Fraud (James Bellaire) 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: * telecom-request@eecs.nwu.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: 9457-D Niles Center Road Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 708-329-0571 Fax: 708-329-0572 ** Article submission address only: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu ** Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * 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. * ************************************************************************* Additionally, 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: msmith@pluto.njcc.com (Mark Robert Smith) Subject: Bell Atlantic Mobile Joins the PIN Crowd Date: Mon, 9 Jan 1995 08:34:39 EST Organization: New Jersey Computer Connection, Lawrenceville, NJ Here's the press release, fresh off the Bell Atlantic WWW Server (http://ba.com/): January 4, 1995 Steve Fleischer(BAM) 908-306-7539 Brian Wood(BAM) 908-306-7508 Kim Ancin(NYNEX) 914-365-7573 Jim Gerace(NYNEX) 914-365-7712 LEADING CELLULAR CARRIERS JOIN FORCES TO PROTECT CUSTOMERS FROM BECOMING PHONE FRAUD VICTIMS BEDMINSTER, NJ, AND ORANGEBURG, NY -- Two of the nation's largest wireless carriers are teaming up in a unique program to prevent their customers from being victimized by criminals who steal cellular service. The new effort combines a Personal Identification Number (PIN) code system recently pioneered by NYNEX Mobile Communications in New York City with a new Fraud Protection Zone technique developed by Bell Atlantic Mobile. Starting January 9, Bell Atlantic Mobile will designate a Fraud Protection Zone restricting calling throughout the greater New York City area for its customers from Washington, DC; Baltimore; Pittsburgh; and greater Philadelphia, including Delaware and southern New Jersey. Customers from those markets who want to use their phones at standard "roaming" rates in New York City must first contact Bell Atlantic Mobile by dialing 211 from their cellular phone. After they provide proper identification and select a PIN code, the company will deactivate the fraud zone restriction. Once the PIN feature is activated, it gives customers protection from fraud whenever they use it to place calls in New York, their home market, or any market with a PIN system. The Fraud Protection Zone will not be activated for the company's northern New Jersey customers, because New York City is part of their local calling area. Since customers who travel frequently into New York City are at risk from cloning, Bell Atlantic Mobile strongly recommends that northern New Jersey customers sign up for the PIN system. Eventually all new customers will be required to use PINs. Bell Atlantic Mobile will start notifying its customers of the new program today. However, those who are not aware of it will still be able to place calls in New York with a credit card, until they sign up for the PIN. They will not receive incoming calls. "By combining our fraud protection systems, Bell Atlantic and NYNEX offer customers the best of both worlds," said Rick Conrad, Bell Atlantic Mobile executive vice president and chief operating officer. "We protect Bell Atlantic customers by making their phone numbers difficult to clone, or copy, for use in New York, while providing easy access to the New York cellular system through the PIN feature." Fraud costs the cellular industry more than $1 million per day. By teaming together, Conrad said, the carriers reduce its impact on customers. "A customer who has been cloned experiences a great deal of inconvenience. This is not a victimless crime," he added. "We demonstrated with our unique PIN code initiative, that the use of state-of-the-art technology can prevent the theft of cellular service," said Cynthia J. White, NYNEX Mobile executive vice president and chief operating officer. "PIN codes, and the pursuit and prosecution of those who commit these crimes, have put a significant crimp in the illegal business of cloning. "The NYNEX/Bell Atlantic effort sends yet another message to phone cloners that carriers can and will work together to protect the public from this crime." Just as PIN systems increase security for banking and long distance telephone customers, the PIN feature will severely limit the possibil- ity of cellular phone numbers being cloned and used in any city where carriers use PIN technology. In the rare instance that they are cloned, customers only need to call their home carrier and receive a new PIN to restore service. By con- trast, customers not using PINs must bring their phones back to a carrier or dealer for a new phone number, notify business associates and friends of the number change, or even modify business cards and stationery. With a PIN system, customers simply dial the desired phone number, press "send," enter their PIN code, and press "send" again. The net- work then completes the call. There is no extra charge and the feature will not affect commonly used cellular services like voice mail or call waiting. Calls to 911, 611 and 411 do not require a PIN. Bell Atlantic and NYNEX have announced that they will combine their cellular operations in the mid-Atlantic, Northeast, Southeast, and Southwest. The proposed company will serve over two million customers and be a strong national force in the wireless industry, with 55 million potential customers in seven of the top 20 cellular markets. The companies expect to close the transaction in the second quarter of 1995. ### ------------------------------- What they don't tell you is that the exclusion zone includes parts of Northern New Jersey, specifically the Jersey City switch which goes as far north as Secaucus and south to New Brunswick. They also fail to mention that once you get a PIN number, you must use it to make all calls, even those outside the zone. I'm really disappointed that they've imposed this on the customer OUTSIDE the area, while allowing those in the area to make calls without a PIN. At least that's how I read the release, though a friend who has B.A. told me before this was announced that he had to use a PIN. Why don't they start spending the money they spent on ECPA lobbying to invent a more secure system?!?!?!? Mark Smith Mercerville, NJ ------------------------------ From: Jeff Richards Subject: New: Telecom Policy On-line Date: 9 Jan 1995 13:19:37 GMT Organization: Capital Area Internet Service info@cais.com 703-448-4470 The Alliance for Competitive Communications (formerly the MFJ Task Force) announced today that it has named former USTA Chairman Gary McBee to coordinate the seven regional Bell Companies' 1995 effort to reform telecommunications laws. Information about this announcement can be found at the newly-revamped . http://bell.com gopher://bell.com Additions include: - Pointers to recently-added legislative resources; - An archive of the 103rd Congress Telecommunications actions; - A new, easier-to-follow format; - A listserver for individuals who want to receive regular updates on telecommunications legislation. To subscribe send a message to: listserver@bell.com with the message: subscribe bell firstname lastname will be updated on a regular basis for individuals wanting to follow telecommunications reform legislation. Please feel free to reply to me with any comments. Please address questions to: . Thanks, Jeff Richards Alliance for Competitive Communications | Internet: richards@bell.com http://bell.com gopher://bell.com ------------------------------ From: pete@dswi.com (Pete Kruckenberg) Subject: EtherFRAD for T1? Date: 9 Jan 1995 06:57:20 -0700 Organization: DahlinSmithWhite, Inc. US West told me they sell a (Codex) "Bandguard" Ethernet FRAD (Ethernet <=> frame-relay) with DSU for 56k frame-relay service, but not for T1. I'm curious to know if there is such a thing for T1 frame-relay. Also, what has people's experience been with using EtherFRADs with a Unix IP router vs. CSU/DSU and "normal" router? Thanks, Pete Kruckenberg pete@dswi.com ------------------------------ Subject: Sprint and Calls Within Your Service Area From: henderson@mln.com (Javier Henderson) Date: 6 Jan 95 16:54:34 PST Organization: Medical Laboratory Network; Ventura, CA I just got off the phone with Sprint's customer service. Their special offer of one cent per minute for calls within your service area applies to all of Sprint customers, regarldess of what calling plan you're on. You need to dial 10333, but considering the savings, I don't mind. The charge is the same regardless of mileage. The offer will expire on Feb 28, 1995. I'm not associated with Sprint, other than as a mostly satisfied customer. The above applies to residential lines in Southern California. Other areas within California may have the same deal, you'd better check. Javier Henderson (JH21) henderson@mln.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 09 Jan 1995 01:23:52 EST Subject: Phone Rates Organization: Tansin A. Darcos & Company, Silver Spring, MD USA From: Paul Robinson Eric Naggum writes: > I'm covering Norway's telecommunication privatization effort for > a local newspaper, and need some information that I have not been > able to collect from Telenor (the newly renamed Norwegian > telephone company) or other PTT's directly. Please mail me > answers -- I'll post the article here after it has been published. > 1. Local, analog, single-pair leased lines, i.e., the basic local loop for > ordinary telephone service, only now as a leased line to another > subscriber in the same CO. I'm looking to compare the cost > of acquisition and rent for one year. Last time I checked, which was about four years ago before Internet accessibility was affordable, if I wanted to get a 64K line from my site, say to Suranet which is at the University of Maryland, College Park, the rate quoted from C&P telephone was US $115 plus $4 per mile, per month. Note in the rates below, these rates do not include taxes which probably range in the 2% figure, and installation of phone lines is extra. > 3. 24-hour local phone call, i.e., an ordinary phone call to a > subscriber in the same CO as yourself -- one call that lasts 24 hours > straight on a weekday. A 24-hour call is used to obtain comparable > numbers across all kinds of reduced rates. Residential service here comes in three flavors, per call, timed per call and unlimited. Business can get per call and timed per call. Unlimited service costs a residential customer about US $20 a month plus taxes, and allows unlimited calls of unlimited duration between phones in the same service area. Here in the Washington Metropolitan area, figure that as being roughly a circle extending for 20 miles in each direction from the Washington Monument. In essence, the calling area here is: All of Washington DC, all of Prince Georges county in Maryland, the lower half of Montgomery County in Maryland, All of Fairfax and Arlington Counties in Virginia plus the independent cities, as far as Dulles Airport in Chantilly, VA. People who live in the Maryland suburbs have extended local service outside this area, so I can call parts of Gaithersburg MD as a local call that someone in Northern Virginia would have to pay as a short-distance toll call. Someone in Northern Virginia will have extended reach into Virginia, of course. On all local area calls, if one doesn't have unlimited service, the rate is either 9.0c for residential and 9.9c for business for each call placed, of unlimited connection time. In theory you could pay $20 for two business phone lines, place a call between them and keep the line up all month for around $40 or so, as opposed to paying much more for a dedicated line. I changed one of my lines from residential to commercial service. The Commercial rate is around US $19.00 a month plus taxes. If you take timed service, the rate is 1.3c for the connection, and 1c for each minute after the first minute. 