Received: from ns1.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa22467; 23 May 95 18:29 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA29176 for telecomlist-outbound; Tue, 23 May 1995 10:35:12 -0500 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA29164; Tue, 23 May 1995 10:35:08 -0500 Date: Tue, 23 May 1995 10:35:08 -0500 From: TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson) Message-Id: <199505231535.KAA29164@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #251 TELECOM Digest Tue, 23 May 95 10:35:00 CDT Volume 15 : Issue 251 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson MCI Reenters Wireless (Steve Geimann) Rates, Rates, Rates .... (Stephen Croce) Canadian Telephone/Cable Competition Policy Announced (Dave Leibold) Re: T1.403 ESF and CRC-6 Usefulness (David C. Pratt) Re: Flash! NYNEX WWWeb Site With Yellow Pages for New York (Pieter Jacques) Re: Flash! NYNEX WWWeb Site With Yellow Pages for New York (Danny Burstein) Re: Flash! NYNEX WWWeb Site With Yellow Pages for New York (root@henry) Re: Flash! NYNEX WWWeb Site With Yellow Pages for New York (K.M. Peterson) Re: Last Laugh! Mike and Terry's Lawnmower Service (Heidi Serverian) Re: Last Laugh! Mike and Terry's Lawnmower Service (Robert Virzi) 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: 500-677-1616 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: Geimann@aol.com Date: Tue, 23 May 1995 06:56:42 -0400 Subject: MCI Reenters Wireless By STEVE GEIMANN Senior Editor, {Communications Daily} MCI returned to wireless Mon. with $190-million purchase of Nationwide Cellular Services (NCS) of N.Y. and is negotiating agreements with other carriers to expand coverage nationwide. NCS operates in 10 U.S. cities in Northeast, Upper Midwest and West Coast, covering 25% of U.S. population. MCI needs greater coverage to be significant player in wireless resale against AT&T Wireless and Sprint-Cable alliance in winning PCS licenses. Neither MCI nor Nationwide bid in broadband auction. "We don't have to own underlying facilities to deliver service," said Kevin Inda, senior mgr., investor relations. "There's a glut of spectrum available." MCI deal prompted Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association to step up lobbying against amendment to HR-1555 by Rep. Barton (R-Tex.) that would give wireless resellers direct access to facilities built by service providers. MCI last week sent letter to Hill supporting Barton amendment. In letter Mon. to House Commerce Committee Chmn. Bliley (R-Va.), CTIA Pres. Thomas Wheeler said: "MCI is attempting to impose on competitive wireless carriers regulations which it vigorously opposes having imposed on itself." He told us: "The danger is it's [amendment] going to disincent people to build." MCI said negotiations with carriers focus on resale agreements rather than equity purchases, company said. NCS is largest reseller, and other investments wouldn't have same benefits, source said. Inda said he expected company to sign additional agreements rapidly -- within 60-90 days. "This is a good initial jump [into market,] but by no means the full deployment," Inda told us. NCS acquisition gives MCI access to "good operating staff." MCI left wireless in 1986 with sale of its Air Signal cellular and paging unit to subsidiary of McCaw for $120 million. It had entered business in 1982, primarily supplying paging services in 35 markets and phone service in 12 cities. Inda said executives decided then that company "lacked critical mass" to make wireless successful venture. MCI skipped recent PCS auction, saying it preferred to concentrate on resale rather than invest in facilities. Transaction still requires approvals by MCI board and shareholders, Nationwide shareholders and state and federal agencies. NCS Chmn. Stephen Katz and other executives have agreed to vote their 25% stake in company in favor of deal. NCS board approved transaction, companies said. NCS had 1994 revenue of $213 million, with 275,000 business and residential customers in Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, L.A., Milwaukee, N.Y., Philadelphia, San Diego, San Francisco, D.C. ------------------------------ From: Stephen Croce Subject: Rates, Rates, Rates .... Date: 23 May 1995 03:27:34 GMT Organization: InternetMCI BYJV13A@prodigy.com (Douglas Kaspar) wrote: > When you examine Sprint's basic LD tariff vs. AT&T, their cost per > minute is identical to AT&T's across rate bands, time of day, etc. > MCI's basic LD tariff across the rate band's is .0001 cent per minute > less. The savings come in when your volumes increase, so beware of > the so called "savings". The rate game is so rediculous! For every person who says that Sprint's rates are only one cent a minute lower than AT&T's I can show you three people who say they've saved a ton of money by using their service. In fact one user on this newsgroup got 50 dollar credits and free air fare to Bermuda or something like that -- isn't that indeed worth something? Bottom line is -- what does your provider do for you today? Any of the companies can provide you with low rates - it's up to you to do what you need to do in order to get the best deal. Everyone is so hung up on what the rate per minute is -- price, price, price -- when was the last time anyone ever bought anything based on price and price alone? If I told you that I could sell you a pair of shoes for ten bucks -- would you buy them? How 'bout this? I'll sell you my car for 500 bucks -- wanna buy it? NO? Well, why not, its CHEAP isn't it? My point is that there is value to be had in telecommunications -- just like in anything else. If you're not seeing any value in your current company's services, you should speak to them or go with another carrier who will bring you this value. When you compare companies -- you should attempt to look beyong the rate per minute. ------------------------------ From: Dave.Leibold@superctl.tor250.org (Dave Leibold) Date: 22 May 95 20:29:20 -0500 Subject: Canadian Telephone/Cable Competition Policy Announced (The CRTC announced 19th May the recommended regulatory approach to be taken for dealing with the development of future services by the telephone and cable companies in Canada. The following is their news release on the subject (with approrpriate WWW references)) May 19, 1995 COMPETITION AND CULTURE ON CANADA'S INFORMATION HIGHWAY: MANAGING THE REALITIES OF TRANSITION OTTAWA/HULL -- The CRTC today recommended steps to accelerate lasting competition in the delivery of electronic information and programming services to Canadians. It also suggested new ways of keeping Canada on its own broadcasting system with strong Canadian programming. "We've received a clear message that consumers want greater choice and we believe that they should have it," said CRTC Chairman Keith Spicer. "Hundreds of Canadians who participated in our public processes also said that they want more windows on their own communities, as well as on the world, and the CRTC will actively support these objectives." "The Commission has already taken bold steps to increase competition in the delivery of broadcasting and telecommunications services, and it continues to share the vision of Government that further competition will stimulate choice, innovation and growth. We are not looking for ways to slow competition -- we'll be looking for ways to hasten it." "It is essential that barriers to competition arising as a result of the monopoly power or dominant position of telephone and cable companies be reduced. More choice should also be allowed in how programming services are packaged and distributed," Mr. Spicer affirmed. "If the future is to be driven by competition and technology, then we must ensure that it is *fair* and *sustainable* competition -- that is, lasting. We must get beyond slogans and recognize the realities of competition in Canada and manage this transition imaginatively and sensibly or we will end up with one or two mega-corporations controlling the creation and dissemination of information and entertainment," said Mr. Spicer. "We believe in competition that will benefit consumers and entrepreneurs in the long-term, not just for a year or two until one industry or competitor annihilates its rivals." "A more competitive model for both distribution and programming services must also take into account Canadian realities. If Canadians are to benefit from increased choice, entry should be managed in a manner that contributes to the Canadian broadcasting system and the development of quality programming," Mr. Spicer explained. "The citizens of Canada are more than just consumers. They are also and first of all Canadians, and as such they want to see Canadian values reflected in the programming and information available to them." The Commission's report to the Government on policy issues related to the information highway follows an intensive seven-month public consultation process during which the CRTC received 1,085 written comments and 78 participants intervened at a month-long oral public hearing in March. This public process was instituted pursuant to an Order in Council issued by the Government on October 11, 1994. In preparing its report, the Commission has been guided by a number of key principles, including: * Fair and sustainable competition requires that consumers have increased choice among distributors of telecommunications and broadcasting services, including cable, telephone, wireless, direct-to-home (DTH) satellite and others. * Barriers to competition in distribution must be removed so that both the public and content providers have affordable and non-discriminatory access to all distribution systems. * New programming services must contribute to increasing choice, diversity and innovation. The Commission recommends that there be no mandated transitional period before introducing full competition in the delivery of telecommunications and broadcasting services to Canadians. As indicated in the report, factors such as technology and market forces will create a natural transition period of about three to four years before telephone companies begin to establish any significant presence in the cable market. "However," Mr. Spicer said, "telephone companies should be permitted to enter the cable business as soon as inherent barriers to effective competition in local telephony are reduced. And we support, without delay, applications by other potential programming distributors." "We also support increased competition in programming. Video-on-demand services should be eligible for licensing as soon as non-preferential video-dial-tone tariffs are filed and approved," Mr. Spicer added. The report proposes mechanisms designed to remove existing barriers to competition, as well as safeguards to prevent anti-competitive practices and to ensure equitable access to the information highway. For example: * Implementation of the open access policy adopted in the Commission's Regulatory Framework Decision of September 1994 is a precondition to effective competition in the local telephone market and in all markets on the information highway. This policy is characterized by liberalized interconnection, co-location and unbundling requirements. * Programming services should be produced and distributed by separate companies to prevent preferential access to distribution networks and to ensure diversity and choice. (Structural separation, however, would not be required for non-programming services such as on-line services, home banking and Internet access.) * Cable company affiliates should not generally be authorized to operate, own or control programming services, other than over-the-air radio and television services, until there is sufficient capacity on cable networks and comprehensive access rules are in place to prevent preferential treatment. Increased reliance on market forces, however, must take into account the other objectives of broadcasting and telecommunications legislation from which the CRTC derives its mandate. The *Broadcasting Act* states that: "The Canadian broadcasting system should encourage the development of Canadian expression by providing a wide range of programming that reflects Canadian attitudes, opinions, values and artistic creativity, by displaying Canadian talent in entertainment programming and by offering information and analysis concerning Canada and other countries from a Canadian point of view..." (Section 3). The Canadian telecommunications policy has, as its objectives, to facilitate the development of a system that serves "*to safeguard, enrich and strengthen the social and economic fabric of Canada and its regions*" and "*to render reliable and affordable telecommunications services of high quality accessible to Canadians in both urban and rural areas...*" (Section 7 of the *Telecommunications Act*). The Commission, therefore, recommends the following: * Some form of subsidization, as well as cooperation between governments and shared use of network infrastructures by distributors, will be necessary in order to deliver the benefits of the information highway to every region in Canada, particularly in remote and underserved areas. * Programming services should continue to be licensed in a manner that takes into account market size and ensures that existing and future producers have sufficient resources to produce quality Canadian programming. * All broadcasting undertakings should make equitable and appropriate contributions to the production and distribution of Canadian cultural-content products and services. "It is essential that we maintain a Canadian broadcasting system offering quality programming which reinforces the sovereignty of our country and our own cultural identity," Mr. Spicer concluded. ------------------- Contact: Stephen Boissonneault, Director CRTC Public Affairs, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0N2 Tel: 819-997-0313, TDD: 819-994-0423, Fax: 819-994-0218 Internet address: http://www.crtc.gc.ca Copies of the Commission's report *Competition and Culture on Canada's Information Highway: Managing the Realities of Transition* are available through the public examination room at any of the following CRTC offices: City Telephone TDD Fax Halifax 902-426-7997 902-426-6997 902-426-2721 Montreal 514-283-6607 514-283-8316 514-283-3689 Ottawa/Hull 819-997-2429 819-994-0423 819-994-0218 Toronto 416-954-6273 416-954-8420 416-954-6343 Winnipeg 204-983-6306 204-983-8274 204-983-6317 Vancouver 604-666-2111 604-666-0778 604-666-8322 ----------------- Fidonet : Dave Leibold 1:250/730 Internet: Dave.Leibold@superctl.tor250.org ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 May 1995 08:08:40 -0400 From: Pratt, David C. Subject: Re: T1.403 ESF and CRC-6 Usefulness The CRC-6 is to many users the entire reason for using SF over ESF DS1s. The CRC-6 is a checksum calculated on the actual data transmitted in the payload (the 24 64 Kbs timeslots) of the DS1. It is a way to determine with complete accuracy that the data carried on the DS1 has not been corrupted. In the SF world it is not possible to do this. The CRC-6 is the basis for "path"-based performance monitoring parameters. One CRC-6 violation is a path coding violation, each second in which one happens is an errored second path, each second in which 1544 or more is a severely errored second path, each second after 10 SESP is an unavailable second, etc. Both SF and ESF DS1s share "line" parameters which are based on Bipolar Violations (BPVs). BPVs indicate a probability of data corruption but do not guarantee it. The bottom line is that you MUST transmit an accurate CRC-6 on an ESF DS1. If not it is likely that the far end will go into alarm based on an "unavailable seconds" condition. If you want to ignore the incoming CRC-6 that's your problem. This is assuming, of course, that the network is not set up for far-end performance monitoring which brings another set of contstraints. Dave Pratt Reliance Comm/Tec prattd@reu.reliance.sprint.com ------------------------------ From: jacques@physics.rutgers.edu (Pieter Jacques) Subject: Re: Flash! NYNEX WWWeb Site With Yellow Pages for New York Date: 22 May 1995 19:26:56 -0400 Organization: Rutgers University [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: This one seems to have caught everyone's eye. I got a couple dozen messages all saying almost the same thing. Here are a few of them. PAT] John R. Covert writes: > FLASH!! > http://www.vtcom.fr/nynex/ > Is a WWWeb interface to the NYNEX Yellow Pages, with links from the business > entries to their own web pages, when known. Why is NYNEX, a New York and New England based telephone company, using a web server in *France* for a WWW version of its New York and New England Yellow Pages? Pieter Jacques (jacques@ruhets.rutgers.edu) ------------------------------ From: dannyb@panix.com (danny burstein) Subject: Re: Flash! NYNEX WWWeb Site With Yellow Pages for New York Date: 22 May 1995 23:43:40 -0400 In John R. Covert writes: > http://www.vtcom.fr/nynex/ ^^^ ^^^^^^ to which dannyb@panix.com hastens to add: Fascinating that Nynex has to put their web server in France. Suggests something about something, but I'm not quite sure what ... dannyb@panix.com (or dburstein@mcimail.com) ------------------------------ From: root@henry.henry.net (root) Subject: Re: Flash! NYNEX WWWeb Site With Yellow Pages for New York Date: 23 May 1995 02:46:21 GMT Organization: University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA Why is Nynex setting up a web page in France? 