100c = US $1. You can do the math for the local currency there using current conversion rates. A residential customer can get service where he gets 65 call units included in his bill for $8.50 a month plus taxes. As an example of net costs, for three phone lines in my house each having 65 call units (a call unit being one phone call of unlimited length), the cost is US $55 a month to have three phone lines and an aggregate of 195 call units a month, then 9.0c each after 195, if I ever use that many. (My rate is higher because I have a number of optional services including a virtual telephone number, call waiting and three-way calling on one of my lines.) I have routinely spent 6 hour calls on the phone to my Internet service provider reading and writing mail and news, and downloading files gotten via FTP. These numbers are meaningless unless you have value of money figures. My brother has an ordinary job as a cashier at a drugstore chain, he makes $5.50 each hour, and works 40 hours a week (and it took him two years to get to that rate; "minimum wage" here is $4.50 per hour if I remember correctly.) A 16oz bottle of soda here is about 75c, a loaf of bread about 65c to $1.25 depending on what one buys, a pound of hamburger about $1.65, a gallon of milk about US $2.40. In Long Beach, California when I was there seven years ago, a local call for a business number cost the customer 5c for each five minutes or fraction thereof, e.g. a five minute and one second call was 10c. Outdoor Public Coin telephones here are 25c per call, untimed. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 7 Jan 1995 03:10:25 -0500 Subject: Vice President Al Gore to Speak on Telecom at Summit Jan. 9 From: ndallen@io.org (Nigel Allen) Organization: Internex Online Here is a press release from U.S. Vice President Al Gore. I downloaded the press release from the PR On-Line BBS in Maryland at 410-363-0834. I do not work for the U.S. government. Vice President Gore to Give Keynote at Federal-State-Local Telecom Summit Jan. 9 News Advisory: Vice President Al Gore will give the keynote address at a conference of federal, state, and local officials on the role of the federal government in promoting competition, lowering prices, increasing choices and achieving universal service in telecommunications services. He will join other officials at all levels of government from across the country to discuss these telecommunications issues. The Vice President will speak at 9 a.m. (ET) at the Department of Commerce Auditorium, 14th and Constitution Ave, NW. The Vice President's speech is OPEN PRESS. The Annenberg Washington Program and the Administration's Information Infrastructure Task Force are sponsoring the day-long conference. The morning session of the summit will be open to the public and the press. In addition to the Vice President Gore, Members of Congress, Commerce Secretary Ron Brown, Federal Cmmunications Commission Chairman Reed Hundt, and elected and appointed state and local telecommunications officials also will participate including representatives from the National Association of Counties, National Black Caucus of State Legislators, the National League of Cities and the United States Conference of Mayors. Media who would like more information about press coverage should contact Stephanie Schoumacher at the Department of Commerce 202-482-1551. ------------------------------ Subject: FCC Proposes To Fine AT&T $1,000,000 For Comm Act Violations From: drharry!aboritz@uunet.uu.net (Alan Boritz) Date: Mon, 09 Jan 95 00:05:30 EST Organization: Harry's Place - Mahwah NJ - +1 201 934 0861 From ftp.fcc.gov: NEWS Report No. CC 95-2 COMMON CARRIER ACTION January 4, 1995 FCC PROPOSES $1 MILLION FORFEITURE AGAINST AT&T FOR FAILING TO PROVIDE SERVICE TO RESELLERS The Commission has notified AT&T of its apparent liability for forfeiture in the amount of $1,000,000 for violating the Communications Act by failing to provide service to three reseller customers who requested service under an AT&T contract tariff. The Commission additionally has directed AT&T to show cause why it should not be required to furnish the service requested to GE Communications Systems, Inc. and Public Service Enterprises, Inc. within 30 days of the release of the Commission's Order. The third reseller customer has informed the Commission that it no longer wishes to obtain service under that contract tariff. The Communications Act requires common carriers to furnish interstate communication service upon reasonable request. The Commission found that, although three resellers ordered service under AT&T's Contract Tariff Number 383 in August and September of 1993, AT&T has not yet delivered service to the two reseller customers who still wish to receive service, nor has it provided a satisfactory reason for its delay in providing the service. The third reseller customer never received service under the contract tariff, and withdrew its request in late June 1994. The Commission has admonished carriers in the past to make all efforts to provide a requested service, and states further in the Order that "[t]his admonition is particularly relevant when an important Commission policy, such as our resale requirements, is thwarted by a carrier's refusal to provide service." The Commission has previously stated that unrestricted resale of communications services provides a valuable stimulus to competition, by creating incentives for carriers to offer services at prices that more closely reflect the underlying cost of providing the service. The unrestricted resale policy also reduces the likelihood of undue discrimination in the marketplace. The Commission stated that AT&T is apparently liable for a forfeiture of the statutory maximum of $1,000,000 because of the apparently intentional and continuing nature of the apparent violation of the Communications Act. Pursuant to Commission rules, AT&T must either pay the proposed forfeiture within thirty days, or file a response showing why the proposed forfeiture should not be paid or should be reduced. Action by the Commission, December 30, 1994, by Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order to Show Cause (FCC 94-359). Chairman Hundt, Commissioners Barrett, Ness and Chong, with Commissioner Quello concurring in part and dissenting in part. -FCC- News Media contact: Susan Lewis Sallet and Audrey Spivack at (202) 418-0500. Common Carrier Bureau contacts: Donna Lampert at (202) 418-1500 and Debra Sabourin at (202) 418-1530. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Jan 1995 11:03:48 +0100 From: jean@xs4all.nl (Jean B Sarrazin) Subject: Phone Rates From Israel Would anyone know the phone rates from Israel to the US, Canada, UK, and Argentina? Thanks! Jean B Sarrazin Ekkosys Communications BV Amsterdam ------------------------------ From: meier@jolt.mpx.com.au (Alan Meier) Subject: PABX/IVR/Computer Integration Help Wanted Date: Mon, 09 Jan 1995 21:42:18 +1100 Organization: Suzanne Paul (Australia) Pty Ltd We are an inbound Telemarketing organization and I have been charged with the responsibility of putting together a system that will allow our Unix based database application work in concert with both a PABX and IVR equipment.I need some advice as to whether I am making the right equipment choice or not and I was hoping that someone with more knowledge than my own limited experience with Telepony equipment may be able to assist me. The PABX I have chosen is the NEX 7400 series as it seemed the only PABX that had a decent computer interface into the PABX. I have also looked at the voicemail systems and had settled on teh DECVox system although it does seem rather expensive they are asking 25,000 Australian dollars for an eight port VoiceMail/IVR System. Could someone please advise me as to whether my choice in equipment is wise and if not what equipment should I be considering. Thanks in advance to all those who reply to me. Hoping for some relies, Alan Meier ------------------------------ From: jspinnow@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu (John Stewart Pinnow) Subject: Hayes Optima VS DEC SERVER 200 Revised Date: 9 Jan 1995 03:23:30 GMT Organization: Tmoh Research, Milwaukee, WI Well, I have tried with or without autobaud enabled and with autobaud enable I have modems seeking a weird DTE: Port 3: Server: SERV02 Character Size: 8 Input Speed: 4800 Flow Control: XON Output Speed: 4800 Parity: None Modem Control: Enabled Access: Local Local Switch: None Backwards Switch: None Name: PORT_6 Break: Disabled Session Limit: 4 Forwards Switch: None Type: Soft Now the port works, the other modem connects at 19200, but is jerky. I have configured one Zyxel (spelling?) and one Intel modem (With no manual to be found) to work on the same server and it just so happens their input and output speed is at a cozy 19200. The Optimas are doomed ... does anyone out there know what is going on? I ditched CTS/RTS ... and use Xon/Xoff. The future doesn't look bright for this modem pool. Tmoh Research Net: jspinnow@csd.uwm.edu Net: jspinnow@world.std.com John S. Pinnow jspinnow@netcom.com Url: http://www.uwm.edu/~jspinnow [414] 761-1537 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Jan 95 07:12 EST From: bellaire@iquest.net (James Bellaire) Subject: 1-900 = $100,000 Fraud! The phone fraud files are open again! From the evening news ... > From WFRN-FM (Elkhart, IN) Radio News ... 1-6-95 (Names may be misspelled due to this being transcribed from a tape of a radio news broadcast.) The case of a Kosciusco County teen accused of using other people's credit card numbers to charge $100,000 worth of 1-900 calls is a reminder to keep a close eye on our long distance bill. Eighteen-year-old James Rhinehart (SP?) of Etna Green was jailed for theft and fraud. Mary Lee Cesna (?) of GTE in Elkhart says she's never seen a case like that here in Michiana. She says anytime we are billed for a long distance call we did not make we should contact the phone company who sent the bill. "You need to have that as a record that you did not make that call, even if it's 20 cents, because the following month it could be $20. And you want to make sure that whoever is your billing company knows that you did not make those calls." (Spokeswoman) Cesna says the company uses that information to pursue an investigation into the posibility of fraud such as in the Rhinehart case. WSBT-TV 28 (Elkhart, IN) Eleven O'Clock News added the following ... Police say Rhinehart made 30 - 40 900 calls per day to a sex line, charging them to area residents. Even the local sheriff was hit in this scam. [The sheriff then explained the scam.] GTE said they would remove the charges from the bills. --------------- How did he do it? The Etna Green telco is an old GTE telco that does not provide ANI information. The 900 service asked callers who did not come with ANI info to enter their number to continue, Rhinehart just entered other people's numbers at random. GTE's spokewoman assured Elkhart customers that their exchange provided ANI directly and was not vunerable to this kind of fraud. Sounds like the 1-900 sex line has the responsibility here. Manual input of your ANI should never be allowed! When I first heard this I thought this brat was a misguided genius. I didn't know the 900 service had made it so easy! bellaire@iquest.net James E. Bellaire [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: There are very few places left where ANI does not come with the territory, so to speak. There are very few places where telco information providers do not get all the records they need to accurately bill for their services. I thought in those few instances where ANI could not be provided for whatever reason, the IP simply did not give service, or required some other method of billing such as a credit card. Like yourself, I'm amazed the IP took the customer's word for it. In regular long distance calling (or any call where a toll is involved) it is rare, but occassionally there will be an ANI failure for whatever reason, and in those cases the long distance operator will come on the line and ask 'what is the number you are calling from?'. People sometimes lie about that also, but I guess it is not quite as critical with the small amount of money involved nor is it as likely to be abused as are sex phone lines. Old people like myself on this mailing list will remember how many years ago the long distance operator had to ask the caller for his phone number on every single call. Even the local /0/ operator only got the prefix or exchange you were calling from ... not the last four digits. The way the switching machinery worked in those days, by the time your call reached its destination -- even if that was just the operator -- the last four digits had been lost in the matrix. There was no easy way to prove or disprove what the customer *said* his phone number was short of having one of the guys in the frames walk around rack after rack, row after row looking at the switches as one led to the next and the next, etc. AT&T did not invent the Electronic Switching System (ESS) purely to combat fraud, but that certainly was one side-affect; some icing for the cake. It had gotten in the early 1970's to the point where for all intents and purposes the public telephone network in the USA was completely out of control. Too many subscribers knew too much about how the system operated for AT&T's comfort. In 1970 toll fraud was at an all time high. At a hearing that year when New York Telephone wanted to raise their rates, a commissioner of the state utility regulators asked NYT how much they had to write off the year before due to toll fraud and the answer was about eight million dollars, by 1969 values ... that news was shocking enough that it received a large write up in quite a few newspapers nationally. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V15 #16 ***************************** Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa20394; 9 Jan 95 21:44 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (4.1/SMI-4.0-proxy) id AA10316; Mon, 9 Jan 95 16:43:16 CST Return-Path: Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (4.1/SMI-4.0-proxy) id AA10305; Mon, 9 Jan 95 16:43:12 CST Date: Mon, 9 Jan 95 16:43:12 CST From: telecom@delta.eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson)) Message-Id: <9501092243.AA10305@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #17 TELECOM Digest Mon, 9 Jan 95 16:43:00 CST Volume 15 : Issue 17 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Cellular Telecommunications - GAO Report (Keith Bonney) MCI Paging Announcement (0003436453@mcimail.com) FCC Proposes to Restrict Access to Cellular 911 (Doug Reuben) DQDB and SMDS (Kristoff Bonne) Looking for X.25 Concentrator (Paul D. Guthrie) Wireless CO's Challenge New NPAs? (Linc Madison) 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: * telecom-request@eecs.nwu.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: 9457-D Niles Center Road Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 708-329-0571 Fax: 708-329-0572 ** Article submission address only: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu ** Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * 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. * ************************************************************************* Additionally, 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: gao-docs@MAILHOST.GAO.GOV (gao-docs) Subject: Cellular Telecommunications - GAO Report Date: 9 Jan 1995 08:42:46 -0600 Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway The U.S. General Accounting Office, the Congressional watchdog agency, has recently released the following report: *** ASCII Full Text Access and Ordering Info Follows *** TITLE: Telecommunications: Status of Research on the Safety of Cellular Telephones RPTNO: RCED-95-32 DOCUMENT DATE: 11/04/94 ABSTRACT: On the basis of present scientific knowledge, federal agencies have no reason to take regulatory action on the use of portable cellular telephones because no research has been completed on long-term human exposure to the low levels of radiation generated by these phones and research findings on exposure to other sources of low-level radio-frequency radiation are inconclusive. According to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the National Science Foundation, both epidemiological and laboratory studies are needed to determine any link between cellular telephone use and human diseases. The cellular telecommunications industry plans to do both types of studies. If federal regulators want to use this research, they need assurances that it will be carried out objectively. FDA is working with ellular telephone manufacturers on the possibility of redesigning portable cellular telephone and on providing users with instruction for proper use. The Federal Communications Commission has proposed revising standards set by the American National Standards Institute for radio-frequency radiation; this standard may be applied to cellular telephones. *************************************************************** This report is available both in print and electronically. *************************************************************** Table of Contents - ELECTRONIC ORDER INFO - PRINTED COPY ORDER INFO - ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON GAO REPORTS - GAO'S DAYBOOK VIA INTERNET NEWSGROUPS - GAO'S DAYBOOK VIA FAX - GAO ANNUAL INDEX - SUBSCRIPTION: GAO'S MONTHLY CATALOG OF REPORTS & TESTIMONY - GAO REPORTS CATALOGED ON OCLC - SUGGESTIONS/COMMENTS - FUTURE PLANS - BACKGROUND ***************** ELECTRONIC ORDER INFORMATION **************** To access GAO reports as FULL TEXT ASCII electronic files from the Government Printing Office (GPO) BBS, follow these steps: 1) TELNET to and designate "port 3001" or dial 202-512-1387 (Menu Selection #22 on FEDWORLD); (***NOTE*** Depending on how your system accesses the TELNET feature, you may need to TELNET to this address: ^^^^^ and hit return a few times after connecting. You should receive a greeting screen. If you receive a prompt for "PASSWORD", something is wrong. Either re-try or contact GPO at the phone number below.) 2) Log in or register on system (type: "NEW" if first time user); 3) From the Main Menu, select "File Library System - 6"; 4) Select "S - Select Library"; 5) Type: "GAO_RPTS"; 6) Select file name: Telecommunications: RC95032.TXT ***************************************************************** Any questions on using the GPO system should be referred to GPO at 202-512-1530. Please do NOT use this e-mail address for questions about the GPO system or for ordering reports. GPO charges a fee to download each file. Exact costs are listed on the GPO system. **************************************************************** PRINTED COPY ORDER INFORMATION Printed copies via U.S. Mail are also available by calling 202-512-6000 (TDD number is 301-413-0006), sending a FAX to 301-258-4066, or by writing to: P.O. Box 6015, Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015. Please include the report number and complete postal mailing information in your request. Telephone requests can be made 24 hours a day, seven days a week. During non-business hours, leave a voice mail message with complete information, including the report number and postal mailing information. Copies may also be picked up at the GAO headquarters at: 700 - 4th St., NW, Washington, DC. Sorry, we are NOT able to accept electronic orders for printed documents at this time. The first printed copy is FREE of charge. Additional copies are $2.00. **************************************************************** ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON GAO REPORTS GAO's Daily and Monthly Listing of Reports The U.S. General Accounting Office, Congress' Watchdog agency, now has available a daily electronic posting of released reports. The "GAO Daybook" is the daily listing of released GAO reports. The "Reports and Testimonies Issued in Month/Year", includes abstracts of the items issued that month, arranged by subject. To access both the "GAO Daybook" and "Reports and Testimonies Issued in Month/Year" on the INTERNET simply: - use the TELNET feature on your system, - access the site , - log on as "guest" (password: "visitor" - must use LOWER case), and - type "go gao" at the main menu (*NOTE* The CapAccess system has been experiencing extremely heavy loads and may not accept guest logins. We apologize for any inconvenience and suggest trying at a later time.) Ordering information is included in the GAO menu. Any questions or comments can be sent to . Please do NOT use this address for ordering reports. *************************************************************** GAO'S DAYBOOK VIA INTERNET NEWSGROUPS GAO's Daybook is also available via INTERNET Newsgroups. Daily postings are made to: alt.politics.org.misc *************************************************************** GAO'S DAYBOOK VIA FAX GAO's Daybook is available by FAX, also. The automated voice menu number is: 301-258-4097 You can use a touch tone telephone to access a menu system to request GAO Daybooks -- via FAX -- 24 hours a day. You only need your FAX number and a touch tone telephone for this service. There is no charge for this service. *************************************************************** GAO ANNUAL INDEX GAO Abstracts and Index of Reports and Testimony: Fiscal Year 1993 (GAO/OIMC-94-3A and GAO/OIMC-94-3B) A two volume set, this valuable reference publication provides an excellent overview of the U.S. General Accounting Office's (GAO) work during FY 1993. The first volume (219 pages) summarizes more than 1,000 reports issued between October 1992 and September 1993. The second volume (418 pages) contains comprehensive indexes that allow the reader to quickly locate documents of interest. To order a FREE copy, see PRINTED COPY ORDER INFORMATION section above. *************************************************************** SUBSCRIPTION: GAO'S MONTHLY CATALOG OF REPORTS & TESTIMONY Each month, GAO issues a catalog titled "Reports and Testimonies Issued in Month/Year". This catalog includes abstracts of the items issued that month, arranged by subject. The catalog also includes an order form and order information. Subject areas include: Health, Defense, Environment, Transportation, Education, International Affairs, Budget, Tax, and many other subject areas involving federal spending. For a FREE mail subscription to GAO's "Reports and Testimonies Issued in Month/Year", please send a request via one of the modes described above in the PRINTED COPY ORDER INFORMATION section. *************************************************************** GAO REPORTS CATALOGED ON OCLC All current GAO reports are cataloged on the OCLC system. *************************************************************** SUGGESTIONS/COMMENTS GAO is very interested in your feedback on products and services. We welcome any suggestions you might have to help improve our services. Because of the volume of inquiries, we are unable to directly respond to each suggestion. However, we can assure you that all comments posted will be read and passed on to the appropriate GAO office. Please forward comments and suggestions to: Thank you. *************************************************************** BACKGROUND The U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) is a nonpartisan agency within the legislative branch of government. GAO conducts audits, surveys, investigations, and evaluations of federal programs. This work is either self initiated or done at the request of congressional committees or members. GAO's findings and recommendations are published as reports to congressional members or delivered as testimony to congressional committees. ************************************************************* FUTURE PLANS Future plans for electronic distribution of GAO's reports include establishing a dedicated INTERNET site. The GAO INTERNET site will host the full text of all newly released GAO reports and search and retrieval options. Current plans call for establishing a GOPHER service, Anonymous FTP capablitity and a WAIS server. Details are still being developed and implementation is expected in 1995. The future GAO INTERNET site will NOT charge for downloading information. Watch this space for further details and progress reports. ************************************************************* Thank You! Keith Bonney Information Services Center Office of Information Management and Communications U.S. General Accounting Office Room 6530 Washington, DC 20548 * 202-512-4448 VOICE* 202-512-3373 FAX* *Note: Please do NOT use this address/number for ordering GAO reports. Please see information above. Thank you! ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Jan 95 09:36 EST From: Hardwire <0003436453@mcimail.com> Subject: MCI Paging Announcement CONTACT: Ed Bergstraesser/Frank Walter MCI Business Markets 1-312-938-4958 1-800-644-NEWS Carol Aarhus MCI Consumer Markets 1-800-436-9749 MCI ENTERS NATIONAL WIRELESS MARKET THROUGH MAJOR PAGING INITIATIVES Agreements with SkyTel and PageNet to make wireless messaging services more available to MCI residential and business customers WASHINGTON, DC, January 6, 1995 -- Capitalizing on the continued growth of the wireless messaging market, MCI today announced agreements with the nation's leading paging companies, Paging Network, Inc. (PageNet) and SkyTel Corporation, to provide wireless messaging services nationwide to consumers and businesses under the MCI brand name. "MCI's goal is to provide, through one-stop shopping for consumers and businesses, an ever-broadening range of communication services under the MCI brand name," said Timothy F. Price, executive vice president and group president, MCI Communications Services. "Already, the wireless marketplace has attracted 20 million customers. In ten years, the market will skyrocket to nearly 90 million people and be valued at 40 billion to 50 billion dollars. Through alliances like these -- and many more on the way -- MCI expects to capture a significant share of that market." With this announcement, MCI is the first major long distance company to offer paging and wireless messaging services with the nation's largest wireless messaging companies. Paging Integrated with Friends & Family Service Leveraging its own successful marketing and branding strategies, MCI will provide local and nationwide messaging services to its millions of Friends & Family customers as part of the company's just-announced Friends & Family Connections program. Friends & Family Connections is the industry's first package of services designed to meet the total communications needs of today's teleconsumer by offering E-mail and residential 800 services -- and now paging -- to complement its long distance telephone services. Wireless Services Also Target Businesses Targeting the growing mobile work force, MCI will market paging and messaging services to businesses under the brand name, networkMCI Paging. The company will utilize its extensive national sales organization to market networkMCI Paging to businesses of all sizes. In addition to offering businesses paging along with long distance services, MCI will integrate paging with MCI's latest business communications software package, networkMCI BUSINESS. Users of networkMCI BUSINESS will be able to send and receive wireless messages via the package's e-mail component and also receive news bulletins on the pager from the package's news service, infoMCI. Business customers of networkMCI Paging will be able to customize the scope of their paging services to reflect their individual local or national requirements. "The two agreements have immediate and significant appeal to both mobile professionals and consumers who want the convenience of paging and messaging services, along with simple bill payment," added Price. "Customers reap the benefit of unparalleled customer service and responsiveness provided by MCI and the integrity of its network. In a sense, MCI is creating a new market, one where paging services combine with traditional telephone service to become part of everyday communications." The agreements extend already strong relationships between MCI and the two companies. MCI is already primary provider of 800 phone service for both companies in separate contracts. SkyTel, the pioneer in nationwide and international messaging, offers the broadest range of service options to meet the needs of business professionals who travel locally, regionally or nationwide. With the SkyTel network, customers receive text messages, electronic mail, fax and voice mail notification, and news and information updates wirelessly using paging and computing devices. The SkyTel network offers service to all major business corridors. SkyTel will also offer, in the second half of 1995, the first two-way paging and messaging services using its Destineer network. In 1994, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) awarded the first-ever Pioneer's Preference License solely to Destineer, SkyTel's sister subsidiary. Destineer also purchased two additional licenses at the narrowband PCS auctions. PageNet owns and operates the country's most extensive nationwide digital transmission network covering more than 90 percent of the U.S. population. The company was recently awarded three nationwide licenses at the narrowband PCS auctions conducted by the Federal Communications Commission. With more than 4.1 million subscribers, PageNet is the largest wireless messaging company in the United States. The company provides messaging services to the United States, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. It also markets local, regional and nationwide paging services as well as news and stock updates, voice mail, fax forwarding and wireless data transmission to palmtop computers. PageNet expects to begin testing the world's first wireless pocket answering machine, VoiceNow (R), in the second half of 1995. MCI, headquartered in Washington, D.C., has grown from its core long distance business to become the world's third largest carrier of international calling and a premier provider of data communications over the vast Internet computer network. With annual revenues of $12 billion, the company today provides a wide array of consumer and business long distance and local services, data and video communications, on-line information, electronic mail, network management services and communications software. ------------------------------ From: dreuben@netcom.com (CID Tech/INSG) Subject: FCC Proposes to Restrict Access to Cellular 911 Date: Mon, 9 Jan 1995 02:31:09 PST I saw this post (which is somewhat edited for Telcom relevance) on the Telecommunications Roundtable Policy Forum (rountable@cni.org FOR POSTS!), and thought that the Digest may be interested in this recent FCC cellular proposal. My comments/responses to the Roundtable are included below the commented text. Doug ----------------------------- Recently, Jim Conran wrote: > The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) issued a Notice of Proposed > Rulemaking (Notice)(Docket Number 94-102) on October 19, 1994 in the > Matter of Revising the FCC Rules to ensure Compatibility with Enhanced 911 > Systems. [...] The proposed rulemaking requires wireless carriers to > provide this service only to "service initialized" users or users that > purchase their cellular phones from a wireless service provider. This is an innane idea, probably suggested by some of the more stingy cellular companies who want to squeeze every dime of airtime out of customers that they can. They basically don't want people getting a phone on their commission, dropping service after the minimum service period, and as a result gaining an essentially free (or close to it) phone which they can always call emergency services with "just in case" and not have to ever pay a monthly charge. This ruling is also contradictory (I suspect) with the FCCs "roaming operator" regs. which seem to require carriers to allow non-validated roamers to place credit card or calling card calls while roaming on a system. Typically, this is encountered when a roamer enters a non-home service area where there is no service on the same "side" (A/B) as the roamer's home serive provider, and thus he/she is forced to switch to the other side to place calls through the roaming operator. Since all calls are placed and paid for by use of a credit card or calling card, there is no need to validate a given user. (I've used the roaming operator on phones with totally invalid ESN/MIN combos, such as a MIN with 312-000-1212, and it worked fine.) Does this new FCC proposal take this into consideration at all? > This proposed arcane requirement is quite contradictory to the FCC's > ultimate objective of providing "broad accessibility" to 911 services. > Cellular users will have the expectation that when they use their phone to > contact 911 during an emergency, they will have immediate contact with the > operator. Consumers will not think to question the reliability of their > cellular phone or the wireless service providers, instead public > confidence on the 911 emergency system will be jeopardize. Indeed ... one of the main reasons I tell people NOT to lock out the "other side" from their phones is that if they ARE in a dead spot with, for example, the "A" carrier, the phone will seek the "B" carrier while the "A" carrier signal is too weak, and thus a call to 911 will then go through. If a phone IS locked to one's preferred "side", and they encounter a dead spot, it will at best take them some time to switch sides (if they know how to do so), and at worst be tragic if they are unable to report an emergency in time. > The Alliance for Public Access to 911 (Alliance) believes that in order > for the FCC's proposed rulemaking on the "broad availability of 911 and > enhanced 911 services" to be fully recognized, the FCC must require all > cellular switches to accept all 911 calls. Hmmm ..."require" all "switches"? Don't you mean "carriers". The switches can accept anything, including state police numbers, non-emergency numbers for disabled motorists (#77 in MD for example), etc. I think the regulations should: A) Mandate that ALL carriers allow access to 911/*911/etc. services and that they can NOT block access to these services for non-validated phones. They may, however, block access to phones on the STOLEN ESN list (not just ESN deny, you can get ESN deny for a lot of reasons other than true fraud, and you don't want to prevent people who are erroneously placed on the "denied" list [it happens a lot!] from making 911 calls while they wait for their carrier to fix the "deny" situation.) B) Allow local authorities (state DPUCs, etc.) to mandate further codes which as in "A", state that cellcos MUST allow free and unrestricted 911 access, and which manadate that they are not allowed to block such calls, except for STOLEN ESN phones. This would allow MD to keep #77, Mass to keep *MSP, etc. (You don't want to create a market for stolen phones: If 911 would work even from stolen phones where the actual physical equipment were stolen, people would have a reason to take them. By preventing 911 on stolen phones, you prevent this from ever becoming a problem, even if it would only be a limited problem anyhow.) > In addition, the FCC should require all cellular phones to be > equipped to access the strongest cellular base station signal when 911 > is called. Just 911? There are a lot of codes which shoulds be allowed, and in some cases 911 won't even work. How will this work in Canada? Won't the CRTC have to go along with this change in the AMPS format treats 911 calls? I don't think it's a good idea to mess with the AMPS protocol after the fact. Cell phones (well, the switches) normally seek the strongest signal path when available, so the only important thing here is to make switching from A to B easy (ie, have simple codes or mechanisms by which a customer can override the "A" only or "B" only settings.) What you MAY want to do is have the FCC require that user equipment manufacturers ALLOW 911 calls to go through from a given phone even if the SID for a given roaming system is blocked. Frequently, the "A" carrier in a given market will block the "B" carrier in the same market by blocking out the "B" carrier's SID code when the phone is being programmed. So, if a given user encountered a dead spot on the "A" side and tried to use the "B" side to place a call, the call would be denied by the PHONE, not the switch. As a result, no call is even SENT to the switch, and the cell customer is stuck without a way out unless he/she knows how to reprogram the phone on the spot (not likely for most customers.) > Finally, the FCC should make the 911 provision an issue as it > currently reconsiders cellular license renewal applications. The > issue of safety and security for all Americans is too important an > issue to be compromised. Indeed ... as it is they "overlook" a great deal too many things when reconsidering a cellular license; universal 911 access should NOT be one of them. Doug Reuben dreuben@netcom.com (203) 499 - 5221 Interpage Network Services Group E-Mail/Telnet Gateway to Faxes, Alpha and/or Numeric Pagers. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Jan 1995 17:54:56 +0000 From: KRISTOFF.BONNE@PIRESSYS.BELGACOM.RTTIPC.belgacom.be Subject: DQDB and SMDS Greetings to all, Can anybody explaine me what the difference and/or connection is between DQDB (Distributed-Queue dual-bus) and SMDS (Switched Multi-Megabit Data Service). Many thanks in advance, Kristoff Bonne, BelgaCom IS/TeLaNet netwerk planning en - beheer (C=BE;A=RTT;P=RTTIPC;S=Bonne;G=Kristoff) fax : +32 2 2025497 kristoff.bonne@belgacom.rttipc.belgacom.be voice mail : +32 70 615492 ------------------------------ From: paul@vorpal.digex.net (Paul D. Guthrie) Subject: Looking For X.25 Concentrator Date: 9 Jan 1995 12:37:06 GMT Organization: Vorpal Software I'm looking for a piece of equipment that I can best term as an X.25 concentrator. I have a need to connect a number (4 would be good) of X.25 host connections at low speeds (up to 56K) into a single X.25 host connection (again low speed - 56K). I can't use stat muxs, etc, because I need a single X.25 channel at the other end. I don't really term this as a switch because I will only be making calls from one direction, from the individual ports to the "multiplexed" port. In theory, this should be simple to do because there is no address resolution to be done (any inbound call goes out a single port). This is essentially to support a multidrop X.25 type setup for devices that do not support multidrop X.25. Has anyone seen something that can do the above? Price is important because I would buy quite a few. I've looked at low end switches, such as the Netrix series 100, but at $4K approx entry price, this is a little too pricy for the small amount of functionality I am looking for. Please email any suggestions. Paul Guthrie paul@vorpal.digex.net ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Jan 1995 06:26:20 -0800 From: LincMad@netcom.com (Linc Madison) Subject: Wireless CO's Challenge New NPAs? In some of the recent discussions of the swarm of new area codes coming this year, I've seen notations that the wireless companies are challenging plans to move wireless services (cellular, beepers, etc.) into an overlay area code. The challenges are being made to the state regulators and/or to the FCC. My question is, on what grounds are they challenging the overlays? It seems to me that the tariffs have always been pretty clear that the telco does not in any way guarantee that you will be able to keep a given number or area code. It seems to me that the wireless companies are being very silly in fighting the new area codes. One of the places where I saw such a footnote on the area code list was Chicago, where 630 was supposed to enter service yesterday with wireless services from 708, but the wireless companies are fighting it. What is the status? Is 630 up and running or delayed? Linc Madison * Oakland, California * LincMad@Netcom.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: 630 was put in service over the weekend, although I don't think there are any subscribers in that 'area code' yet. The wireless people are fighting it because they say it will impose a hardship on just their customers who will *always* have to dial an eleven digit number to call elsewhere in what is essentially one large metro area. On the other hand the people in 312 or 708 will presumeably be able to dial seven digits for many/most of their calls, needing only to go eleven digits when calling the other code or *any* wireless number. So the wireless people are saying let's spread the grief out equally among everyone. If necessary, divide northern Illinois in three parts (in place of the present two) and have a more or less equal distribution of 312/708/630 (and of course bits of 815, but not many) among both land line and wireless customers. The last report I recieved early Monday was that Ameritech has agreed to put 'some of' the new subscribers 'beginning next year sometime' in 708 into 630. They have not said what communities will be affected. They did say all existing 708 subscribers would be grandfathered 'if they wanted it' in 708. It will probably be one of those deals where if you move then you lose your grandfather status and wind up in 630. I can't really say for sure. No one has contacted me about changing the 708 number on my pager, and the local Radio Shack manager says no one at the pager or cellular offices he works with have told him very much about giving out 630 numbers ... yet here it is the day after it has officially been started. The local RS guy does not sell that many pagers or cell phones so that may be why. He said they told him next time he calls in to get a new subscriber turned on they will 'probably' give him a 630 number. My feeling is you won't see much activity out of 630 for several months to a year. I tried a few known cellular exchanges at random just now with 630 as the area code; every single one was intercepted 'not in service'. However 630-555-1212 *is* working; at least I *think* I reached it as dialed ... she told me she was in downtown Chicago (312)! It could be the local central office plucked it away when it saw the 630-555 and simply handed me to local directory assistance. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V15 #17 ***************************** Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa24168; 10 Jan 95 6:57 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (4.1/SMI-4.0-proxy) id AA21479; Tue, 10 Jan 95 02:23:10 CST Return-Path: Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (4.1/SMI-4.0-proxy) id AA21472; Tue, 10 Jan 95 02:23:07 CST Date: Tue, 10 Jan 95 02:23:07 CST From: telecom@delta.eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson)) Message-Id: <9501100823.AA21472@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #18 TELECOM Digest Tue, 10 Jan 95 02:23:00 CST Volume 15 : Issue 18 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson GSM Cellular Operators List (Robert Lindh) Looking For a CE3 Interface (34 MB/s Euro Std) (Gianni Paglia) Used Phone Systems and Parts - Want to Buy (David M. Russell) 800 Numbers and Caller ID? (Glenn Foote) Standard Voice Recording/Sheila Andersen? (dan@decode.com) Source Code For Audio-Voice Modem Programming? (dan@decode.com) First NNX Area Code Officially in Service is 630? (Carl Moore) Looking for C7 Information (seen@ripco.com) Some Questions About the LDDS Calling Card (Yeechang Lee) Cellular Phone Technology (Stan Brown) Correction: Communications FTP Server in Australia (Iaen Cordell) Congresspersons Interested in Telemarketing Policy? (Anthony E. Siegman) Wanted: Info on Fax/Modem Hookup For Motorola Lazer Cell Phone (M Chapman) Video Servers (Alwin Mulder) Is TeleScript Already Available? (Paul Boots) Looking For Areacode Program (Al Cohan) 911 Providers: Watch For 912 Calls (Scot E. Wilcoxon) Re: Noise Introduced by Bit-Robbing? (Rick Duggan) Re: Finland Data Transmission (Kimmo Ketolainen) Re: MANs in USA (Chuck Poole) Multiple ESN's per NAM (Chris J. Cartwright) 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: * telecom-request@eecs.nwu.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: 9457-D Niles Center Road Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 708-329-0571 Fax: 708-329-0572 ** Article submission address only: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu ** Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * 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. * ************************************************************************* Additionally, 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: etxlndh@eos99.ericsson.se (Robert Lindh) Subject: GSM Cellular Operators List Organization: Ericsson Telecom AB Date: Mon, 9 Jan 1995 15:11:07 GMT Australia Optus Vodafon Belgium Belgacom Denmark Tele Danmark Sonofon Estonia EMT Finland Telecom Radiolinja France Telecom SFR Germany D1, DeTeMobil D2, Mannesmann G Britain Cellnet Vodafon Greece Panafon STET Holland Telekom Hong Kong Smartone Hungary Pannon Westel Iceland Telekom Ireland Telecom Italy SIP Luxemburg Telekom Norway Tele-Mobil Netcom Portugal TMN Telecel South Africa MTN Vodacom Sweden Comviq Europolitan Telia Switzerland Telekom Turkey Turkcell Telsim ------------------------------ From: paglia@mln.mts (gianni.paglia) Subject: Looking For a CE3 Interface (34 MB/s Euro Std) Date: 9 Jan 1995 13:59:17 GMT Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation Reply-To: paglia@mln.mts (gianni.paglia) Hello, I'm looking for a Channelized E3 interface (34 Mb/s European standard) for PCI, ISA or VME bus. The interface board I need should have a 34 Mb/s E3 output, with multiplexed E1 channels (@ 2.0Mb/s) individually accessible from the board driver. I would like to know if an interface of this sort is commercially available. Thanks a lot for your info. Gianni Paglia Digital Equipment SPA - Milano (Italy) E-mail: gianni.paglia@mln.mts.dec.com ------------------------------ From: itelecom@bilbo.pic.net (David M. Russell) Subject: Used Phone Systems and Parts - Want to Buy Date: 9 Jan 1995 17:42:47 GMT Organization: Integrity Telecommunications I buy used phone systems and parts. Please fax inventory to 214-357-7485. My voice number is 214-357-7484 if you need assistance. ------------------------------ From: glnfoote@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Glenn Foote) Subject: 800 Numbers and Caller ID Date: 9 Jan 1995 13:44:24 -0500 Organization: The Greater Columbus Freenet Can someone explain IF, not why, full telephone numbers of people calling 800 numbers are shown (either on the bill, or as part of the call) to those who OWN the 800 numbers? Many thanks, Glenn L Foote ...... glnfoote@freenet.columbus.oh.us [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The answer is yes. People who have 800 numbers receive the ANI -- not the Caller-ID, although the resulting data output is almost always the same -- of the calling party, regardless of whether or not the calling party blocks their ID. Either they get it in real time (that is, as the call is in progress) or on a delayed basis with their monthly billing. The reason for this is the company or person paying for the call has a right to know what they are being required to pay for. Do not have privacy expectations when dialing an 800 number. PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: Standard Voice Recording/Sheila Andersen? From: System Operator Date: Mon, 09 Jan 95 12:49:20 EST Organization: Decode Systems Stephen Tihor writes: > I am trying to find in the archives the reference to the woman who did > various of the standard voice recordings. I recall reading the > article some time back but am having little luck finding it in the > archives. Can anyone supply a pointer. The name "Shiela Andersen" > probably misspelled was suggest to me by someone but I want ot check > the archives for the Straight Dope. :) The January/February 1995 issue of _Health_ magazine has an article beginning on page 38 entitled "What Your Voice Says About You." In it, the author describes meeting Joan Kenley, the telephone lady, who "is the digitized operator of directory assistance in most cities and towns from Spokane to Savannah." She is also the voice that instructs "The number you have dialed is not in service. Please check the number and try again." She is 53 years old and lives near Oakland, California. system@decode.com (System Operator) Cryptography, Security, Privacy BBS +1 410 730 6734 Data/FAX ------------------------------ Subject: Source Code For Audio-Voice Modem Programming? From: System Operator Date: Mon, 09 Jan 95 13:02:27 EST Organization: Decode Systems Hello, I'm looking for any sample or public domain source code used to control an audio-voice (AT+FCLASS 8) modem used in any kind of interactive application. Any pointers to FTP sites, etc, would be appreciated. Dan dan@decode.com system@decode.com (System Operator) Cryptography, Security, Privacy BBS +1 410 730 6734 Data/FAX ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Jan 95 15:53:47 EST From: Carl Moore Subject: First NNX Area Code Officially in Service is 630? Mail to the digest indicates that area 630 (an overlay on 312 and 708, at least for now) is the first NNX area code to go into service. 