8-) ------------------------------ From: KMP@portal.vpharm.com (K. M. Peterson) Subject: Re: Flash! NYNEX WWWeb Site With Yellow Pages for New York Date: 22 May 1995 17:17:59 GMT Organization: Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated In article John R. Covert writes: > http://www.vtcom.fr/nynex/ Um ... okay... does anyone know why this is served out of _France_? K. M. Peterson [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I have not heard anything further from John Covert since he sent this in. Perhaps he will share whatever he knows on the topic with us. There were many more of these 'why located in France' messages than I included here. Do you think they have some kind of deal going on with Minitel perhaps? Is that a possibility? PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 May 1995 09:34:52 -0400 From: HEIDI.SERVERIAN@gte.sprint.com Subject: Re: Last Laugh! Mike and Terry's Lawnmower Service Pat - One small correction to your note. GTE used to own Sylvania and several other electronics manufacturing businesses worldwide. GTE has sold off the electronics over the past years to concentrate on our core business of telecommunications. The consumer electronics (televisions and stereos) primarily went to Phillips and Magnavox. I forget who bought the lightbulb business in 1992 and 1993. GTE's vision is to expand from our strong base in wireline voice communications to market leadership in the new world of intergrated wireline and wireless voice, video and data communications, by offering customers products and prices that are competitive and service that is unmatched -- the easiest company to do business with in this industry. GTE has made a strong commitment to the telecommunications industry. We could debate the merits of any company which has grown up under a very paternalistic regulatory system. The fact of the matter remains that approximately 93% of all homes in the US have telephone service. Had telephone originally (100 years ago) been left as a competitive industry would we have achieved this level of service? I suggest that we would not have the same results today. In all likelihood, telephone would be a privilege for those with a certain amount of wealth, as opposed to a utility available to the masses. Was total rate of return regulation the best option available? Probably not, when was the last time the government used the best option. My knowledge of economics points toward some form of marginal rate of return or price regulation. Going forward, competition appears to be the best option for encouraging efficient use of resources and developing new technologies or new applications of technologies. However, since telephone (POTS at a minimum) is a *utility*, some mechanism needs to be in place to enable all people access to the network. Today we use subsidies such as the Universal Service Fund and Lifeline to try to reach all who wish to be connected. The regulated monopolies are required to provide service to all who apply (the worst credit risks may fall into special rules). Who will serve these customers in the future? Don't get me wrong; I am a strong capitalist. I also believe it is harmful to the capitalist economy to create a markedly disadvantaged underclass by cutting someone off from a basic need. Anyone on the net know how difficult it can be to get a job or credit without a telephone number? For all of the readers who believe the established LECs are incapable of doing it right, maybe it is time to reassess the situation. Look at the industry from a more forward view, rather than relying on history. Remember most of the knowledge and computer hardware/software that enables the huge leaps in telecommunications which we have seen were not even dreamed of 30 or 40 years ago. Just as IBM has had to reshape itself to the technological world it helped create, the LECs are learning a whole new game too. Sorry to have rambled so long, Pat. Thank you for providing a forum in which reasonable individuals can discuss and debate relevant issues. The Digest is one of my favorite morning routines. Heidi Serverian ------------------------------ From: rv01@gte.com (Robert Virzi) Subject: Re: Last Laugh! Mike and Terry's Lawnmower Service Date: 22 May 1995 19:16:04 GMT Organization: GTE Laboratories, Waltham, MA PAT said, in part: > Often times letter abbreviations simply take on a meaning of their own > and the original phrase they represented is forgotten. Does anyone > remember when ITT referred to 'International Telephone and Telegraph', > or when GTE meant 'General Telephone and Electronics'? In the case > of ITT at least, because of the many varied and diverse enterprises > the company got involved in (baking bread as one example), the name > was finally officially changed to simply the letters ITT. Likewise, > GTE makes lightbulbs among other things, with telephones now being just > a portion -- but a significant portion -- of their overall business. Pat - This is not an offical company response, however, GTE doesn't make lightbulbs anymore. Nor do we manufacture consumer electronics. GTE's businesses, near as I can recall, are: local telephone service, mobile telephone service, directory publishing, government contracting, and multi-media production including games. There are some other businesses also, but the first four are the lion's share of the revenue. Again, this is from memory. You may want to make this correction for your readers. Bob rvirzi@gte.com Just another ascii character... +1(617)466-2881 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V15 #251 ****************************** Received: from ns1.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa00101; 24 May 95 11:32 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA15295 for telecomlist-outbound; Tue, 23 May 1995 21:12:08 -0500 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA15285; Tue, 23 May 1995 21:12:05 -0500 Date: Tue, 23 May 1995 21:12:05 -0500 From: TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson) Message-Id: <199505240212.VAA15285@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #252 TELECOM Digest Tue, 23 May 95 21:12:00 CDT Volume 15 : Issue 252 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Looking For Help Starting a Help Desk (Mandy E. Kinne) What's CAPI? Especially 'API' (Byung Wan Suh) Re: Telephone Voice "Broadcast" Software? (David K. Leikam) Re: Unusual RF Stories (Ed Ellers) Re: Unusual RF Stories (Scott D. Fybush) Re: Unusual RF Stories (Kevin Magloughlin) Re: Unusual RF Stories (Samir Soliman) Re: Connie Chung's Attitude About Oklahoma (Scot E. Wilcoxon) Re: Phree Phone in Chicago's Union Station - Still There? (Elana Beach) Re: Chicago Area Internet Providers Wanted (Kevin Kadow) Universal Freephone Update (Judith Oppenheimer) Re: Pac Bell Fixed it -- and Fast! (John Higdon) Re: Cell One/Boston (Christopher C. Stacy) Re: Flash! NYNEX WWWeb Site With Yellow Pages for New York (Phil Dampier) Re: Flash! NYNEX WWWeb Site With Yellow Pages for New York (K.M. Peterson) 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: 500-677-1616 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: Mandy E. Kinne Subject: Looking For Help Starting a Help Desk Date: Mon, 22 May 1995 10:16:11 -0400 Organization: Center for Machine Translation, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA I was recently hired by a company to start up a help desk. Every other time I have dne something like this the phone system was already in place. Not here, not now. Blah! One of my jobs is going to be researching and purchasing a new phone system that we can afford. Currently we have seven incoming voice lines running through Bell Centrex service. No local PBX or anything. What I am looking to do is streamline the calling process. I need to set up a menuing system, an audiotext system, voice mail and so forth. I've been looking at this software/hardware package from SpeechSoft. What I am curious about is can this system run off of a centrex service? Is it a good solution? Does anyone have any experience with it? A local provider has also been trying to sell us a Toshiba Strata DK280 as a solution. Does anyone know if this system has peripherals to handle audiotext? Is it a good system and so forth and or not. Any clue as to what I should be doing would be greatly appreciated. Also, any leads on introductory books on CTI and Telephony would be fantastic. I just wish I hadn't accepted this contract ... blah ------------------------------ From: bws@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu (Byung Wan Suh) Subject: What's CAPI? Especially 'API' Date: 22 May 1995 07:03:50 GMT Organization: The George Washington University, Washington DC Hello, world. I'd like to ask one simple question. I figured out that CAPI stands for COMMON-ISDN-API, but what's the API? Please let me know with direct email. Thanks in advance. Mr. Byung Wan Suh ADDRESSES: Graduate Teaching Fellow Internet(USA) -> bws@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu Dept. of Management Science Chollian(KOREA) -> The George Washington University bws0816@chollian.dacom.co.kr Washington, DC 20052 URL ->http://gwis2.circ.gwu.edu/~bws ------------------------------ From: dkl@crl.com (David K. Leikam) Subject: Re: Telephone Voice "Broadcast" Software? Date: 22 May 1995 20:19:28 -0700 Harold Hallikainen wrote: > Anyway, the school where I teach is interested in software > that would do something similar to a fax broadcast, but it would be > voice. They'd have a list of the students in a particular class and > if the class were cancelled, the system could call each of them and > let them know. It SEEMS like this could be an option on the school's > phone system (I don't remember who made it), since it does have voice > mail and all sorts of fancy features. But I'm wondering if there's > some simple PC software that could also do it. I'm running SuperVoice > 2 with a Maxtech voice/data/fax modem and am quite pleased with it. I > spoke with the publisher of SuperVoice yesterday and they did not have > any voice broadcast software. So, anything like this around? > SuperVoice 2 with modem was about $70. It'd be real nice to find > something in this price area. Well, nothing *I* am aware of, that I'd trust to do a halfway decent job. Thinking about the problems of reliability sorta starts me towards a fair sized headache ... (deep breath) I suppose we *could* build something like this, that you could expect, oh, an 80% reliability rate out of. But it would cost orders of magnitude more, even if you didn't want maintenance or support. If you think about the problems for a minute or two, you'll see why. (Did we get an answering machine? If so, do we have a beep yet? What kind of beep? Has the beep ended, and can we talk now? Did we get a forward to a pager? If so, what number to we tell 'em to dial.? Are we talking to a person? Is it the right person, i.e, do we want to do voice-recognition at all? Do we want to be interactive? Do we want to deal with the 30% of the population that doesn't have touch-tone service?) Take your desired cost, treble it, multiply by 10, and you're getting to the ballpark, honestly. And you'll still miss, about 20% of the time, no guarantees it'll do that well ... more likely it will end up in the $5-$10K area for acceptable performance. And no, that's not a bid. My interest is technical, I do NOT want to actually be responsible for this thing! Buddy, can you spare an Excedrin? ------------------------------ From: kd4awq@iglou.com (Ed Ellers) Subject: Re: Unusual RF Stories Organization: IgLou Internet Services Date: Tue, 23 May 1995 06:30:04 GMT TELECOM Digest Editor PAT wrote: > Many listeners know that the first FM station in the United States was > here in Chicago in 1941, when the Zenith Radio Corporation put station > WEFM on the air with exclusively classical music so that people who > were buying the (then new) style of radio with frequency modulation (FM) > would have something to listen to. Otherwise no one would buy an FM > radio since there were no stations 'like that' to listen to -- not in > the early 1940's at least. The station was named after the president of > Zenith at that time, a fellow named dward . cCormick. Actually that was Commander Eugene F. McDonald. Perhaps you were thinking of Colonel Robert R. McCormick, publisher of the {Chicago Tribune}? WEFM was almost certainly the first FM station in the Midwest, but it was by no means the first in the U.S. -- that was Major Armstrong's own W2XMN, outside New York City. (The first *commercial* FM station, according to the FCC, was WSM-FM in Nashville -- then called W47NV -- on January 1, 1941.) The Zenith station was originally an experimental operation called W9XZR on 42.8 MHz, apparently started around 1939; it became a commercial station in 1941 as W51C on 45.1 MHz, then became WWZR around 1944-45 when the special "channel number and city" FM calls were abolished. They finally moved to 99.5 MHz some time after 1946; when that happened Zenith started adding an unlabeled dot at that position on the dials of all their FM radios. I don't know when the WEFM call sign was adopted, other than that it was before FM stereo broadcasts began in 1961. (Of course the station is now WUSN -- I wonder what Commander McDonald would think of *those* initials on "his" station...:-) Zenith also had two experimental TV stations at different times. W9XZV was started in 1939, and became a commercial station as WTZR in the early 1940s. They kept their experimental status active and ran a small market test of a pay-per-view service around 1950-51 with 600 customers (all of whom were lent new Zenith TVs, the only make compatible with the PPV decoders). Some time after the test was over Zenith sold the station to CBS (allegedly at a very tidy profit); it's now WBBM-TV. The second was on channel 38 in the late 60s and early 70s (I've forgotten the call sign), and was used to test different scrambling systems for over-the-air pay TV. (I suspect the folks at Zenith wish they'd kept that operation -- when they were field testing Digital Spectrum Compatible HDTV in 1992 they ended up doing the broadcasts on WMVT, channel 36 in Milwaukee. WMVT usually can't be received around Chicago because of a low-power station on the same channel, but the HDTV tests came in fine at Zenith's lab in Glenview.) [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Thank you for the name correction and the additional historical data on FM radios. Yes, I did get my McCormicks and McDonalds mixed up. Colonel McCormick of the {Chicago Tribune} was a big factor in getting WGN 720-AM on the air in 1922, which was assigned those call letters in reference to the Tribune as the World's Greatest Newspaper. WLS went on the air in 1923 and its call letters reflected its owner's (Sears, Roebuck) status as the World's Largest Store. PAT] ------------------------------ From: fybush@world.std.com (Scott D Fybush) Subject: Re: Unusual RF Stories Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA Date: Tue, 23 May 1995 05:18:14 GMT Not to carry this thread too much farther than it merits here, but... The great frequency switch on AM happened on March 29, 1941. The goal of the new "North American Regional Broadcasting Agreement," or NARBA, was to create some new clear channels for Canada and Mexico, and to coordinate the expansion of the AM band from 1500-1600 kHz. WGN had never been on 730 -- it (along with most everything else below 720 kHz) stayed put at 720. Stations further up the dial were shifted 10, 20, 30, or even in some cases 40kHz to accomodate new Can/Mex clear channels at 730, 800, 900, 1010, and so forth. So for PAT's native Chicago, WMAQ stayed put at 670, WBBM went from 770 to 780, WLS/WENR from 870 to 890, WAAF from 920 to 950, WCFL from 970 to 1000, WMBI from 1080 to 1110, WJJD from 1130 to 1160, WCRW/WEDC/WSBC from 1210 to 1240, WGES from 1360 to 1390, and WEHS/WHFC from 1420 to 1450. Much more information can be gleaned from the NARBA page on the Boston Radio Archives web site -- set your URL to: ftp://radio.lcs.mit.edu/radio/bostonradio.html for more than you ever wanted to know about the history of Boston radio and radio in general. Scott Fybush - fybush@world.std.com ------------------------------ From: kmagloughlin@delphi.com Subject: Re: Unusual RF Stories Date: Tue, 23 May 95 06:27:50 -0500 Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice) Pat- You were writing about receiving a carrier on 660 Khz that turned out to be WBBM right there in Chicago. The explanation given about subtracting this from that gives 660 Khz is not really the answer in that situation. What you had there is a 2A-B mix occurance and most likely was happening in your receiver. If you multiply 720 by 2 and subtract 780, you end up with 660. I have to chase things like this routinely and an example of this was in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania on an amateur radio site that had both a two meter repeater and a packet base station in close proximity. The repeater transmitter was