334 in Alabama and 360 in Washington state are to kick in Jan. 15. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Yes, but as noted yesterday in the Digest, don't expect a lot of activity in that code for a few months. It was to be an overlay only for wireless users, but now the wireless carriers are fighting with Ameritech to get 630 distributed equally over the entire 312/708 region, with wireline users included. Ameritech says 630 will 'eventually include some wireline users' in the next year or so. No one knows for certain yet just what all will be included. PAT] ------------------------------ From: seen@ripco.com (seen) Subject: Looking For C7 Information Organization: Ripco BBS, Free Trial account (312) 665-0065 Date: Mon, 9 Jan 1995 21:15:52 GMT I am looking for any information on CCITT #7. If you have any tutorials or texts, please let me know! seen@ripco.com ------------------------------ From: ycl6@sawasdee.cc.columbia.edu (Yeechang Lee) Subject: Some Questions About the LDDS Calling Card Date: 9 Jan 1995 23:27:04 GMT Organization: Trilateral Commission, Columbia University student chapter Reply-To: Yeechang Lee Well, I got the fabled LDDS calling card in the mail. You know, the one its salesmen annoy people in every newsgroup with ads about? It _is_ supposed to have much better rates than my AT&T or Sprint cards, and I guess I'll find out as soon as I need to use it. Anyway, a few questions: a) All I got in my envelope was the card (in a paper carrier). No brochure w/rates or anything. I sorta know the rates but would have liked a paper reference. Was there something missing? b) My card has the logo of "American Travel Network" on the upper-right-hand side. I also hear "Metromedia" associated with the LDDS name, but it doesn't appear on the card. Who's ATN, are there different versions of the card, and if so are there different rates? Anyway, thanks! Yeechang Lee (ycl6@columbia.edu)|Nevada Las Vegas Mission Jul'92-'94 Columbia University/New York City|Celestial Kingdom through Taco Bell ------------------------------ From: stanb@netcom.com (Stan Brown) Subject: Cellular Phone Technology Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Date: Mon, 9 Jan 1995 17:02:01 GMT Having recently acquired a cellular phone, I suddenly find myself curious about how the systems operate. Could someone point me to a good reference on the operation of cellular systems? I am particularly interested in the technical side (not economics) of roaming, and follow me. Thanks, Stan Brown stanb@netcom.com 404-996-6955 Factory Automation Systems Atlanta Ga. ------------------------------ From: iaenc@sydney.DIALix.oz.au (Iaen Cordell) Subject: Correction: Communications FTP Server in Australia Date: 10 Jan 1995 13:18:36 +1100 Organization: DIALix Services, Sydney, Australia. Please note: The FTP address in Australia is: happy.dotc.gov.au -- not happy.doc.gov.au. ^^^^ ^^^ iaen cordell [bad typing can create lots of e-mail] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Jan 95 20:08:12 PST From: Anthony E. Siegman Subject: Congresspersons Interested in Telemarketing Policy? Are there any members of the current Congress who are particularly concerned about telemarketing policy (in particular policies or legislation for controlling its use)? If you email responses to siegman@ee.stanford.edu I'll summarize. Thanks much. ------------------------------ From: Mike Chapman Subject: Wanted: Info on Fax/Modem Hookup For Motorola Lazer Cell Phone Organization: University of Virginia Date: Mon, 9 Jan 1995 16:59:49 GMT I got a Motorola Lazer pocket cell phone hoping to use it with my notebook, but when I asked how much the device to do this costs, I was very shocked to find that it was almost $300!! Is this price ridiculous? Is there a cheaper place to get the Motorola device? Are there any other options? Thanks! mike@chimera.med.virginia.edu mike%doxy@virginia.edu ------------------------------ From: alwin@ec.ele.tue.nl (Alwin Mulder) Subject: Video Servers Date: Mon, 9 Jan 1995 09:47:30 GMT Organization: Eindhoven University of Technology Hello, I am a graduation student at the University of Technology at Eindhoven, and I am working on a VOD project. I was wondering if anybody could tell me where I could find some information on video-server-systems. Are there any specific newsgroups and/or WWW-pages? Thanks in advance, Alwin Mulder ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Jan 1995 12:42:22 +0100 From: paul@gig.nl (Paul Boots) Subject: Is TeleScript Already Available? Hi all, Would there be anybody who can tell me if TeleScript is allready available. I heard and read a lot about it and I would love to get hands-on experience. So far all my inquiries at several companies produced no answer. Thanks, Paul Boots (paul@gig.nl) ------------------------------ From: ac554@lafn.org (Al Cohan) Subject: Looking for Areacode Program Reply-To: ac554@lafn.org (Al Cohan) Date: Tue, 10 Jan 1995 00:15:01 GMT I used to have an areacode/zipcode/V&H/Lat.& Lon. lookup program. Now, I can neither find it or remember where I got it. It was a massive 700K+ program in .zip format. If anyone can be of assistance, I would surely appreciate it. Thank you, Al ------------------------------ From: sewilco@fieldday.mn.org (Scot E. Wilcoxon) Subject: 911 Providers: Watch For 912 Calls Date: 9 Jan 1995 22:14:43 -0600 Organization: FieldDay The FOX TV show "The Simpsons" tonight had a joke where the punch line was that for better service, call the secret emergency number 912. As has been reported before, some older switches will connect to 911 when "91x" is dialed. Those readers who are involved in operating 911 centers might like to know this explanation if you notice a spike in hangup and other no-service calls. Scot E. Wilcoxon sewilco@fieldday.mn.org +1 612 936 0118 ------------------------------ From: duggan@cc.gatech.edu (Rick Duggan) Subject: Re: Noise Introduced by Bit-Robbing? Date: 9 Jan 1995 18:25:07 -0500 Organization: College of Computing In article , sohl,william h wrote: > In article , Matthew P. Downs > wrote: >> Unless you use ISDN, you are using robbed-bit signalling between your >> premise and the Central Office. Unless like a previous poster had >> stated, the robbed bits only become important during call set-up and >> tear-down. Ie. going on-hook and off-hook. Otherwise the robbed bits >> will be 1's. In a sense, the robbed bits are only important during call set-up and tear-down. However, since (a) we don't know when set-up/tear-down occurs and (b) we don't have control over where our PCM data goes, we can't use those bits at all. Which gets back to why it's called robbed-bit signaling in the first place. Their presence still affects the bandwidth that can be obtained. > If we are only talking about analog modems then the premise to Central > Office is probably not a DS0 channel, but rather a two wire circuit ... > and if the premise to the central office is an analog two wire circuit, > then there is NO bit-robbing from the premise to the Central Office. I disagree. Even assuming analog modems, the presence of a digital loop carrier in the path between the subscriber and the CO will likely mandate the use of robbed bit signaling. TR57 and TR08 both specify robbed bit signaling formats, and I'm pretty sure both types of interfaces are still in use today. I think even TR303 uses RBS for call progression. > It is, therefore, quite possible with today's trunking network to have > an end-to-end analog phone call (both ends are two wire, conventional > POTS lines) and the entire interoffice trunking for the call consisting > of 64 clear trunking (i.e. no robbed-bit signaling trunking at all). > As the network continues to evolve, that will be more and more the > likely connection until, at some future time, all robbed-bit trunking > is gone. I don't think we're necessarily talking about RBS on the trunking, but on the subscriber line from the CO to the remote digital terminal. I think, in fact, that an RDT is a lot more likely these days than a pure analog connection from premises to CO. I do agree with you that we are on the way to 64 clear all the way around. Rick Duggan - duggan@cc.gatech.edu -or- rduggan@bnr.ca Member of Scientific Staff at BNR OPC Software Development ------------------------------ From: Kimmo.Ketolainen@utu.fi (Kimmo Ketolainen) Subject: Re: Finland Data Transmission Organization: Turun yliopisto - University of Turku, Turku, Finland Date: Mon, 9 Jan 1995 23:32:58 GMT jackp@telecomm.admin.ogi.edu (Jack Pestaner) wrote: > We have been communicating to a site in Finland with autoranging 14.4k > modems. On a good day we can run at 9600, but typically at 2400. I'd suggest using the Internet for doing file transfer. Internet connections are available in most cities in Finland by Telecom Finland and the co-operating local companies of Telegroup of Finland. Kimmo Ketolainen University of Turku home +358 21 237 8227 Kimmo.Ketolainen@utu.fi shoe +358 40 500 2957 FIN-20540 Turku work +358 21 262 1496 ------------------------------ From: inrworks@gate.net (Chuck Poole) Subject: Re: MANs in USA Date: Mon, 9 Jan 1995 09:33:23 Organization: Voiceware Systems, Inc. > I need some help in getting info about Metropolitan Area Networks > in USA. The questions are: > 1. What is the physical structure of MANs (fiber, coax)? They are always constructed of fiber. > 2. If fiber what is the protocol (fddi, atm)? Both of these protocols are used, many times on the same network. These are both emerging standards (in the scheme of things). [From Newton's Telecom Dictionary (ISBN 0-936648-47-3) 216-691-8215 ] "FDDI is a 100 Mbps fiber optic LAN. It is an ANSI standard. It uses counter rotating token ring topology." This is a topology that is primarily used to connect servers together (data only). "... FDDI-II allows portions of the 100Mbps bandwith to carry low delay, constant bit rate, isochronous data like 64Kbps telephone channels." This would allow for voice/video applications. "ATM. Very high speed telecom transmission technology. ATM is a high bandwidth, low delay, packet-like switching and multiplexing technique." .. "The CCITT has selected ATM as the future broadband network..." I could not find specs on the actual speed, but it would not appear to matter as ATM divides its' data into 53 bye "cells" and throws them onto the pipe (whatever the speed it may be). Ofcourse, you could run into a problem trying to run too much video/voice/data if your pipe is not big enough. > 3. Who is the main investor (banks)? Governments, Commercial fiber owners (like MFS, AT&T, SPRINT), Joint Ventures, etc. Banks would usually just be a large customer. > 4. Does banks use MAN for data transmission? Banks use different means to transmit different data. There are established packet switched data networks for wire transfers. Usually point to point data circuits are used between branches. > 5. What services are provided, and which are most popular? In addition to all voice/data services, the sky's the limit! Video, Interactive services, and many more. Hope this helps, Chuck Poole Voiceware Systems, Inc. 407-655-1770 X14 ------------------------------ From: dsc3cjc@imc220.med.navy.mil (Chris J. Cartwright - ELF) Subject: Multiple ESN's per NAM Organization: National Naval Medical Center Date: Mon, 9 Jan 1995 14:01:57 GMT On my way home last night I called Cell One from my carphone about a minor service problem that I wanted to clear up. While on hold for ten minutes ( :(, at least the air time was free) I was pitched an ad for FlexPhone. It sounded like they were talking about multiple ESN's per NAM and since I also have a hand held it was a good match for what I wanted the phones to do since I got them two years ago. Wasting no time I stopped at the Cell One office before I got home. The ad was true! Cell One in Maryland is now offering up to three ESN's per NAM. The details are: CellularONE (SID 00013/0000D, 301-742-XXXX) - Two ESN's on one NAM $17.95/mo + reg. service price; - Three ESN's on one NAM 29.95/mo + reg. service price; - Activation within a minimum of 48 hours (yet to be seen); - Only the "primary" ESN can roam (??); - All calls are billed to a single number and no determination is made as to which phone placed the call. The above comes from the one page sheet I filled out at the office. It contains very little information over what you supply, ESN, MIN, Name, etc. and none of the *legal speak* I would expect on the back. What I found out by talking to the rep is that I was the first in their office to sign up and that if both phones are on at the same time whichever one rings is the one that gets the call (no kidding!). I find this more than interesting since last week I talked with BAM about switching both of these phones and getting a single number for both. The tech was very good about telling me what I *could* ;) do to accomplish this but the BAM party line is that two ESN's per NAM is forbidden in the Atlantic corridor (DC to Boston) because of the concerns about fraud. My FlexPhone service won't be enabled until Monday so I'll have to wait and see how it works before I give any kind of report. I do a fair amount of interstate traveling so I should have an answer on the roam for secondary ESN's in short order. Reading through back issues I've seen this mentioned from time to time as a technical discussion but this is the first time I've seen it available as a service. Chris Cartwright, Technical Engineer E-Mail dsc3cjc@imc220.med.navy.mil C-Serve 71614,2441 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Having two or more phones on the same number *used to be* a technical problem for carriers. If anyone else over on the east coast tries out this new arrangement and wishes to report on it to the Digest, I'm sure others will appreciate your report. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V15 #18 ***************************** Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa24580; 10 Jan 95 8:10 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (4.1/SMI-4.0-proxy) id AA22106; Tue, 10 Jan 95 03:42:13 CST Return-Path: Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (4.1/SMI-4.0-proxy) id AA22098; Tue, 10 Jan 95 03:42:09 CST Date: Tue, 10 Jan 95 03:42:09 CST From: telecom@delta.eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson)) Message-Id: <9501100942.AA22098@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #19 TELECOM Digest Tue, 10 Jan 95 03:42:00 CST Volume 15 : Issue 19 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: New Alert - 911 Access (Mike J. Sutter) Re: New Alert - 911 Access (Coast Guard Communications) Re: Is There a Telecom Group in Chicago? (Bernard Cerier) Re: Is There a Telecom Group in Chicago? (Randall Hayes) Re: Bell Atlantic Mobile Joins the PIN Crowd (Steve Cogorno) Re: Bell Atlantic Mobile Joins the PIN Crowd (reb@xyzzy.com) Re: Chatter Heard on Scanner Leads to Criminal Charges (Christopher Zguris) Re: Chatter Heard on Scanner Leads to Criminal Charges (John Higdon) Re: Chatter Heard on Scanner Leads to Criminal Charges (Tony Pelliccio) Re: Chatter Heard on Scanner Leads to Criminal Charges (Bennett Z. Kobb) Re: GSM in Canada? (Rupert Baines) Re: GSM in Canada? (John Leske) Re: Phone Card Reader Wanted (Kimmo Ketolainen) Re: Britain-Japan Fiber Cable (Kimmo Ketolainen) Re: Computer Caller-ID (Maurice Dykes) 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: * telecom-request@eecs.nwu.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: 9457-D Niles Center Road Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 708-329-0571 Fax: 708-329-0572 ** Article submission address only: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu ** Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * 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. * ************************************************************************* Additionally, 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: mjsutter@aol.com (Mjsutter) Subject: Re: New Alert - 911 Access Date: 9 Jan 1995 21:50:33 -0500 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: mjsutter@aol.com (Mjsutter) Jim Conran writes: > In addition, the FCC should require all cellular phones to be > equipped to access the strongest cellular base station signal when 911 > is called. Finally, the FCC should make the 911 provision an issue as > it currently reconsiders cellular license renewal applications. This is a good idea. However, it could be at odds with another good idea which is that the cell ID that the caller is using be passed through the cell switch to the tandem so tha the 911 database can use the cell ID as an approximate location of the caller. In metro areas the size of the cell would be very small indeed. Less that a year ago a life would have most likely been saved in Rochester N.Y. if this capability had been available. Cheers, mike ------------------------------ From: gttm@cais2.cais.com (USCG TELECOMMS) Subject: Re: New Alert - 911 Access Date: 9 Jan 1995 17:56:15 GMT Organization: U.S. Coast Guard I believe the closing date for comments in this FCC proceding is January 9th. The FCC proceding highlights some serious problems with 911 access from wireless systems, particularly satellite systems due to be available shortly. Coast Guard comments on this FCC proceding are available by Internet also, through the Fedworld gateway: "telnet fedworld.gov", log on, and enter "udd54" at the first menu. Once on the CG NIS computer (you have to log onto this also), find the file 911.TXT under Maritime Communications, Coast Guard Communications. Try downloading using KERMIT. (We plan to be up on WWW/gopher/ftp etc by this summer, by the way) JoeH COAST GUARD COMMUNICATIONS Telephone: (202) 267-2860 U.S. Coast Guard (G-TTM) Fax: (202) 267-4106 Washington DC 20593 Internet: CGComms/g-t07@cgsmtp.comdt.uscg.mil ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Jan 1995 12:56:14 -0500 From: BERNARD.CERIER@gte.sprint.com Subject: Re: Is There a Telecom Group in Chicago? Pat, In article logicarsch@aol.com asks about a telecommunications association in the Chicago area that has meetings, seminars and get-togethers, a little newsletter, etc. etc. for a hundred or two bucks a year. CICA, Inc. is the oldest organization in the US. It predates the ICA. They have a monthly newsletter, meet monthly (usually at Marshall Fields downtown) and have educational seminars. Dues are less that $50. The Executive Secretary is: Robert C. Hagglund 1905 W. Leland Avenue Chicago, IL 60601 312-271-7088 Fax 312-275-1002 President Patti Wolff Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago 230 S. laSalle Street Chicago, IL 60604 312-322-8200 Fax 312-322-5959 Through the newsletters you can be put in touch with specialized user groups: Midwest ROLM Users Group, Midwest Meridian SL1 Users Association, Centigram Voice Mail Users Association, etc. Bernie Cerier 15520 Mill Creek Blvd. H-103 Mill Creek, WA 98012 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Thanks very much for passing this on. PAT] ------------------------------ From: HayesR@uihc-telecomm-po.htc.uiowa.edu Date: 9 Jan 95 16:35 CST Subject: Re: Is There a Telecom Group in Chicago? > I'm looking for a group (in Chicago) that has meetings, seminars, and get- > togethers, a little newsletter..... The Chicago Industrial Communications Association ia a non-profit organization which promotes the exchange of ideas and information among telecom professionals. They are a part of the Midwestern Telecommunications Conference, which is a group of 13 midwestern telecom organizations (I belong to ITUG -- the Iowa Telecom User Group). For information, contact Steve Willuweit at 708-291-2106 or John Gacek at 312-663-3366. Randy Hayes randal-hayes@uiowa.edu ------------------------------ From: cogorno@netcom.com (Steve Cogorno) Subject: Re: Bell Atlantic Mobile Joins the PIN Crowd Date: Mon, 9 Jan 1995 20:29:56 PST Mark Robert Smith said: > LEADING CELLULAR CARRIERS JOIN FORCES TO PROTECT CUSTOMERS > FROM BECOMING PHONE FRAUD VICTIMS > The new effort combines a Personal Identification Number (PIN) code > system recently pioneered by NYNEX Mobile Communications in New York > City with a new Fraud Protection Zone technique developed by Bell > Atlantic Mobile. What happened to that fraud protection (was it made by TRW?) device that examined the radio signal from the cell phone? Last I heard, it was going to revolutionize the cellular industry and eliminate fraud. Steve cogorno@netcom.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Jan 95 00:30:13 EST From: reb@xyzzy.com (Phydeaux) Subject: Re: Bell Atlantic Mobile Joins the PIN Crowd This evening I was in the Bell Atlantic store in Union, NJ and I overheard another customer asking about the PIN stuff. He wanted to know whether or not he would need a PIN. The sales person told him that that was "Only for customers whose phones have been cloned." They would NOT assign a PIN unless you'd been cloned, because customers who had already been cloned were "most at risk." This seemed to me to be a completely screwed up way of handling the situation. I wonder if the sales person was quoting the old rules or the new rules ... reb reb@xyzzy.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Or maybe you have to wonder if the sales person knew what the rules were at all ... :) PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Jan 95 19:35 EST From: Christopher Zguris <0004854540@mcimail.com> Subject: Re: Chatter Heard on Scanner Leads to Criminal Charges gws@gwssun.cb.att.com (Gary Sanders) writes: > You have been listening to to many cell phone sales guys. First, many > scanners don't need to be modified (although new ones may) to listen to > cell phones. They come out of the box with cellular. As for snippets I > would beg to differ, I know some one who is an active cell listner > (-:)) and depending on your local cell configuration you will hear > most of all phone calls that are placed. "my friend" listened to > someone trying to explain how secure a cell phone is becuase its > allways changing freq. Was interesting considering the entire call > was 15 minutes long and never changed cells/freq. What recent scanners come with cellular enabled? _Recent_ equipment, that is. Regarding snippets, I'm sure it _does_ depend on the layout of the cells, but it _also_ depends on how fast the cellular phone is moving. If it is moving fast -- as opposed to stationary -- it will break up and move on to another cell/freq. If "your friend" is located in a major suburban area, he probably won't pick up many complete calls that last more than a minute or two. You've brought up _one_ instance of hearing an entire cell phone call. If that 15 minute call is the best "your friend" has heard -- especially when you consider some people talk on the phone for 30 or more minutes (hours on a "regular" phone) -- I'd say that kinda proves my point! Christopher Zguris czguris@mcimail.com (just another happy MCI customer) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Jan 1995 18:47:02 -0800 From: John Higdon Subject: Re: Chatter Heard on Scanner Leads to Criminal Charges > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You are wrong on a couple things, however > that is because of confusion over contradictory laws. Aside from what > the Electronic Commuications Privacy Act says, the Federal Communications > Commission addresses the question of radios which have been modified. > Illegal modification (i.e. modification by an unlicensed person) voids > your FCC authority to operate the radio. Furthermore, no *licensed* > person is going to make