on 145.290 and the packet transmited on 144.990. The packet base caused no problems when it transmitted alone, nor did the repeater. However, if both transmitters were up at the same time, 2x144.990 - 145.29= the input of the repeater, 144.690. Since this was an on-frequency product, there was no option but to move one of the transmitters and the packet system did move to a site outside of Hershey. I believe in your instance, there may have been some mixing going on at the AM transmitter sites, but far more likely is the mixing was going on in your own receiver as it had a clear shot at both carriers at approximately the same signal stregnth. In my amateur example also, the packet held up the repeater for extended periods of time because the packet was the digipeater for the local amateur packet BBS system. Kevin Magloughlin KA0JQO KMAGLOUGHLIN@DELPHI.COM Watch for the new best seller _Chasing Sunsets_ [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: How does that explain the engineer at the station in North Carolina telling me he could hear the same thing as myself on the board over there when his AM station was off the air? PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 May 1995 21:14:56 -0700 From: Samir Soliman Subject: Re: Unusual RF Stories TELECOM Digest Editor wrote: > ... I asked the engineer at WBBM about this and why he thought it might have > happened. His answer was, they and WGN sit very close together out in > the boondocks. So close together, that WGN picks up some of our signal > and send it out with theirs, and we pick up some of their signal and > send it out with ours. So, he said, if you note that we are at 780 and > they are at 720, that's a difference of 60 kc. Subtract 60 from 720 and > you get 660 ... hmmm ... > Now it used to be quite common to be able to hear WBBM at multiples all > the way up the tuning dial. At night I could hear them at 780 of course, > but also at 1560, 2340, and sometimes 3120 kc. I have never before nor > since ever heard them *below* their usual location. Radio waves can be > very weird and strange at times. PAT] If the signal is strong it compresses the front end of the reciver, causing the receiver to work in the non-linear region. What you saw is the third order IM product (2f1-f2), where f1 = 720 and f2 = 780. I bet you could have heard it also on 840. Samir Soliman ------------------------------ From: sewilco@fieldday.mn.org (Scot E. Wilcoxon) Subject: Re: Connie Chung's Attitude About Oklahoma Date: 23 May 1995 23:38:43 -0500 Organization: FieldDay I think our Moderator is straying a bit from telecom. Contributors, can you remember to try to find a little about telecom in the reports on the latest disaster? It is helpful to see how things going wrong are dealt with, and remember in this case it's how telecom problems are dealt with. I'm waiting for the telecom problems caused by the assault tank situation (not to be confused with problems involving lawful tank use). Scot E. Wilcoxon sewilco@fieldday.mn.org [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: By now probably everyone knows that Connie got fired. She no longer sits next to whats-his-name the Talking Head with her smile and her reports of dubious value. PAT] ------------------------------ From: elana@netcom.com (Elana who?) Subject: Re: Phree Phone in Chicago's Union Station - Still There? Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Date: Tue, 23 May 1995 05:14:30 GMT > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I feel rather certain you were using the > unguarded, unattended phone of some employee who was not present at > his/her desk at the time of your visit. While you were there, did you > consider rifling through the desk drawers looking for things of value > which the occupant may have left there while out to lunch or in a meeting > or wherever people go when they are not at their desk? You would like to > return to the scene of the crime, eh? Sorry, dear Moderator, you can't truthfully accuse me of any crime here. The phone was in the WAITING AREA, the same room as me and the other lost Amtrak passengers. Neither it or I were anywhere NEAR any of the offices. Period. That is why I thought that it was pretty unique that they would have phree phones (there were TWO in that waiting room!) right in the midst of the chairs where the wayward passengers were sitting and waiting to be processed. They were plain, not marked (no signs) and there was not an employee desk anywhere within sight. We are talking passenger area, NOT an office area. > Well it is hard to say exactly *where* in the building you were at. > So much has changed over there, I would not begin to know where to > start looking for a phone such as you describe. Oh, THAT'S easy. Go to the station and ask where they direct the passengers who have missed their train connections! NO PROBLEM. :) (Betcha those phones have been "discovered" since then ... I'd be surprised if they are *still* sitting so easily on the tables in the waiting room since I saw them ...) Try asking an old-time Amtrak employee about the phones ... as in someone who would have been working in the lost-passenger area all the way back to 1990. Elana (who is NOT in the business of walking into other people's offices and using their phones w/o permission ... but DID like these phree phones in this public place which were like sitting ducks -- roasted on a platter and inviting you to dinner via Amtrak's blessing ... no shooting necessary) :) ------------------------------ From: kadokev@ripco.com (Kevin Kadow) Subject: Re: Chicago Area Internet Providers Wanted Organization: Ripco Internet BBS, Chicago Date: Tue, 23 May 1995 05:17:00 GMT In article , wrote: > Can anyone point me to a list of Internet providers in the Chicago, IL > area (708 area code)? There's actually over a dozen providers in and around Chicago, if you have gopher or web access, I maintain an index of providers with links to each provider's own information files: http://www.ripco.com/providers/ gopher.ripco.com > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The first one which comes to mind is > mcs.net. It is operated by Karl Denninger. He is actually in 312 regards > his physical location on West Belmont Avenue, but I think he services > all of northern Illinois with ease. Try him out. PAT] Because of the "band" system for local calls used by Ameritech, you'll want to find a provider who's central office is within 8 miles of your central office -- otherwise you pay Ameritech by the minute, rather than a flat per-call rate. It gets worse -- _ALL_ outgoing calls on business lines are charged by the minute. kadokev@ripco.com Kevin Kadow FREE Usenet/Mail, inexpensive Internet - Ripco... Wearing white hats since 1983 Dialup:(312) 665-0065 | http://www.ripco.com/ | Telnet:foley.ripco.com ('info') ------------------------------ From: producer@pipeline.com (Judith Oppenheimer) Subject: Universal Freephone Update Date: 23 May 1995 11:57:24 -0400 Organization: Interactive CallBrand(TM) Pat, you asked. In advance of everyone's return from Tokyo, I was hearing from people in D.C., who'd stayed home, that they were getting glowing reports from the MCI spin patrol. Then reports started filtering in directly from the front. General comments: "Like a train through a chicken coop the draft was approved as stable. Very embarrassing. MCI chairman ran over everybody with objections. One guy said, he couldn't have done better with a machine gun. Date certain of December 1994 was approved but there are some MAJOR new glitches. It got heated with Engleman (MCI chair) literally yelling from the chair." Re User Contribution to strike non-ownership language, "Major battle on this. AT&T was a real pill as usual. They've got a lady who thinks she's Howard Stern and thinks by shouting "it doesn't matter" in an indignant tone she can have her way. This issue was sent to the ITU legal council for review." Some other problems: where there is a conflict among "priority applicants", there is no time parameter for resolution, nor for the "second choice" that priority applicants are supposed to be due. This is because the system, as delineated to date, calls for immediate release of all numbers. The whole thing is a joke. Incidentally, it's great for business. We've got users lining up for help so they at least have a shot at protecting their 800's. Ain't life grand. J. Oppenheimer, Producer@Pipeline.com Interactive CallBrand(TM) [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Thanks for the update. Please continue sending them as you receive them. PAT] ------------------------------ Organization: Green Hills and Cows Date: Mon, 22 May 1995 20:23:34 -0700 From: John Higdon Subject: Re: Pac Bell Fixed it -- and Fast! yazz@locus.com (Bob Yazz) writes: > I even got a call from someone at Pac Bell's "External Relations" > department. I hadn't contacted them, nor the PUC, nor any higher- > ups at Pac Bell, so I have to wonder if those folks read the TELECOM > Digest! You better believe folks at Pacific Bell read all of the telecom groups. Many of the contacts that I have within the company have come from people responding to my remarks made here and elsewhere. Don't ever let anyone tell you that airing your remarks in TELECOM Digest is a waste of time. Many chronic problems, as well as some annoying practices have evaporated within a short period after complaints have come to light in this forum. And the followup phone calls received from management have confirmed what lit the fire. John Higdon | P.O. Box 7648 | +1 408 264 4115 | FAX: john@ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | +1 500 FOR-A-MOO | +1 408 264 4407 | http://www.ati.com/ati | ------------------------------ From: cstacy@spacy.boston.ma.us (Christopher C Stacy) Subject: Re: Cell One/Boston Organization: Christopher C. Stacy Date: Tue, 23 May 1995 23:02:14 GMT Also, the Dedham switch crashed, resetting some people's voicemail to "none", so that you would just get the "has left the calling area" message instead of being transferred into voicemail. If the customer called the system to check the mailbox, everything appeared normal (except that there would be no mail waiting). There was no indication tht anything was amiss, and Cell One did nothing to inform anyone. I only found out because someone called me at home to ask me why I didn't have voicemail anymore. Then I called Cellular One, and they turned it back on for me. Presumably many other customers do not know that their voicemail is still disabled, and are missing calls. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 May 1995 13:24:44 -0400 From: philjohn@eznet.net (Phillip M. Dampier) Subject: Re: Flash! NYNEX WWWeb Site With Yellow Pages for New York > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I have not heard anything further from > John Covert since he sent this in. Perhaps he will share whatever he > knows on the topic with us. There were many more of these 'why located > in France' messages than I included here. Do you think they have some > kind of deal going on with Minitel perhaps? Is that a possibility? PAT] The {Rochester Democrat & Chronicle's} weekly online telecommunication column recently reviewed this service and implied that it was, indeed, cooperating with France's PTT/Minitel service for provision of the service. I don't believe this was explicitly stated, however. Additionally, the reviewer gave NYNEX very poor marks for its confusing, graphics-intensive (ie. slow for dial-up users) service. NYNEX listings for businesses in Rochester are very sparse, owing to the fact independent Rochester Tel holds on to their listings like someone in the Sahara holds on to a glass of water. ------------------------------ From: KMP@portal.vpharm.com (K. M. Peterson) Subject: Re: Flash! NYNEX WWWeb Site With Yellow Pages for New York Date: 23 May 1995 21:08:17 GMT Organization: Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated > Do you think they have some kind of deal going on with Minitel > perhaps? Is that a possibility? PAT] I wrote them, and they replied: As for our host being located in France, the first online yellow pages service NYNEX launched (USACCESS) was launched in France due to legal restrictions imposed on us. When these restrictions were lifted, it allowed us to launch other services within the US. We are planning to move the host to the US. Thank you again. NIYP Customer Service [Very interesting...-KMP] K. M. Peterson ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V15 #252 ****************************** Received: from ns1.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa27035; 24 May 95 3:36 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA16167 for telecomlist-outbound; Tue, 23 May 1995 22:02:32 -0500 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA16159; Tue, 23 May 1995 22:02:30 -0500 Date: Tue, 23 May 1995 22:02:30 -0500 From: TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson) Message-Id: <199505240302.WAA16159@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #253 TELECOM Digest Tue, 23 May 95 22:02:20 CDT Volume 15 : Issue 253 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Auction All the Spectrum (Peter Huber via khh@access4.digex.net) X.25 Equipment Help Wanted (Michael Vakulenko) I Just Bought a CT2 Phone and I Love it (Eric Tholome) My Experiences With GTE's Tele-Go Service (Mark E. Daniel) Are 1-800-0xx-xxxx and 1-800-1xx-xxxx Numbers Possible? (Robert Casey) New Area Codes Announced (Steve Grandi) Re: What is the Exact Meaning of POTS? (Raymond Charles Jender) Re: What is the Exact Meaning of POTS? (Tony Waddell) Re: Meeting the Challenge (Mike McKinney) Re: Phone Monopolies (Lee Winson) 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: 500-677-1616 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: khh@access4.digex.net Subject: Auction All the Spectrum Date: 23 May 1995 19:47:23 GMT Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA Manhattan Institue for Policy Research. This and other articles by Mr. Huber can be seen at http://khht.com/huber/home.html. THE FCC COULD HAVE A GOING-OUT-OF-BUSINESS SALE Copyright 1995 by Peter Huber. Electronic copies of this document may be distributed freely, provided that this notice accompanies all copies. ------------------ Here's how Congress can raise $10 billion a year and cut government at the same time. No new taxes. No phony accounting. No leveling the timber in national parks. No kidding. Economists have known for years that the best way to manage the airwaves is to sell them off in orderly parcels, and then let the market decide how best to use them. Recently, however, economists have been putting numbers to this argument. The numbers are stunning. Congress nationalized all radio spectrum in 1927. Ever since, the Federal Communications Commission has been zoning chunks for one use or another -- radio, paging, satellites, whatever happened to hit the commission's fancy -- and then assigning allotments to favored applicants who promised to use the spectrum accordingly. Until recently, no money changed hands, just political favor. The secondary market, however, gives us a good idea what those individual licenses are worth. When a company like McCaw sells to AT&T for $17 billion, it's easy enough to infer the value of the FCC licenses in the transaction. On that basis, the commercial spectrum currently used for broadcast, cellular telephone, satellite and so on is worth somewhere between $100 billion and $300 billion. If all spectrum were leased on long-term contracts rather than sold, it would generate additional federal revenues of $10 billion to $20 billion a year. This compares with $3 billion currently generated from offshore oil and gas leases and royalties, and $28 million generated from federal grazing fees. To its credit, the FCC recently took a first, reasonably successful, stab at selling off spectrum licenses. In the last 12 months, the various auctions of ten-year licenses of spectrum for so-called personal communications services (meaning: cellular phone service) have raised about $10 billion. The commission would have raised even more if ownership had been sold outright. The FCC and other government agencies are sitting on billions of dollars of additional bandwidth, which remains idle while federal bureaucrats ponder how to assign it. The creation of the cellular industry, which today generates $20 billion or so a year in revenue, was delayed for a decade while the FCC fretted about whether and how it should allocate spectrum to this newfangled use. It's a safe bet that there are other $20 billion industries just waiting for the FCC to awake from its slumber. Spectrum that has already been given away presents a more subtle financial opportunity. Buyers in the secondary market -- AT&T, for example -- can cogently argue that they already paid for their spectrum when they wrote a check to primary licensees like Craig McCaw. At this point there's no fair or politically feasible way for the government to reclaim those licenses. But even here, the FCC still has something very valuable to sell. The FCC never quite gave away spectrum to anyone -- it issued fixed-term licenses. The property, in theory, reverts to the FCC when the leases expire. At present, licensees