illegal modifications to a radio and risk having > such handiwork be traced back to his bench, at the possible risk of his > loss of his license. But this only applies to radios manufactured and offered for sale to the public and does NOT cover modifications made by an individual for his own use, or use by another. In fact, there is no prohibition of any kind with regard to the construction of a radio from scratch by an individual. Patrick, I know you are old enough to have possibly built the radios described in the various scouting handbooks. There was no requirement that one build the radio exactly as described, nor was there any requirement to have the completed device "certified" in any way. There has been no change in the basic rules in this regard since then that I am aware of. Transmitters are another story. FCC rules require that all transmitters be maintained and adjusted by a properly licensed technician. As the holder of such licenses since the 1960's, I am completely unaware of any grades of license requirement to service any receive-only equipment. Furthermore, I am unaware of any "FCC authority" required to operate any receive-only equipment. As scanners are incapable of transmission (the local oscillator incidental radiation notwithstanding), their possession, modification, or use are of absolutely no concern to the FCC. Using radio receivers in the commission of crimes is, of course, another matter. But after consulting the volumes of rules that I have handy, I can find no provision, nor specification of license grade, involved with maintenance, repair, modification, or adjustment of a radio receiver. What the Feds tell Radio Shack that it may or may not do is Radio Shack's problem and does not extend to you and me. I have probably a half-dozen scanners and service radios capable of receiving the cellular band. Two of them have that capability because I gave it to them. I don't think my FCC license is in any jeapardy. If I wanted to buy another, I would go to Japan and pick one up, or have a friend simply bring one with him on his return. Customs does not seize them -- they only want to know what they cost! Note that I am NOT claiming that I listen to cellular transmissions (that would be illegal). My only claim is that I legally possess radios capable of such activity and will probably continue to do so in perpetuity. John Higdon | P.O. Box 7648 | +1 408 264 4115 | FAX: john@ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | 10288 0 700 FOR-A-MOO | +1 408 264 4407 ------------------------------ From: Tony_Pelliccio@brown.edu (Tony Pelliccio) Subject: Re: Chatter Heard on Scanner Leads to Criminal Charges Date: 10 Jan 1995 03:49:50 GMT Organization: Brown University - Providence, RI USA > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I don't know where you shop, but all the > Radio Shack units make a point of cutting out the cellular frequencies. > So do quite a few others, and they have for a few years now. PAT] Actually the AOR-2500 comes through with the cell band intact. Or at least it did until the FCC attempted to clamp down on it. The nice thing is the AOR-2500 is considered a communications receiver and not a scanner and last I heard the whole thing was still tied up in hearings. Of course if you really want to follow a cell call just get a DDI and hook it up to your PC. The interesting thing is that the company that sells the DDI will only release software with ESN capability to law enforcement people. Makes you wonder doesn't it? Tony Pelliccio, KD1NR, VE ARRL/W5YI Tel. (401) 863-1880 Box 1908, Providence, RI 02912 Fax. (401) 863-2269 ------------------------------ From: bkobb@newsignals.com (Bennett Z. Kobb) Subject: Re: Chatter Heard on Scanner Leads to Criminal Charges Organization: New Signals Press Date: Mon, 9 Jan 1995 13:23:35 GMT The amendment to include cordless came in with the Digital Telephony Bill, I believe. EFF did not object to the amendment but questioned its propriety without public dialogue on the subject. It may not be settled that random scanning, even of cellular spectrum, violates the ECPA due to the high standard of culpability placed in the law in the late stages. An excellent reference and opinion paper on this is "Don't Touch That Dial: Radio Listening Under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986," by Fred Jay Meyer, in the New York University Law Review, V63 N2, May 1988. I'm reminded of Rep. Carlos Moorhead's assurances that "ECPA is not intended to penalize someone who just happens upon the frequency." Bennett Kobb bkobb@newsignals.com Editor and publisher Spectrum Guide ------------------------------ From: Rupes@voyager.cris.com (Rupes) Subject: Re: GSM in Canada? Date: 10 Jan 1995 01:49:27 -0500 Organization: Concentric Research Corporation Reon_Can@mindlink.bc.ca (D. Matte) writes: > I have been doing some initial research on the development of the PCS > market in Canada. Recently some of the players that have received > licenses to test 1.9GHz systems have been touting GSM as the way to go > (Telezone & Microcell 1-2-1). If GSM is implemented would it mean > that users would not be able to make use of their terminals in the > U.S. as GSM is not likely to be adopted by the U.S. on a large scale? > It would seem to me that having a system that is compatible with our > largest trading partner would make for a more attractive service > offering. You are right -- being able to use the same system as the US would be great. The only problem is that the US is unlikely to the the same system as the US ... For the PCS band (1.9GHz) there are seven 'standards' in the running. So, in principle, Canada might adaopt one -- and then be able to operate in only one in seven US areas ... It won't be quite that bad, as each area will have several operators (with different standards?), and only a few standards will be adopted, but ... To answer your original post, up-banded GSM (aka PCS1900) is one of the stronger contenders for PCS in the US, probably second in popularity to the IS95 (Qualcomm CDMA) variant. The former has existing market, safe technology and volume advantages, the latter is more technologically elegant and potentially cheaper. (A friend describes tham as PC vs Mac ...) Rupert Baines ------------------------------ From: johnl@ctin.adelaide.edu.au (John Leske) Subject: Re: GSM in Canada? Date: 10 Jan 1995 01:47:11 GMT Organization: Centre for Telecommunications Information Networking Reply-To: johnl@ctin.adelaide.edu.au In article 14@eecs.nwu.edu, Reon_Can@mindlink.bc.ca (D. Matte) writes: > I have been doing some initial research on the development of the PCS > market in Canada. [snip] > If GSM is implemented would it mean that users would not be able to > make use of their terminals in the U.S. as GSM is not likely to be > adopted by the U.S. on a large scale? It would seem to me that having > a system that is compatible with our largest trading partner would > make for a more attractive service offering. Hi Dan, A few comments on your concerns regarding GSM. Strictly speaking GSM operates in the 800MHz band. There is a varient called DCS1800, (which curiously enough operates in the 1800MHz band) which is used as a PCS system in the UK (Mercury 1to1, and Orange). Basically the only difference is the operating frequency, with all that that implies about cell size, transmission characteristics etc. GSM handsets do not work with DCS1800 or vice-versa. Since in the USA and Canada, 1.9GHz is the band available for PCS, carriers are looking at a varient of GSM in this frequency. There are carriers in both the USA and Canada considering this as a solution for PCS. One major attraction of doing this is that all the network details (protocols, charging, roaming, loading etc) have already been sorted out in GSM. The manufacturers can adjust their equipment to the new frequency and have an entire stable network up in months. My current reading of news reports seem to indicate that a number of different PCS systems will be installed, each in different areas depending on who bought the license. SO there will be CDMA, TDMA and other systems. None of these handsets will work with the AMPS network, nor with each other (in the first instance anyway). John Leske Research Engineer Centre for Telecommunications Information Networking University of Adelaide ------------------------------ From: Kimmo.Ketolainen@utu.fi (Kimmo Ketolainen) Subject: Re: Phone Card Reader Wanted Organization: Turun yliopisto - University of Turku, Turku, Finland Date: Mon, 9 Jan 1995 23:40:27 GMT Keith Jason Uber <942576@edna.cc.swin.edu.au> wrote: > 09I am looking for an article on building a Phone Card Reader > that connects to a pc. I saw it two or three days ago when browsing > gopher or WWW (I can't remember) and thought "That's cool ... but > Australia doesn't use Smart-cards for their phones". > The very next day, I met a German exchange student who gave me > a German phonecard! Subsequently I've spent about four hours searching > through veronica, www etc with no luck. The phonecard pages can be found with Lycos by entering the keyword "phonecard". The article in question is behind . The author of this article is currently serving a year long sentence :) in the French Army, and he'll be back on the net later this year. > Any help or direction would be great ... I intend to modify it > to use it as an electronic key to start my car! Sorry Keith, but the chip in question is not rewritable, you can only decrease its value (counter). In fact, none of the conventional chips in phonecards are reusable. Kimmo Ketolainen University of Turku home +358 21 237 8227 Kimmo.Ketolainen@utu.fi shoe +358 40 500 2957 work +358 21 262 1496 ------------------------------ From: Kimmo.Ketolainen@utu.fi (Kimmo Ketolainen) Subject: Re: Britain-Japan Fiber Cable Organization: Turun yliopisto - University of Turku, Turku, Finland Date: Mon, 9 Jan 1995 23:50:34 GMT In writchie@gate.net wrote: > An international circuit is two "half circuits" with the price at > each end completely controlled by the carriers at each end, one or > both of which is normally a monopoly PTT. Only US/Canada and US/UK > circuits are priced at anything even reasonably related to cost. Don't forget Finland -- three international carriers with quite competitive charges. It may sound weird, but the telecomm market in the country is already less monopolized than that of the US. Kimmo Ketolainen University of Turku home +358 21 237 8227 Kimmo.Ketolainen@utu.fi shoe +358 40 500 2957 work +358 21 262 1496 ------------------------------ From: mhdykes@thinkage.on.ca (Maurice Dykes) Subject: Re: Computer Caller-ID Organization: Thinkage Ltd. Guest Account Date: Tue, 10 Jan 1995 01:37:04 GMT > Does anyone know of a software program that enables you to have your > computer identify caller's phone numbers? I saw a movie called Brainscan > that had a computer, using caller id, identify the caller and tell the > person in an "igor" voice, which I perticularly liked, that "Bobby is > calling master". The idea was really interesting to me and I would like > to get something like it. There is a shareware app called IdentaFone version 1.6 on ftp.halcyon.com in local/identafone. It does not support sound. The verbage that's in the readme states: Overview: IdentaFone, in conjunction with Caller ID/Call Display service from your phone company, will log incoming calls and perform database lookups to place complete caller information at your fingertips before the phone has rang twice. You can also configure it to show a large barker screen that can be seen across the room or you can just have the icon display the calling number. Includes a Speed Dialer for 32 of your favourite numbers, dialer from the database or return call dialer in log window. You can launch a program or Windows macro when a designated number calls. *NEW* if you have a numeric pager IdentaFone will send the calling party's number to your pager. Maurice Dykes mhdykes@thinkage.on.ca mhdykes@thinkage.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V15 #19 ***************************** Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.ed