spend lavishly on lawyers every time they renew or transfer a license. Quite often they have to buy off challengers who file objections for the sole purpose of legal extortion. Existing licensees would pay good money to convert their lease into ownership free and clear. Yet another way for the government to raise a chunk of money is to sell legal erasers. At present, spectrum licenses are strictly zoned. If you're licensed to do television, you may not use your spectrum to do wireless telephony. If the FCC authorized just one UHF television station in Los Angeles to transfer its spectrum to a third cellular provider, the overall public gain would be about $1 billion, or so the government itself estimated in 1992. Nextel was created in just this way, by an entrepreneur who bought up taxi dispatch licenses and then persuaded the FCC to rezone them for digital radio services. Deleting a few lines of legal boilerplate from all outstanding FCC licenses would create tens of billions of dollars of new national wealth. Which means that the rights to erase that boilerplate are immensely valuable. They, too, can be sold. Sold they should be. These rights are currently in the wrong hands. While the FCC owns them, they just make work for bureaucrats and inflate the FCC's already bloated $200 million annual budget. The opportunity here is almost too good to be true. A single, clean piece of dezone-and-auction legislation will raise money, shrink government and unleash private enterprise on the wireless lanes of the infobahn industry. Someone should write it. ------------------------------ From: michaelv@qualcomm.com (Michael Vakulenko) Subject: X.25 Equipment Help Wanted Date: 23 May 1995 12:53:42 GMT Organization: Qualcomm Israel Hi, We are looking for X.25 switch (DCE) equipment for our project. Please, advise where we could find such an equipment. Any relevant information will be appreciated. Please, respond by e-mail. Thanks in advance, Michael Vakulenko, Voice: +972-4-577999 Software Engineer, Fax: +972-4-577998 Qualcomm Israel, Ltd. Email: michaelv@qualcomm.com ------------------------------ From: tholome@dialup.francenet.fr (Eric Tholome) Subject: I Just Bought a CT2 Phone and I Love It Date: Tue, 23 May 1995 21:10:26 +0200 I thought I'd let you know that I just bought a CT2 phone (digital cordless phone) and I love it. Actually, I already had the handset and was using it from time to time in the street (France Telecom offers a CT2 public service in and around Paris). A few days ago, I just bought my personal base station. It's amazing: it is sold with a range of around 1000 feet, just like most old CT0 phones. But unlike old CT0 phones, which actually start being noisy when you're just one room away from your base station, my new CT2 base station will let me call from anywhere in my flat. What's more, I can even call from 3 floors below, and from several hundred feet outside, with a perfect sound quality. With all the features (takes about 3 hours to configure it!), plus the privacy and security of a digital technology, it is really worth its price. Is CT2 popular in the U.S.A.? Eric Tholome 23, avenue du Centre tholome@dialup.francenet.fr 78180 Montigny le Bretonneux phone: +33 1 30 48 06 47 France fax: same number, call first! ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 May 95 04:15:35 EST From: mark@legend.akron.oh.us (Mark E. Daniel) (Mark E. Daniel) Subject: My Experiences With GTE's Tele-Go Service Greetings everyone. You may remember my posts about GTE Tele-Go service from a while ago. Now that I've had it for a while I have some comments to make. They say one can use his/her cell phone as a cordless while at home, with a little gadget called an Enhanced (ha!) Cordless Base Station., You may remember I mentioned this before. Finally I got the ECB. It didn't work. You are supposed to authorize your cell phone with the ECB before you can use it. Mine wouldn't authorize. I called, days past. I called again. This time I was given a access charge credit for my troubles. Finally someone called. But it was on a day when I wasn't home. A few more days past. Finally I was home when the guy called. So he comes out and reprograms my cell handset and the ECB. So now the thing authorizes. Of course I find out that you can not simply hook your ECB to the phone line (and this is *wierd*). You have to use one of those handy two-jack-in-one deals from Radio Shack and hook a standard phone to one site, and the ECB to the other. I can't find anyone who can explain *why* this is necessary, or what the ECB uses the phone for. But they say it won't work if you don't do it this way. A thought I just had is that perhaps the ECB does not have the capacity to dial and perhaps the phone is used to complete the part of the call which is set up via my POTS line. It works the same as when it's in cell mode. You just dial and then the number is sent to the cell site (in this case the ECB) and then the ECB goes off-hook and presumably dials the number. The sound quality is not as good as when you use the cell-mode. It sounds *very* far away and not very loud. But it gets a little worse. The ECB dropped all my calls at varying times. And I tried a little experiment. When one is in the range of their ECB, all calls to their cellular number are to get forwarded to their POTS line. The phone ("handset") in question is an Oki Telecom 1150. You can press Menu and the Green "dial tone" button to have the phone use cell-mode instead of the ECB. I have call forwarding on my cellular account. I wanted to see if forwarding my calls would have any effect on the ECB forwarding. It did. It simply quit working. I tried deactivating it and all that did was go to the "Your call can not be completed at this time..." intercept. Morning comes. I call GTE Mobilnet to tell them of my problems. Re: The call dropping they say I have an outdated ECB and they'll have to replace it. I inform them that my ECB forwarding quit working and they come back and quote me the number I had forwarded my cellular to. Wow I said. I tell the rep of my experiment and she then comes and tells me that my cell phone was not programmed with the ECB forwarding number and that I had used an improper code to deactivate the forwarding. Although the Fine Manual said to use *730, she said that *720 is proper. Both of them give confirmation tones when dialed even though the only custom calling feature I have is forwarding. So I get impatient and take the ECB back to a GTE store. They've sent an order for a new updated ECB that doesn't drop calls to be sent to me. Reason they gave for the old one dropping calls was a reaction to line noise. :-). So.... The guy at the store who looked at my phone and ECB said the phone was programmed fine, dispite what the other person said. Then how the hell does all this work? :-). Does the ECB intercept a celular signal and reroute the call to my POTS line? ECB forwarding BTW is free of airtime charges (when it works). So then are there any alternitives? When I'm using the cell phone "on the go", I pay only .25/min regardless of time of day. and only $19.95/mo access charge. But the service area is limited to the 216 area code. They say I can use national Roamer's Network to make calls out of my service area, but that it's pricey and charges via a credit card. Can anyone tell me how that works? Can anyone give me .25/min when in the local area and some other imflated rate when "roaming"? But with incomming privlanges as well? Or is it simply not possible and I'm a nut for thinking it should be? Mark E Daniel (Loving SysOp of The Legend BBS) Inet: mark@legend.akron.oh.us medaniel@delphi.com (Direct INet) 521 Shannon CT Akron OH 44312-2276 BBS/FAX: +1 216 733 9121 v: 3245 Pager : +1 216 320 0174 ------------------------------ From: wa2ise@netcom.com (Robert Casey) Subject: Are 1-800-0xx-xxxx and 1-800-1xx-xxxx Numbers Possible? Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest) Date: Tue, 23 May 1995 03:12:20 GMT Can the phone system support toll free 1-800 numbers of the format 1-800-0xx-xxxx and/or 1-800-1xx-xxxx? I know you never see exchanges in regular area codes starting with 0 or 1, but, as far as I know, one phone in the "800" "area code" can't just dial seven digits to reach another phone in 1-800. Not like phones in regular area codes. So, it seems that the phone system would not get confused with 1-800-0xx-xxxx or 1-800-1xx-xxxx. This could add an extra 1/5 possible numbers to 1-800 toll free service. What have I missed? ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 May 1995 11:25:47 -0700 From: grandi@noao.edu (Steve Grandi) Subject: New Area Codes Announced Bellcore seems to have made a batch of assignments lately: 1) According to the {St. Louis Post Dispatch}, AC 573 has been assigned to the upcoming split or overlay of AC 314 (to take place in February 1996). The Missouri Public Services Commission is holding hearings on the split vs. overlay question. 2) According to the {Cleveland Plain Dealer}, AC 330 has been assigned to an upcoming split of AC 216. The nature of the split is still uncertain but Cleveland will retain 216. The timescale is quoted to be the end of 1995 or early 1996. 3) Ian Fisher (ifisher@unixg.ubc.ca) reports in alt.dcom.telecom that the {Vancouver Sun} reports that AC 250 has been assigned for a split of AC 604. The Greater Vancouver area will retain 604; implementation will begin in October 1996. Who is next? According Bellcore's "number exhaustion list" AC 818 in the Los Angeles metro area, AC 210 in S. Texas (including San Antonio) and AC 318 in Louisiana are getting close to splits. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: And of course we here in 708 got bypassed entirely with the pending split to 630, and the northern suburbs of Chicago will be in 847 sometime next year. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Raymond.Charles.Jender@att.com Subject: Re: What is the Exact Meaning of POTS? Organization: AT&T NSC, 2600 Warrenville, Lisle, IL Date: Tue, 23 May 1995 15:55:07 GMT > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I think the last word is 'service' rather > than 'system'. A minor distinction perhaps, perhaps not.

lain ld > elephone ervice or POTS usually refers to the use of just one or > two lines with just regular instruments and no bells or whistles. POTS > lines would not have any of the newer custom calling features for > example. POTS always refers to the humble and simple service of any single > subscriber, not to the system or network as a whole. PAT] Pat, In my world of telephony, we use POTS to differentiate from a Centrex line also ... for testing purposes in the labs, we order our test lines by POTS or Centrex. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: So maybe it just is relative to whatever is going on in the industry. Any simple and unadorned arrangement will be called POTS when compared to a more elaborate version of the same thing. Would you say that is correct? PAT] ------------------------------ From: aawadde@pb1.PacBell.COM (Tony Waddell) Subject: Re: What is the Exact Meaning of POTS? Date: Tue, 22 May 1995 16:22:25 GMT Organization: Pacific Bell > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I think the last word is 'service' rather > than 'system'. A minor distinction perhaps, perhaps not.

lain ld > elephone ervice or POTS usually refers to the use of just one or > two lines with just regular instruments and no bells or whistles. POTS > lines would not have any of the newer custom calling features for > example. POTS always refers to the humble and simple service of any single > subscriber, not to the system or network as a whole. PAT] Pat, you could well be correct, because I've heard Plain Old Telephone Service referred to as POTS for quite some time now. But when I was in the business office too many years ago, we service reps used to get "credit" for selling the newer type telephones: touch tone, slimline, DesignLine, etc. When a customer just wanted the standard dial phone, s/he was getting a

lain ld elephone et. (We did have color phones and I vaguely recall that we may even have charged extra for them, but I didn't work there so long ago that "the customer could get any color they wanted as long as it was black"). Back then, there wern't a lot of options for the "service" end, (at least for residential customers), so almost everyone got plain old telephone SERVICE by default. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 May 1995 19:17:55 -0500 From: mikem@i-link.net (Mike McKinney) Subject: Re: Meeting the Challenge John Higdon, in issue #249, writes: > The following remarks concern the history, practices, and policies of > Pacific Bell and do not necessarily reflect any aspect of any of the > other RBOCs. However, I suspect that there may be aspects of these > observations that do apply in one way or another. Come on John, you can't hide behind this thin of a disclaimer ! He later says: > As telcos across the nation were rolling out 976 services to > providers, Pac*Bell followed suit. However, the PB powers-that-be > looked at all these potential competitors (to its failed chat line) > and hedged its bets. Exercising its power as owner and controller of > the network, yet hiding behind the PUC tariffs that the company itself > wrote, Pac*Bell offered 976 services to information providers with > incredible conditions attached. > A provider had to place an incredible cash deposit with the written > service installation order, usually several thousand dollars. The > installation site had to have "excess facilities" which meant that any > 976 lines had to be installed on pairs that would never conceivably be > used for POTS. The site had to be located within some arbitrary > perimeter of the specific 976-serving office. A cash deposit is required on *any* major installation that requires capitol investment on a Telco's part, either that or a letter of guarantee that the service will be used long enough to recover the cost. This will probably change with real competiton because there will no doubt be companies that will do it just for the monthly service charges. As an aside to that there will probably be a lot of competitors that fail because of poor choices in who they try to serve. It will be a gamble: some will win, some will lose and only the biggest or the most astute will survive. As regards to other installation requirements, I have no idea what he means by "The installation site had to have "excess facilities" which meant that any 976 lines had to be installed on pairs that would never conceivably be used for POTS." Perhaps John could explain his comment. It's obvious that John knows nothing about the technical side of the telephone business because any time you go outside the walls of the CO you're going to have physical requirements: simple physics determines how far you can push a given signal across a given facility and simple economics determines how much money to spend to push it any further. If it costs more to push the signal than the signal costs, there is no profit in it. Again, this could change. And again this could be the downfall of many companies. Won't those people who go with the lowest price be thrilled when there 'real' cost doubles (or more) because their provider folds and they have to install the service a second time (and a third, fourth, etc.: providers will not be the only ones gambling). Mike McKinney SW Bell Austin, TX mikem@i-link.net [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: To the contrary, I think John Higdon has a very excellent knowledge of the technical side of this business. And unlike yourself, I cannot imagine a provider going out of business without making arrangements for its existing customer base to be serviced by some other remaining provider. I guess it is possible, but I suspect a new law might be put on the books saying that existing customer bases had to be dealt with by the remaining companies, etc. PAT] ------------------------------ From: turner7@pacsibm.org (Lee Winson) Subject: Re: Phone Monopolies Date: 24 May 1995 01:03:40 GMT Organization: PACS IBM SIG BBS As a small-time POTS customer, I am interested in the highest quality service at the lowest possible price. I don't really care if that's delivered by competition or a regulated monopoly. If it's more economical for a local telephone company to deliver a service or product (due to economies of scale or expertise), then why not let it deliver it? For instance, Bell Atlantic charges me cheaper toll rates than the LD carriers, but Bell is not allowed to provide long distance service between its own customers if it crosses LATA lines. Why shouldn't Bell be allowed to provide such service? And if competing PBX/DID manufacturers can't compete against a Bell centrex system, should the Bell company be handcuffed or criticized? There are certain economies of scale of doing everything in one place (which is why the system became a monopoly in the first place.) I am glad I can own my own equipment. But it's interesting how I find myself seeking Western Electric brand phones instead of newer stuff -- I find they're more reliable and durable than the "AT&T" brand or anything else (and I hate chime ringers). As to customer-owned coin phones, I believe they are tremendous ripoffs. The tiny little instruction card is usually misleading and the prices charged are always higher than Bell coin phones. Now why is that? (Anybody involved in this, please, please comment.) [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: They are higher priced because the owner has to pay the same for the telco connection as the telco charges itself for its own coin phones. He is not running a charity, or a Union Station phree phone (like Elana discussed). He wants to make a profit for himself and telco is detirmined to get their profit one way or another out of it also. So he has to charge more in order to be able to siphon off some for himself. Another reason they are usually higher priced is because the COCOT owner will put in a phone many times where telco will not put one in. If telco cannot make a profit from a public phone, then it won't be there in most instances unless someone else is willing to have a 'semi-public' coin phone there, allow telco to keep all the money -- paying no commissions to the owner of the property -- AND pay a monthly fee, typically ten or fifteen dollars, for having the pay phone there. The COCOT guy in the meantime goes in the same place, offers to put a phone there and pay commmissions to the proprietor. Where do those commissions come from? That's why COCOT phones typically cost more to use, but granted, they are a ripoff to most of us. For the poor person living in a ghetto slum where the only available pay phone is the COCOT at the corner liquor store or lottery agent however, it is probably a lifesaver at times and worth the cost. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V15 #253 ****************************** Received: from ns1.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa10795; 24 May 95 16:00 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA22878 for telecomlist-outbound; Wed, 24 May 1995 08:07:15 -0500 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA22869; Wed, 24 May 1995 08:07:12 -0500 Date: Wed, 24 May 1995 08:07:12 -0500 From: TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson) Message-Id: <199505241307.IAA22869@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #254 TELECOM Digest Wed, 24 May 95 08:07:00 CDT Volume 15 : Issue 254 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Cox Amendment to Limit Universal Service to Voice Telephone (M. Solomon) Re: I Just Bought a CT2 Phone and I Love It (Jan Joris Vereijken) Re: T1.403 ESF and CRC-6 Usefulness (Al Varney) Re: What is the Exact Meaning of POTS? (Jamie Mason) Re: What is the Exact Meaning of POTS? (Gareth J. Evans) Re: What's CAPI? Especially 'API' (James Carlson) Re: Long Wave and Medium Wave Transmitters (Lars Poulsen) Re: Easy Way to Busy Line in Modem Pool? (Kevin Kadow) Re: 10224 - Thanks MCI!! (Les Reeves) Re: Cell One/Boston (John R. Covert) 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: 500-677-1616 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, 24 May 1995 00:56:30 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Cox Amendment to Limit Universal Service to Voice Grade Telephone Reply-To: monty@roscom.COM Submitted FYI: Begin forwarded message: TAP-INFO - An Internet newsletter available from listproc@tap.org TAXPAYER ASSETS PROJECT - INFORMATION POLICY NOTE May 23, 1995 - Representative Christopher Cox (R-CA) may offer amendment to limit universal service to voice grade telephone service. - Amendment may lead to higher residential ISDN tariffs James Love (202/387-8030; love@tap.org) TAP During the May 17, 1995 House Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Finance mark-up on HR 1555, Representative Christopher Cox (R-CA, voice 202/225-5611; fax 202/225-9177, staff David Sachs) offered an amendment that would have limited payments from a universal service fund to voice grade telephone services that are generally available on the date the Act passes. The Cox amendment specifically would have deleted language that would have defined universal service to include: "access to advanced telecommunications services and capabilities." The controversy concerns the new way that telecommunications services will be priced to consumers. At present, most states have monopoly local exchange carriers, which charge prices set by state regulators to reflect universal service goals, such as lower tariffs for residential consumers. As Congress seeks to promote competition for local telephone service, it is setting up a mechanism to support universal service that will be funded by "equitable and nondiscriminatory contributions" by all telecommunications providers. These funds will be used to support universal service goals. The issue of how the money will be spent will be decided later. In the House bill, the decisions will be made by a joint board composed of federal and state regulators plus a state consumer advocate. It is anticipated that universal service funds will be used to lower the cost of residential telecommunications services, by lowering the allocation of joint infrastructure costs paid for by residential consumers. By limiting the contributions to voice grade services, Representative Cox would treat residential ISDN services (or other digital technologies) differently than residential voice grade services. Because ISDN or other digital technologies would not receive any universal service contributions at all, the cost of providing the ISDN service would be both the incremental cost of the providing the technology and the loss of the universal service contribution. This is likely to lead to higher ISDN tariffs for some residential consumers -- particularly where state regulatory commissions have sought to provide lower ISDN residential tariffs. Representative Rick Boucher (D-VA) objected to the Cox amendment, as freezing technology at present levels. Cox staffers say he is trying to freeze regulation, not technology. The matter was tabled until the full Commerce Committee mark-up on the 24th. TAP VIEW TAP opposes the Cox amendment on universal service. We believe the Joint Board should have the authority to redefine universal service according to the broader public interest criteria included in the original bill, and we believe that high speed ISDN connections should be included in universal service. Below is the original language for universal service, the Cox amendment, and contact information for the Commerce Committee. ORIGINAL LANGUAGE ON UNIVERSAL SERVICE AND COX AMENDMENT TO UNIVERSAL SERVICE. 1. ORIGINAL LANGUAGE `SEC. 246. UNIVERSAL SERVICE. `(a) Joint Board To Preserve Universal Service . - Within 30 days after the date of enactment of this part, the Commission shall convene a Federal-State Joint Board under section 410(c) for the purpose of recommending actions to the Commission and State commissions for the preservation of universal service in furtherance of the purposes set forth in section 1 of this Act. In addition to the members required under section 410(c), one member of the Joint Board shall be a State-appointed utility consumer advocate nominated by a national organization of State utility consumer advocates. (b) Principles . - The Joint Board shall base policies for the preservation of universal service on the following principles: (1) Just and reasonable rates . - A plan adopted by the Commission and the States should ensure the continued viability of universal service by maintaining quality services at just and reasonable rates. (2) Definitions of included services; comparability in urban and rural areas . - Such plan should recommend a definition of the nature and extent of the services encompassed within carriers` universal service obligations. Such plan should seek to promote access to advanced telecommunications services and capabilities, and to promote reasonably comparable services for the general public in urban and rural areas, while maintaining just and reasonable rates. (3) Adequate and sustainable support mechanisms. - Such plan should recommend specific and predictable mechanisms to provide adequate and sustainable support for universal service. (4) Equitable and nondiscriminatory contributions . - All providers of telecommunications services should make an equitable and nondiscriminatory contribution to the preservation of universal service. (5) Educational access to advanced telecommunications services . - To the extent that a common carrier establishes advanced telecommunications services, such plan should include recommendations to ensure access to advanced telecommunications services for students in elementary and secondary schools. (6) Additional principles . - Such other principles as the Board determines are necessary and appropriate for the protection of the public interest, convenience, and necessity and consistent with the purposes of this Act. (c) Definition of Universal Service . - In recommending a definition of the nature and extent of the services encompassed within carriers universal service obligations under subsection (b)(2), the Joint Board shall consider the extent to which - (1) a telecommunications service has, through the operation of market choices by customers, been subscribed to by a substantial majority of residential customers; (2) such service or capability is essential to public health, public safety, or the public interest; (3) such service has been deployed in the public switched telecommunications network; and (4) inclusion of such service within carriers` universal service obligations is otherwise consistent with the public interest, convenience, and necessity. The Joint Board may, from time to time, recommend to the Commission modifications in the definition proposed under subsection (b). (d) Report; Commission Response . - The Joint Board convened pursuant to subsection (a) shall report its recommendations within 270 days after the date of enactment of this part. The Commission shall complete any proceeding to act upon such recommendations and to comply with the principles set forth in subsection (b) within one year after such date of enactment. 2. COX AMENDMENT Change SEC. 246.(b)(2) Definitions of included services, to read: (inserted language in caps] (2) Definitions of included services; comparability in urban and rural areas . - Such plan should recommend a definition of the nature and extent of the services encompassed within carriers` universal service obligations THAT IS BASED ON BASIC VOICE-GRADE LOCAL TELEPHONE SERVICE EQUIVALENT TO THE SERVICE GENERALLY AVAILABLE TO RESIDENTIAL SUBSCRIBERS ON THE DATE OF ENACTMENT OF THIS PART. Such plan should seek to promote [STRIKE: access to advanced telecommunications services and capabilities, and to promote] reasonably comparable services for the general public in urban and rural areas, while maintaining just and reasonable rates. STRIKE all of SEC. 246(c), Definition of Universal Service. Committee on Commerce PHONE FAX REPUBLICANS Bliley, Thomas,Chmn (VA) 225-2927 225-0011 Moorhead,Carlos(CA) 225-4176 226-1279 Fields, Jack 226-2424 226-4105 Oxley, Michael(OH)v-c 225-2676 226-1160 Bilirakis, Michael(FL) 225-5755 225-4085 Schaefer,Dan(CO) 225-7882 225-7885 schaefer@hr.house.gov Barton,Joe(TX) 225-2002 225-3052 Hastert,Dennis(IL) 225-2976 225-0697 dhastert@hr.house.gov Stearns,Cliff (FL) 225-5744 225-3973 cstearns@hr.house.gov Paxon,Bill(NY) 225-5260 225-5910 Gillmor,Paul(OH) 225-6405 225-1985 Klug,Scott(WI) 225-2906 225-6942 Franks, Gary (CT) 225-3822 225-5085 Greenwood, Jim (PA) 225-4276 225-9511 Crapo, Michael (ID) 225-5531 225-8216 Cox,Christopher(CA) 225-5611 225-9177 Burr, Richard (NC) 225-2071 225-2995 Bilbray, Brian (CA) 225-2040 225-2948 Whitefield, Ed (KY) 225-3115 225-3547 Ganske, Greg (IA) 225-4426 225-3193 Frisa,Dan(NY) 225-5516 225-3187 Norwood, Charlie (GA) 225-4101 225-3397 White,Rick(WA) 225-6311 225-3524 repwhite@hr.house.gov Coburn,Tom(OK) 225-2701 225-3038 DEMOCRATS Dingell, John(MI) 225-4071 Waxman, Henry(CA) 225-3976 225-4099 Markey, Edward(MA) 225-2836 225-1716 Tauzin,W.J.(Billy)(LA) 225-4031 225-0563 Wyden, Ron(OR) 225-4811 225-8941 Hall, Ralph(TX) 225-6673 225-3332 Bryant, John(TX) 225-2231 225-0327 Boucher, Rick(VA) 225-3861 225-0442 ninthnet@hr.house.gov Manton, Tom(NY) 225-3965 225-1909 tmanton@hr.house.gov Towns, Edolphus(NY) 225-5061 225-1018 Studds, Gerry(MA) 225-3111 225-2212 Pallone, Frank(NJ) 225-4671 225-9665 Brown, Sherrod(OH) 225-3401 225-2266 Lambert Lincoln,Blanche(AR) 225-4076 225-4654 Gordon, Bart(TN) 225-4231 225-6887 Furse, Elizabeth(OR) 225-0855 225-9497 Deutsch, Peter(FL) 225-7931 225-8456 Rush, Bobby(IL) 225-4372 226-0333 Eshoo, Anna(GA) 225-8104 225-8890 annagram@hr.house.gov Klink, Ron(PA) 225-2565 226-2274 ------------------------------------ TAP-INFO is an Internet Distribution List provided by the Taxpayer Assets Project (TAP). TAP was founded by Ralph Nader to monitor the management of government property, including information systems and data, government funded R&D, spectrum allocation and other government assets. TAP-INFO reports on TAP activities relating to federal information policy. Tap-info is archived at www.essential.org and gopher.essential.org in the taxpayer assets project directory. Subscription requests to tap-info to listproc@tap.org with the message: subscribe tap-info your name. Taxpayer Assets Project; P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 20036 v. 202/387-8030; f. 202/234-5176; internet: tap@tap.org ------------------------------ From: janjoris@win.tue.nl (Jan Joris Vereijken) Subject: Re: I Just Bought a CT2 Phone and I Love It Date: 24 May 1995 14:07:07 +0200 Organization: Eindhoven University of Technology, the Netherlands Reply-To: janjoris@acm.org (Jan Joris Vereijken) Eric Tholome wrote: > I thought I'd let you know that I just bought a CT2 phone (digital cordless > phone) and I love it. > ... > new CT2 base station will let me call from anywhere in my flat. What's > more, I can even call from 3 floors below, and from several hundred > feet outside, with a perfect sound quality. With all the features > (takes about 3 hours to configure it!), plus the privacy and security > of a digital technology, it is really worth its price. Yes, CT2 *is* wonderful! I have one too ;-) Did you know that in The Netherlands there is a very substantial CT2 network? It's called "Greenpoint" (formerly "Kermit"), and it's operated by PTT Telecom. I live in Amsterdam, and they have set up so many base stations that I don't even bother to remember the locations anymore. I just count on getting a signal when I want to call. And 9 out of 10 times I do! Can you tell me how large the French network (it's called "BeBop", isn't it?) is? I'm considering to have the roaming option enabled, so I can use the phone when I'm over there. By the way, the U.K. used to have *four* (correct me if I'm wrong) CT2 networks, but all have stopped operations. Damn! Enjoy your phone, Jan Joris ------------------------------ From: varney@usgp4.ih.att.com (Al Varney) Subject: Re: T1.403 ESF and CRC-6 Usefulness Organization: AT&T Network Systems Date: Wed, 24 May 1995 05:17:09 GMT In article , Pratt, David C. wrote: > The bottom line is that you MUST transmit an accurate CRC-6 on an ESF > DS1. If not it is likely that the far end will go into alarm based on > an "unavailable seconds" condition. If you want to ignore the incoming > CRC-6 that's your problem. So you can't build a cheap DS0 drop/add for ESF without reconstructing the CRC. Is that what you had in mind? Al Varney ------------------------------ From: g1jmason@cdf.toronto.edu (Jamie Mason) Subject: Re: What is the Exact Meaning of POTS? Organization: University of Toronto, Computing Disciplines Facility Date: Wed, 24 May 1995 04:25:36 GMT Raymond.Charles.Jender@att.com writes: > In my world of telephony, we use POTS to differentiate from a Centrex > line also ... for testing purposes in the labs, we order our test lines > by POTS or Centrex. I have also seen POTS to mean the provision of regular single-line telephone service, as separate from all the custom calling features associated with it. This reminds me of the routine that one goes through when ordering (regular) telephone service. First, one makes the order for the service itself: address, number of lines, directory listing, and billing arrangements, as well as making an appointment for physical installation, if necessary. This is the arrangement for POTS. Second, the rep tries to sell you some custom calling features. (Or, if you're on the ball, you tell him exactly what you want ...) I have heard this part being called, in jest, the arangement for PANS; a pun on POTS, of course! I don't remember exactly what the acronym was purported to stand for: I think it was something very silly along the lines of "Pretty And Nice Stuff". :-) Jamie ------------------------------ From: Gareth J. Evans Subject: Re: What is the Exact Meaning of POTS? Date: 24 May 1995 11:00:20 +0100 Organization: Sectel > I was wondering whether any of the Digest Readers, or you Pat, could > explain me what exactly POTS means. POTS - Plain Ordinary Telephone System PANS - Potentially Attractive New Services CUPS - Customer Unspecified Private Services Gareth Evans gae@sectel.com Tel +44 1285 655 766 Fax +44 1285 655 595 ------------------------------ From: carlson@xylogics.com (James Carlson) Subject: Re: What's CAPI? Especially 'API' Date: 24 May 1995 07:06:31 -0400 Organization: Xylogics Incorporated Reply-To: carlson@xylogics.com In article , bws@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu (Byung Wan Suh) writes: > I'd like to ask one simple question. I figured out that CAPI stands for > COMMON-ISDN-API, but what's the API? Please let me know with direct > email. Thanks in advance. It's a relatively simple message-queue based interface for application programs which want to communicate via ISDN. I got my copy of the spec from ITK GmbH (Emil-Figge-Str. 80 / D-44227 Dortmund). The spec was originally developed in Germany, and is distributed by: DBP Telekom Fernmeldeamt Bad Kreuznach Projekt ROLAND Postfach 9100 Wilhelmstr. 6 GERMANY 55543 Bad Kreuznach tel 0671 / 83 33 0 fax 0671 / 96 69 99 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 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 May 95 23:34:40 PDT From: lars@RNS.COM (Lars Poulsen) Subject: Re: Long Wave and Medium Wave Transmitters Organization: Rockwell International - CMC Network Products In article is written: >* Do you know long wave transmitters in the frequency range 230kHz-270kHz > and 355kHz-395kHz and medium wave transmitters in the frequency range > 480kHz-520kHz, 605kHz-645kHz? The US medium wave band goes 530 KhZ to 1610 kHz. There is a major transmitter in Los Angeles on 640 (KFI). But I suspect you are looking for specific transmitters in Europe. >* Is somewhere a list of long wave and medium wave transmitters for > Europe and perhaps other countries? I'm interested in magnetic field > strength in about 10km distance of those transmitter and their location > too. If you can tell me an estimate of the transmitted power, I can > calculate the field strength by myself. How about the World Radio and TV Handbook, published annually in Denmark. It should be available in most large libraries. Lars Poulsen Internet E-mail: lars@RNS.COM Rockwell Network Systems Phone: +1-805-562-3158 7402 Hollister Avenue Telefax: +1-805-968-8256 Santa Barbara, CA 93105 Internets: designed and built while you wait ------------------------------ From: kadokev@ripco.com (Kevin Kadow) Subject: Re: Easy Way to Busy Line in Modem Pool? Organization: Ripco Internet BBS, Chicago Date: Wed, 24 May 1995 05:22:36 GMT > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Actually, some readers of this group > have reported busying out lines by merely shorting the wires in the > pair and letting it go at that. It seems to cause no harm to the phone > network, although the PBX at your school may be different than others. > You could probably just install a little toggle switch for each line > where it is connected at the wall. Bring up a little jumper wire from > the pair to the toggle switch which, when thrown, will short the two > wires. When you want to take a line out of service, just flip the > little toggle switch for each pair. There are other, more elaborate > methods as well. PAT] With a PBX it shouldn't cause any trouble, but I have been told that just shorting the line will cause the phone company equipment to show line trouble. The new USR Courier modems have a front panel button that can be configured to perform one of several functions, including busying the line. kadokev@ripco.com Kevin Kadow FREE Usenet/Mail, inexpensive Internet - Ripco... Wearing white hats since 1983 Dialup:(312) 665-0065 | http://www.ripco.com/ | Telnet:foley.ripco.com ('info') ------------------------------ From: Les Reeves Subject: Re: 10224 - Thanks MCI!! Date: Wed, 24 May 1995 06:09:20 -0700 Organization: CRL Dialup Internet Access On Fri, 19 May 1995, Donald R. Newcomb wrote: > Les, very good advice to the low-volume (retail) buyer of LD. I have > tended to use a local LD company which is not as cheap just because > I can pick up any phone in MS and get the same DD rates by dialing > 950-0885+access code+area code+number. For quick calls it is often > cheaper doing this from a pay-phone than dropping a quarter. Since posting the original message I have been told that that MCI (aka TelecomUSA) is only offering 10224 at fifteen cents per minute in a few select areas [thanks Richard Layman]: From: Richard Layman To: Les Reeves Subject: Re: 10224 (fwd) I called, because 700 ... didn't work either and they said it's only operative in CO, IL, GA, TX, and CA. Richard Layman, Mgr., Business Development, and Research Producer Computer Television Network, 825 6th St. NE, Washington, DC 20002 (202)544-5722 - (202)543-6730 (fax) - rlayman@capaccess.org http://www.phoenix.net/~ctn (... I know, it needs work) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 May 95 21:59:18 EDT From: John R. Covert Subject: Re: Cell One/Boston Brian Vita wrote: > The official party line was that their switch was 13 years old and, > being so grossly out of date, required replacement with an AT&T > switch. I tend to think that the reality of it was simply that since > AT&T spent meggabucks buying a portion of CO's parent, they are > forcing their subsidiary CO franchises to buy new AT&T switching > equipment to get some of their money back. Cell One/Boston is owned by Southwestern Bell; I'm sure AT&T did not purchase any part of Southwestern Bell. You're thinking of McCaw, which operates the "A" carrier franchises in many other cities. The name "CellOne" is actually (as I understand) owned by Southwestern Bell, who acquired it when they purchased the initial trial systems in Chicago and Washington. They license it to any "A" carrier who wishes to do business under that name. And, of course, they don't use it in those systems where they are the local wireline "B" carrier. > A $5 charge for detail billing. According to my last bill, that charge is only $1. I still find it unjustified. And their service reps have falsely claimed that NYNEX also has a detail billing charge, which I do not find on my NYNEX bill. > My wife notified them that she wanted to maintain the detail > billing when the notice went out. They ignored her request and > started sending just the summary bills. Interesting. I did nothing at all and continued to get detail billing (and started getting the $1 charge). > We've just been given notice of a per call "line access" charge that is > going be assessed to each outbound call. This was the last straw for Cell One and me. The actual change was that the land line charge was changing from a pure pass-through of the local Telco's message-rate business service charge of 3 cents per call plus 1.6 cents per minute to the new Call One charge of 4 cents per call plus 4.9 cents per minute. When that happened, I called and complained about them tripling my per-minute rate (since I was mostly an off-peak user on the old leisure plan which had been $25 a month and was now $36 a month). She swore up and down that they had not tripled the rates. New math, I suppose. Since I already had NYNEX service for $11/month and 39 cents peak and 29 cents off peak (no land line at all) I decided that I was sick of Cell One and would simply stop my practice of useless gabbing on the phone whenever I was driving somewhere. I had been using up to 400 minutes a month of off peak time; I'll now have to keep that down to about 1/3rd as much, but that's the way it goes. Most of those calls were really totally unnecessary. I had retained the $11/month NYNEX service to save money when roaming. With Cell One's $4/month plus $3/day/system roaming fees, using NYNEX for roaming instead of Cell One paid for the $11 with only 1-3 days of roaming per month. (NYNEX customers are not charged daily fees for roaming no matter where they go in North America.) john ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V15 #254 ****************************** Received: from ns1.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa10992; 24 May 95 16:05 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA24104 for telecomlist-outbound; Wed, 24 May 1995 08:59:12 -0500 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA24096; Wed, 24 May 1995 08:59:09 -0500 Date: Wed, 24 May 1995 08:59:09 -0500 From: TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson) Message-Id: <199505241359.IAA24096@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #255 TELECOM Digest Wed, 24 May 95 08:59:00 CDT Volume 15 : Issue 255 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: 800-1XX, 800-0XX (Mark Cuccia) Re: Bell Canada to File Pay-per-Local-Call Rates (Jeff Bamford) Re: Natural Microsystems VBX/400 Telephony Board Help (Harold Buehl) Re: Natural Microsystems VBX/400 Telephony Board Help (Mike K. Tyler) Re: CLID and Visual Message Waiting Indicator (Chris Garrigues) Re: CLID and Visual Message Waiting Indicator (Barry Loveridge) Re: A Question About Priorities (Matt Barton) Re: Cell One/Boston (Fred R. Goldstein) Re: RBOC IP Legislation Scaring Local ISPs (Tim Gorman) Help Identify Netcom Research (Michael K. Makuch) Book Review: Telecommunications Directory, 1995-96, 7th Edition (N. Allen) US Area Code Changes - Test Numbers (Ben Heckscher) 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: 500-677-1616 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: Mark Cuccia Subject: Re: 800-1XX, 800-0XX Date: Wed, 24 May 95 08:09:00 GMT This type of combination HAS been considered by Bellcore's N.American Numbering as well as the 800 Numbering Administration (Lockheed) and the telecom.industry forums (ICCF, INC, etc.). They seem to have rejected this FOR THE TIME BEING since only 200 possible codes for line-number assignments could be available. Instead they will be going to new special NPA's 888, then 877, 866, 855(?), 844, etc. There would have been WAY-TOO-MANY switches of all types and owned by all types of players in North America which would need special reprogramming to allow CUSTOMER dialable access to a 0 or 1 in the 'D' digit. In 1992 (and revised in 93), Bellcore NANPA issued a 70page (or so) document as an 'IL' on the future of numbering in the North American Numbering Plan. I think it is called 'Long-Term Numbering Plan'. You can get a copy (free) from Bellcore's NANPA (WHICH MOVED from Livingston NJ to Piscataway NJ earlier this month). It discusses such possibilities to preserve a 10-digit number within WZ1 by going to an NXX-0XX or NXX-1XX type of central-office-code -- known as 'unblocking the D digit' for 0 or 1. Some of us might think that this would be ambiguous with special Operator and network special system routing codes as well as test codes used 'only' by telco personnel. It does look confusing, but when an operator needs to reach, say the direct DA operator for a smaller area, (s)he keys [KP]+NPA+0XX+131+[ST]. The 'ST' key 'ends' the dialing string, therefore this is NOT the same thing as NPA-0XX-131X which could be someone's number. Personaly, I'm NOT in favor of 0XX or 1XX 'regular' central office codes in geographic central offices. ANOTHER ambiguity would be with 'non-subscriber'/IXC-issues/RAO-based calling cards (only for those who follow the Bellcore standard), which are of the form NXX-0/1XX-XXXX plus pin (0/1XXX). An 'arbitrary' calling card issued now could 'eventually' be based on someone ELSE'S home phone number and THEY 'should' be assigned an LEC card based on THEIR phone number. BUT --I'll leave this to Bellcore NANPA (or its successor) and the ICCF, INC, etc. BTW - Here in the New Orleans area, when you dial (at least using AT&T and of course SCBell): 1+(or 0+) valid (geographic) NPA+ 0/1XX+xxxx you get cut off RIGHT AWAY by your originating local Bell switch -- in some cases right after the NPA-0/1XX, sometimes after the full ten digits. When you dial 1 + 800 + ANY ten digits, there is a slight delay (while the 800 database is checked) before you get 'clicked-over' to whatever treatment is to be done. THIS INCLUDES 800-0XX and 800-1XX dial-strings -- the recording is 'your call cannot be completed as dialed' and it comes from the Bell TANDEM switch. MARK J. CUCCIA mcuccia@law.tulane.edu TEL, WORK: +1 504 865 5954 (UNiversity 5-6000, EXT.5954) FAX, WORK: +1 504 865 5917 (UNiversity 5-6000, EXT.5917) HOME: 4710 Wright Road New Orleans LA 70128 TEL (will forward to cellular & voicemail) +1 504 241 2497 (CHestnut 1-2497) ------------------------------ From: jeffb@audiolab.uwaterloo.ca (Jeff Bamford) Subject: Re: Bell Canada to File Pay-per-Local-Call Rates Organization: Audio Research Group, University of Waterloo Date: Wed, 24 May 1995 13:54:01 -0400 In article , Dave Leibold wrote: > from Bell News, 15 May 95 - this is Bell Canada's version of events > Bell to file usage-based pricing for business local calling. > sidebar > What business will NOT pay for: > * incoming calls; > * long distance calls; > * calls made within customer's system; > * calls to 911; > * directory assistance (411); > * Bell operator (0); > * Bell repair (611); > * relay services for the hearing impaired (711). > What business will pay for: > * all other outbound local calls. > TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I think they are making a big mistake by > not requiring businesses to pay for calls to Directory Assistance. Many > large businesses are big abusers of this service. There will usually be > hundreds of copies of the telephone directory delivered to a large corp- > oration each year, yet very few employees ever seem to have a copy at > their desk; it is always easier to dial 411. Then also, businesses which > rely on very accurate, up-to-date records of how to reach their customers > such as credit services, banks, etc *never* use the paper directory, > instead preferring the more accurate operator records. One reason all of > us here in Ameritech territory have paid for Directory Assistance calls > for many years now was because of the way businesses abused it. PAT Free long distance? That's what it says above, clearly they must mean that the long distance charge is all that will be paid. The same must apply to directory assistance. They'll charge the 50c to get the number but not for the time to get the number, if that makes sense. Sort of like a cell-phone with free air, you'd still pay for the d.a. but not for the air. Bell Canada can't be that stupid as to give businesses free d.a. Jeff Bamford Email - jeffb@uwaterloo.ca -- NeXT Mail welcome Office/Lab: +1 519 885 1211 x3814 Fax: +1 519 746 8115 WEB Page: A.R.G. Home Page ------------------------------ From: hbuehl@dsm1.dsmnet.com Subject: Re: Natural Microsystems VBX/400 Telephony Board Help Date: 24 May 1995 03:41:25 GMT Organization: Des Moines Internet Reply-To: hbuehl@dsm1.dsmnet.com In , carlin!eharris@uunet.uu.net (Evan Harris) writes: > I need to find a source of technical specs for Natural Microsystems VBX/400 > telephony boards. I need to find out what the file format of the prompt > files is, so that I can create them. > I've called NMS, and they have been no help. Apparently the person that > worked for them that wrote the drivers for the board left the company and > no one knows the specs on the files. (Sounds like good planning to me...) > Anyway, if anyone knows anything about these boards, or knows where I can > get more information on technical details, it would be much appreciated! Your response from NMS is somewhat suspect. The VBX/400, along with all of their voice processing uses a VOX file format which is proprietary to NMS. They have several conversion programs that will allow you to convert from other voice file formats to the VOX. As far as making prompt files, there are also a series of utilities that can be used to develop the prompt files, including rules tables to make the systems count, recite dollars and ordinal numbers, etc. Everything "SHOULD" be available from NMS. We have recently completed a project using a VBX/400 which we had the prompts recorded in 16 bit linear and converted them to VOX using utilities supplied by NMS. We also developed rules and prompt files to speak back numbers, dollars, dates, etc in French. Harold Buehl Croyle & Associates Des Moines, Iowa ------------------------------ From: miket@miket.seanet.com (Mike K. Tyler) Subject: Re: Natural Microsystems VBX/400 Telephony Board Help Date: Wed, 24 May 1995 05:40:23 GMT Organization: OSD, Inc. In article carlin!eharris@uunet.uu.net (Evan Harris) writes: > I've called NMS, and they have been no help. Apparently the person that > worked for them that wrote the drivers for the board left the company and > no one knows the specs on the files. (Sounds like good planning to me...) I don't believe that for a minute. NMS Is still making the VBX 400. Do you have the developers kit? It has all the information as well as Vscript (the NMS scripting language) and ME2 (the "C" interface API) Call them back and get the Vscript stuff, it comes with a great manual and lots of examples. miket@miket.seanet.com ------------------------------ From: cwg@DeepEddy.Com (Chris Garrigues) Subject: Re: CLID and Visual Message Waiting Indicator Date: Wed, 24 May 1995 15:45:08 -0500 Organization: Deep Eddy Internet Consulting In article , mike@sandman.com (Mike Sandman) wrote: > Right now, if you want message waiting indication on CO based voice > mail, you need to pick up the phone and listen for stutter dial tone. > Most phone companies are quickly shifting to a new technology, called > FSK (Frequency Shift Keying). An FSK message waiting indicator works > kinda like caller id. The CO sends out a burst of data every once in > a while, and the FSK gizmo listens for the audio. It either turns the > light on or off based on the data sent. They do this WITHOUT the phone > line going off hook, the data is just audio riding on the pair from > the CO. We should have FSK Message Waiting indicators in stock in the > next couple of weeks, selling for around $30. Maybe you can clear something up for me. I've got SWBell's Call Notes (Voice Mail) on my ISDN line (Seimens switch). Originally they told me that by programming one of my buttons (Seimens 787 phone) to Feature ID Number 64, the associated light would act as a message light. I appear to be the first one in these parts to try to do this, so we're all learning together. They managed to enable the stutter tone, but all we've got the button on FIN 64 to do is clear the stutter tone. Is this a problem with the switch? With switches in general? With my phone? With ISDN in general? Chris Garrigues cwg@DeepEddy.Com Deep Eddy Internet Consulting +1 512 432 4046 609 Deep Eddy Avenue Austin, TX 78703-4513 USA http://www.DeepEddy.Com/~cwg/ ------------------------------ From: vwaves@best.com (Barry Loveridge) Subject: Re: CLID and Visual Message Waiting Indicator Date: Wed, 24 May 1995 09:13:31 Organization: VoiceWaves, Inc. In article mike@sandman.com (Mike Sandman) writes: > There are Stutter Dial Tone Message Waiting devices on the market (we > sell one for $29.95), but they are to be used behind a PBX or Key > System, not for connection to the Public Switched Network - because > the FCC hasn't authorized this kind of device yet. There Stutter Dial Tone Message Waiting devices out there that retail for less then $29.95 and are line powered, so DON'T require batteries or a power adaptor. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 May 1995 00:24:53 GMT From: matt barton Subject: Re: A Question About Priorities Organization: BNR RTP It is certainly true that the interaction of different services provisioned against a line is a very complicated business. There is no single "right" way to set priorities. Bellcore has voluminous spec's addressing some specific interactions, but there are also CEPT, ETSI, and other standards bodies, not to mention the requirements of the telco's and large corporate customer's. In some cases, a specific interaction is never defined in advance, it just occurs as whatever the switch software does, and is then possibly documented afterwards, if ever. With that said, I can state one answer to some of your questions. Call Screening essentially corresponds to the "Call Authorization" point in call (PIC) in the AIN call model, which comes very early. Transfer on Busy would tend to come later, at the Selecting Route PIC. (Transfer on Busy is a feature like any other, and they are all implemented in software these days.) So a good reference to where the PSTN is going regarding service interactions would be a look at the AIN call model. But as to where it is now, it all depends on the specific switch. Matthew Barton,Dept 3R37 PCS is coming to DMS! mattbar@bnr.ca ESN 294-7807 Phone:919-991-7807 fax:-7592 BNR, Inc., Dept 3R37, 35 Davis Dr, POB 13478, RTP, NC 27709-3478 USA ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 May 1995 09:15:17 -0400 From: Fred R. Goldstein Subject: Re: Cell One/Boston Brian Vita complains, > The long promised (threatened) switch change from a Motorola analog to > a AT&T digitial occurred this past weekend (5/12-14) and with it came > three days of nightmarish service.... > When I was finally able to get a live service drone on the line > Monday, I was told that they had no way of anticipating problems (gee, > what about the fiascos at all the other McCaw properties that have > already made the changeover) and that I was basically SOL for the > inconvenience. Except that Cell One/Boston is not a McCaw property. Cell One/Boston is Southwestern Bell, who bought it from Metromedia some years ago. > The official party line was that their switch was 13 years old and, > being so grossly out of date, required replacement with an AT&T > switch. I tend to think that the reality of it was simply that since > AT&T spent meggabucks buying a portion of CO's parent, they are > forcing their subsidiary CO franchises to buy new AT&T switching > equipment to get some of their money back. No relationship between AT&T and SBC/Southwestern Bell, except supplier/ customer. "Cell One" is a shared franchise name for "A" systems. McCaw/AT&T uses it, as do others, including SWB when on the A side. These companies have nothing more in common with each other. Fred R. Goldstein fgoldstein@bbn.com Bolt Beranek & Newman Inc. Cambridge MA USA +1 617 873 3850 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 May 1995 21:22:33 -0500 From: Tim Gorman Subject: Re: RBOC IP Legislation Scaring Local ISPs aa931@detroit.freenet.org (Jack Decker) writes in Telecom Digest V15 #244: > In a previous article, tpeters@hns.com (Thomas Peters) says: >> The relationship between the public and a large regulated monopoly is >> never going to be smooth and free of disagreements, but a little >> balance is in order. The Bell System and the other local phone >> companies have built a fabulous telephone network, by far the best in >> the world. They invested their money, time, and energy on the basis of >> a deal they made with the public long ago. This is how you would repay >> them? > Tom, I think you are living in some sort of fantasyland where the > telephone company was always good, and always put the interest of its > customers first. This, or course, has no relationship whatsoever to > the reality of the situation. > First of all, they got to be monopolies by eating up their competition > like sharks and by convincing (some might say "bribing", but of course > we have no proof of that) legislators that a regulated monopoly was > better than competition. Of course there are always two sides to every story. The one presented here doesn't present the part where if you subscribed to the Jack Doe phone company you couldn't call neighbor on the John Doe phone company. It doesn't present the part where different phone companies were installing poles and wire everywhere and making an eyesore you wouldn't believe. If you haven't seen pictures of New York and Chicago in those days you literally would not believe the mess in the air. It doesn't present the part that much of the competition got eaten up because they couldn't afford the capital investment needed to compete and sold out rather than losing everything. > Then they set up a system where prices bore no relationship to their > costs. And, once again, we see the "they". As in the conspiracy "they". "They" are always out to get the little guy, don't you know. > The way you talk, this system was what the public wanted, and their > elected officials were only expressing the public's desire. Yeah, > right. The telco monopoly and the ridiculous system of charging > outrageous amounts for things that cost the phone company almost zero > was put in place by some pointy-headed bureaucrats who were given a > real snow job by the phone company attorneys (this varied from state > to state, but in no case that I know of was the public consulted on > whether they wanted phone service to be a monopoly). The description of the bureaucrats sounds about right. The problem is that the bureaucrats didn't make the decisions concerning any of this. It was elected officials either making the decisions or appointing the commisioners who did. So, in essence, the public had as much say about this as they did about any of the social welfare programs we have today. I guess one can argue that the public has no say on anything the government does but that sounds rather extreme. > You see, I happen to live near a local phone company that for several > decades has proved what local service could be like if the customers > really are put first (unfortunately NOT near enough to be in their > local service area). That is the Allendale Telephone Company of > Allendale, Michigan, a suburb of Grand Rapids. They offer local > calling to the Grand Rapids area, but their local service prices are > about one-third of those charged by other area phone companies, and > their optional services are much more reasonable as well. And they've > been profitable for at least the last four decades. If it had not > been for the Bell System, there might be a lot more Allendale > Telephone Companies around, and in my opinion we'd all be much better > off. Uh huh. Just as above, this is only part of the story. Did Allendale Telephone Company participate in Division of Revenue separations with the Bell System? If they did, it is quite likely they made out very well because of the favorable payments received. Of course, this doesn't make as nearly as good of a conspiracy story. > So if you are looking for folks to have some sort of gratitude toward > the old Bell System, I think you're going to have to search long and > hard. Perhaps some former employees, and quite likely most of the > stockholders would have some warm feelings for it, but many customers > have felt that all they have got is shafted and gouged. You are judging what "many" people feel based on your feelings. Contrary to this most of the surveys I have seen indicate that most people think they DID receive good value for the service they received. Most people still feel so. What most people feel is that the RBOC's STILL provide good, basic service at a decent price. The problem is that many also feel the RBOC's are not players on the technological frontier. Tim Gorman tg6124@tyrell.net Southwestern Bell Tel. Co. ------------------------------ From: makuch@bga.com (Michael K. Makuch) Subject: Help Identify Netcom Research Date: 24 May 1995 04:10:46 GMT Organization: ABM Data Systems Reply-To: mkm@abm.austin.tx.us I came across an old 8 bit ISA network adapter card that I'd like to try and put to use, only I do not have any documentation on the jumper/dip switch settings. The card is labeled "1989 NETCOM RESEARCH, INC." I have a PC INDUSTRY PHONE BOOK containing many phone numbers of manufacturers but it doesn't have an entry for NETCOM Research. Anyone know who this is or where I can get a phone number for them or documentation on this adapter card? Thanks, Michael Makuch mkm@abm.austin.tx.us ------------------------------ From: Nigel Allen Subject: Book Review: Telecommunications Directory, 1995-96, 7th Edition Date: Wed, 24 May 1995 11:19:56 EDT Organization: 52 Manchester Avenue, Toronto, Ontario M6G 1V3, Canada Here is information about an expensive but useful reference book that may be of interest to many readers of this Digest. It may be available at your local public or university library, or your company's library may have a copy. The description is from the company's catalog. Telecommunications Directory 1995-96, Seventh Edition Edited by John Krol Published by Gale Research Inc., 835 Penobscot Building, Detroit, MI 48226-4094, USA; telephone (313) 961-2242 or 800-877-GALE Copyright 1994 ISBN: 0-8103-9125-2 Price: $340.00 Find detailed descriptions and full contact information on more than 2,500 national and international communications systems and services You'll discover voice and data communication services, local area networks, teleconferencing facilities, videotext and teletext operations, electronic mail services, facsimile services, Internet access providers, voicemail systems and services, satellite services and electronic transactional services. You'll also get the facts on relevant advertising/marketing firms, associations, consultants, law firms, financial organizations, publishers/information services, regulatory and standards bodies, research organizations, seminar and conference sponsors and training organizations. Glossary of terms, acronyms, standards and issues. Function/service, geographic, personal name and master indexes help speed your search. Nigel Allen, Toronto, Ontario, Canada ndallen@io.org http://www.io.org/~ndallen ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 May 95 08:51 EST From: Ben Heckscher <0003094996@mcimail.com> Subject: US Area Code Changes - Test Numbers On Saturday May 13th the US public-switched telephone network stopped completing calls to southern Alabama that were dialed using the old "205" area code. The new area code for this region is "334", which is the first of a new series of area codes that are being assigned without a "0" or "1" as the second digit. By dialing the test numbers listed below, users can find out whether they can reach locations that are using the new US area codes. Recorded messages indicate whether you have successfully reached the test number, or if it could not be completed. Overseas (i.e. non-US) locations, small offices, and users with telephones connected to a PABX should test the numbers to see if they can be reached. Area Code --------- Mandatory Area Old New dialing date Test Number ------------------- --------- ------------ --------------- Southern Alabama 205 334 Now +1 334 223 0600 Western 206 360 19 Aug 1995 +1 360 532 0023 Washington (state) Phoenix Arizona area 602 520 23 Jul 1995 +1 520 782 0100 (*) Northern and 303 970 01 Oct 1995 +1 970 241 0022 Western Colorado Chicago Illinois area 708 630 Undetermined +1 630 203 1204 (*) May require multiple tries to reach this number. Source: FCC, Washington, DC "411 Newsletter", Rockville, MD Network World magazine, 22 May 1995 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: As of this morning, the area 630 number cannot be reached from 708. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V15 #255 ****************************** Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa29435; 25 May 95 19:00 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA24507 for telecomlist-outbound; Thu, 25 May 1995 11:02:09 -0500 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA24497; Thu, 25 May 1995 11:02:05 -0500 Date: Thu, 25 May 1995 11:02:05 -0500 From: TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson) Message-Id: <199505251602.LAA24497@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #256 TELECOM Digest Thu, 25 May 95 11:02:00 CDT Volume 15 : Issue 256 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson GTE Mobilenet Battle Rages On (Dave Rand) COCOT Commissions (Lee Winson) U.S. Postal Service Warns Against Telemarketing Fraud (Nigel Allen) Ohio Telephone Competition (Frank Atkinson) India's Telecom Regulator May Really Be Autonomous (Rishab Aiyer Ghosh) Re: 800 1 and 800 0 - Why Not? (Judith Oppenheimer) Re: Meeting the Challenge (John Higdon) In a Land With No Infrastructure, How to Connect to Internet (S. Schubert) Meridian SL1 - Information Pointers? (Thomas P. Brisco) Review -- FCC Docket # 91-281: Caller ID (stanford@algorhythms.com) Re: Last Laugh! Mike and Terry's Lawnmower Service (Gordon S. Hlavenka) 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: 500-677-1616 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, 24 May 95 17:35 PDT From: dlr@daver.bungi.com (Dave Rand) Subject: GTE Mobilenet Battle Rages On Flashback to September: I had just signed on with GTE Mobilenet in California, only to find them pulling the same old tricks. They resell long distance service (from AT&T and Sprint), unlike Cellular One here in the Bay Area (BATCS). When asked for long distance rates, they refer you off to AT&T. When the bill comes, the AT&T rate doesn't match the GTEM rate (big surprise). I filed complaints with the PUC in California. After wasting a month or so, they said, roughly, "no problem here - they are charging the tariffed rates for California traffic." And, to my utter amazment, they were. GTEM rates are within cents of the AT&T in-state rates. Since this now was an inter-state issue, I filed an informal complaint with the FCC. [the wavy lines disappear, as we snap back into the present] About a month ago, I got a nice letter from the FCC telling be that they had asked AT&T and GTEM to respond to my complaints. AT&T sent me a letter a few days after, telling me that they had started the investigation, and would get back to me within 30 days. They did, telling me that there was no issue with AT&T (correct), and that they had closed their investigation. GTEM send me a letter on the same day, telling me the results of their investigation ... Well, the bottom line was *of COURSE* GTEM was reselling service, and they had carefully trained their staff to answer questions properly about long distance service. Lots of other waffle-words about valued customers, and so on. So I call GTEM up, and ask them how long distance was handled. The CSR assured me, as GTEM has in the past, that "either AT&T or Sprint carries your call, whichever one is cheaper at the time you make the call, and they will bill you for the call. We do not know how much a specific call will cost." Well, if they don't know how much it costs, how can they route the call to AT&T or Sprint? CSR gets upset... So once again into the breach we go, another letter to the FCC. Once again, the moral of the story is if you are using GTEM as your cellular carrier, and you use *any* long distance, including Follow-Me-Roaming, check your bill carefully. For more information, write to me directly, and I can put you on my fax or email list. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Dave, I hope you will keep after them on this and send us additional followup as it becomes available to you. I for one will be interested in how they respond to your latest note. PAT] ------------------------------ From: turner7@pacsibm.org (Lee Winson) Subject: COCOT Commissions Date: 25 May 1995 03:29:47 GMT Organization: PACS IBM SIG BBS Strictly speaking as a consumer, I didn't even know property owners got commissions for pay phones on their premises. I always assumed phones were there as a service for the customers, or so customers wouldn't bother the business owner to use his/her phones for calls. The moderator mentions COCOTs in poor areas. In Philadelphia, there are a great many COCOTS located in the city. While Bell of Penna always got city permission and pays all taxes and fees to put a phone on a street corner, most COCOTs owners never did. The city attempted to crack down on this, and the COCOTS refused, and fought back in a lawsuit. (Which, IMHO, is groundless, and the city COCOTS are just ripping the city off.) Other COCOTS that have gotten news are those in hospitals and shopping centers. Basically, the owner of these properties are seeking a higher return than they were getting from Bell, at the expense of consumers. Readers of this newsgroup are real quick to point out errors by the Bell Telcos and call for honest competition. But why aren't COCOTS duly labeled with their charges? There has been many newspaper articles about people finding $5 calling card or collect charges the next month on their bill. That hurts! Maybe instead of a card with fine print that only a telephone engineer would understand, there should be a price list of fees. Supermarkets are required to post prices clearly, why not phone companies? (BTW, I tried calling 00 to get some rates from COCOTS -- next to impossible.) [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You are obviously not reading the back issues of this Digest or the various files in the Archives or you would know that indeed, there have been many complaints about COCOTS presented in this forum over the years. Telco -- or 'Genuine Bell' as we have called them -- payphones come in two ways: either they are 'public' phones and commisionable to the owners of the property on which they sit or they are 'semi-public' and non-commissionable with the property or business owner where they are located paying telco a fee for keeping them there (with telco keeping all the coins as well). If public (commissionable) then the property/business owner gets a commission on all traffic sent paid and all traffic received collect. He gets a set fee for all traffic billed to calling cards or other third-party numbers. The phone cannot be listed in the directory, and many times the phone will be set up for one way outbound service only. With 'semi-public' phones it is a bit different. Telco, in their own judgment feels the location does not warrant a 'public' payphone. They would not put one there, and certainly would not pay commissions for keeping it there on their own. The property/business owner has agreed to not only let telco keep all the revenue from the phone, but to *pay an additional monthly fee as well* for having it there, for the reason, as you point out, of convenience for his customers. The property owner gets something else for his money though; 'semi-public' payphones can be listed in the directory as the owner's bus- iness phone if desired; they can receive incoming calls if desired, and the owner can have an extension installed in his office or wherever for when the phone rings if he wants. Payphones located in 'public' places where the 'owner' is not readily apparent such as on the sidewalk on a street corner, in a park at the shelter house, along the highway, etc. are generally assigned to the city in which they are located. That is, the city government receives commissions on the phone in exchange for allowing telco to clutter the sidewalk or the park. When in telco's judgment an outdoor, 'public' location does not warrant a pay (commissionable) phone, and no one is willing to pay to have one there, then various things may happen. The city may prevail on telco to go ahead and put one there as a community service (in which case telco itself is listed as the 'subscriber' and receives the commissions) or maybe the location goes without a phone, particularly if vandalism has been a serious problem there. Because of increasing vandalism and robbery of payphones in outdoor locations, and the increasing number of ghetto inner city neighborhoods where telco felt their own payphones would be a losing proposition, there was a gap to be filled, thus the COCOT came into existence. The COCOT people go to the places where payphones are otherwise installed (or not installed at all) and offer to put payphones there on terms and conditions better than the terms and conditions offered by telco for the same thing. They offer higher commissions, or perhaps they offer commissions in cases where telco had refused to provide public coin service at all. So payphones (of the COCOT variety) are now available in places where it is likely there would be no public phone at all otherwise. But someone has to pay for the phone vandalism and the commissions they pay out. Guess who that is ... we have had many, many, many complaints about COCOTS, and the 'operator service bureaus' they use printed in this forum. As telco cuts back on the payphone locations they service, the choice often times is a COCOT or no phone at all. Which will it be? And I may be mistaken but I think quite a few COCOT operators have cleaned up their act quite a bit over the past couple years. Five to ten years ago they were all pretty outrageous. Now some are actually quite competitive with telco, at least for the phone using public. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 May 1995 19:24:12 -0400 From: ndallen@io.org (Nigel Allen) Subject: U.S. Postal Service Warns Against Telemarketing Fraud For warnings about some common types of telemarketing and postal fraud against consumers and businesses and preventive measures that you can take, take a look at the following Web page: "http://www.usps.gov/depart/inspect/Welcome.html". It provides information from the Inspection Service of the United States Postal Service. Most readers of the Telecom Digest will be aware of these common fraud schemes, but you may want to share some of this information with other members of your family and people at your place of work. Here are some of the topics listed: * 900 Telephone Number Schemes * Advance Fee Loan Schemes * Advertising Specialty Products Schemes * Boiler Room Schemes against Business * Chain Letters * Charity Fraud * Credit Card Schemes * Cut-Rate Health Insurance Fraud * Distributorship and Franchise Fraud * False Billing Schemes Against Business * Government Look-alike Mail * Home Improvement and Home Repair Frauds * Mail Bombs * Mailing of Child Pornography * Hot Tip on Playing Foreign Lotteries by Mail * Missing Persons Fraud Scheme * Oil and Gas Investment Frauds * Prison Pen Pal Money Order Scam * The Phony Inheritance Scam * Schemes That Charge Money for Services * Solicitations Disguised as Invoices Other information from the U.S. Postal Service is available on its Web server at "http://www.usps.gov". Nigel Allen (no affiliation with U.S. Postal Service) 52 Manchester Avenue, Toronto, Ontario M6G 1V3, Canada Internet: ndallen@io.org http://www.io.org/~ndallen Telephone: (416) 535-8916 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I wish the Postal Service would stick to delivering mail and attempt to just do that much well. The postal ins- pectors should just spend their time cleaning out the thieves who work for the post office. Ever been in a big city post office sorting room? If they find out you are getting money in the mail at your post office box they'll rip you off good. Here in Chicago several years ago, a charity known as the Missionary Fathers had a box at the same post office I used for about twenty years. Their thing was those cheesy name and address labels, pencils, pens and other trinkets sent to you as a gift by the homeless Indian children in the orphanage, and won't you send them a gift also to help pay for their food and clothing, etc. Your ten dollars per month will support a dozen on a diet of macaroni and cheese, or beans, or whatever the orphanage was feeding them. The Missionary Fathers were pulling it in pretty well at their post office box, and although mostly it would be checks and money orders or credit card authorizations, a certain amount was cash stuffed in an envelope; they got maybe a thousand dollars per day in cash. When they complained to the postal inspectors that their cash seemed to be a lot less than usual, the PI's got interested and started watching things more closely. They 'salted' the mail, meaning they deliberatly planted marked cash money in the mailbags for the charity then used hidden cameras in the employees bathrooms and locker rooms. They'd see employees grab a handful of the charity's mail, disappear into the bathroom and come out five minutes later without the mail. The cash in their pocket, and the remains shredded and flushed down the toilet, etc ... in the indictment against eighteen postal workers, the government alleged that some were double-dipping; that is, making two trips to the bathroom on their shift, and one supervisor who got indicted went back to the ladies room four times one day with a handful of Missionary Father's mail each time! The day the scandal broke, I went down to get my mail as always and at the call-counter they had all different people working there. It seems the day before the postal inspectors had fired everyone who worked there and brought in a new crew from one of the other post offices. Shortly thereafter they passed a rule saying all the workers in the sorting room and on the loading docks had to wear a certain type of coveralls at work that did not have any pockets in them, and that at the end of each shift they would go to the locker room and change back into their street clothes under the watchful eyes of the postal inspectors. Women employees went to a different locker room where a matron had the duty of checking them out. Basically, they were just cloth sacks the employees wore to cover their nakedness while they sorted the mail. Naturally, frequent drug testing -- and this was in the early 1970's -- became part of the routine. Big city post office facilities are still hell-holes to work in. It is no wonder so many of the workers wind up shooting and killing each other and their supervisors, etc. Are the post offices in Canada also pretty bad places to work? Remember that fellow working for the post office in Toronto a few years ago who ripped off Oral Roberts for the cash in the mail? How much was it? $250 thousand if my memory is correct. The postal inspectors don't need to worry so much about child porn as they do getting their own houses cleaned out, like they have had to do at zip 60690 here in Chicago a few times and 60680, the main post office here (or 'big house' as the sorting room facilties there are sometimes referred to by workers). PAT] ------------------------------ From: fratkins@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Frank Atkinson) Subject: Ohio Telephone Competition Date: 24 May 1995 20:27:05 -0400 Organization: The Greater Columbus Freenet Ohio is currently going through the process of letting competition enter the local telephone market. It started out with the players talking around the edges, now court actions are starting to fly. We are setting up a mailing list for those who wish to follow this process in more detail. If you wish to subscribe drop a note to: list-admin@han1.hannah.com asking to subscribe to ohio-telecom Frank Atkinson fratkins@freenet.columbus.oh.us or frank@hannah.com I think therefore I am, I think? ------------------------------ Subject: India's Telecom Regulator May Really Be Autonomous From: rishab@dxm.ernet.in (Rishab Aiyer Ghosh) Date: Thu, 25 May 95 00:08:17 IST Organization: Deus X Machina --==(C) Copyright 1995 Rishab Aiyer Ghosh (rishab@dxm.ernet.in) India's telecom regulator may really be autonomous 24th May 1995: In an exclusive interview for my forthcoming newsletter on India's information industry, Telecom Secretary R K Takkar said that the government is "committed to treating [the yet-to-be-formed Telecom Regulatory Authority of India] as independent and autonomous," and enumerated the various measures it is taking to ensure the TRAI's independence. First, it is trying to pass a one-line amendment to the ancient (British) Indian Telegraph Act of 1885, to shift the powers of the Director General of Telecommunications to the TRAI for most purposes. This may be procedurally delayed, as the Parliament ends its current session this week. Second, it is working on separate legislation to formalize the TRAI as an autonomous regulator similar to the SEBI, which monitors India's stock exchanges. This will be made law in a year or two, with the benefit of experience of the TRAI's actual performance; till then the body gets its powers from the government's excecutive order. Third, the three-member TRAI panel will be appointed on secure tenure for 5 years, so, like Supreme Court judges, they do not risk being removed by an disagreeable government. Other measures, and a discussion of the possible merger of at least the regulatory bodies of India's communications and broadcasting ministries - following an earlier Supreme Court ruling against the country's government monopoly of the airwaves - will be found in my newsletter when the sample issue is made available for free electronic distribution in late June. --==(C) Copyright 1995 Rishab Aiyer Ghosh (rishab@dxm.ernet.in) --==May be distributed electronically provided that only compilation or --==transmission charges are applied. Other uses require written permission. Rishab Aiyer Ghosh For Electric Dreams subscriptions rishab@dxm.ernet.in and back issues, send a mail to rishab@arbornet.org rishab@arbornet.org with Vox +91 11 6853410 Voxmail 3760335 'help' in lower case, without H 34C Saket, New Delhi 110017, INDIA the quotes, as the Subject. ------------------------------ From: Judith Oppenheimer Date: Wed, 24 May 1995 14:53:16 -0400 Subject: Re: 800 1 and 800 0 - Why Not? The question was asked, wouldn't 800 1 and 800 0 add another 20% of numbers to the 800 database. The answer is yes, it would. Is it do-able? Yes again. This issue was raised in INC, where the concensus was that the additional 20% wouldn't solve the "shortage", so why bother. In reference to that infamous shortage, we've dug up just a few interesting pieces of information. {CallCenter Magazine} reported in its September '94 issue that "60 million calls are made daily over the countries 1.8 million 800 numbers." **** Yes folks, that's 1.8 million 800 numbers in use. **** CallCenter got that information from the DMA (Direct Marketing Association.) The DMA got it from AT&T. According to my sources in the DMA's public relations office, through May '94, AT&T public relations supplied the DMA with 800 stats as well as other mundane statistical information, on a routine basis. But starting June '94, AT&T stopped giving the DMA this info; said it didn't have it, and had no way to access the number of 800 numbers in assignment to users. Since then, reporters have complained to me that, having asked AT&T and MCI how many 800 numbers they have assigned to users, they were told the carriers have no way of knowing. You'd think between their resp org administrative offices, and their billing offices, this sort of information would be easy enough to spit out of some computer. (Then again, these are the same folks who argued against "date certain" to the U.S. ITU Delegation, asserting that they had no way of telling who'd had their 800 assignments prior to December, '94.) Back to June '94, when AT&T stopped reporting to the DMA. This timing just happens to coincide with two seemingly unrelated events: 500 PCS marketing, and industry "800 shortage" claims. Privately, no one even bothers to dispute that the 800 database is being misappropriated for delivery of non-800 services that require routing. Can't be too hard to figure out either, as publications as diverse as Catalog Age and Investor's Business Daily have recently reported on carrier stockpiling of 800 numbers. (Anyone want copies of the articles, email me with your fax number.) J. Oppenheimer, Producer@Pipeline.com Interactive CallBrand(TM) ------------------------------ Organization: Green Hills and Cows Date: Wed, 24 May 1995 11:38:53 -0700 From: John Higdon Subject: Re: Meeting the Challenge mikem@i-link.net (Mike McKinney) writes: > Come on John, you can't hide behind this thin of a disclaimer ! I do not hide behind disclaimers. It is one of the luxuries of owning one's own site. My intimate knowledge is of Pacific Bell practices. How they relate to other companies' policies or practices is beyond my direct knowledge, and I wanted that understood up front. That is hardly "hiding". Again, my comments apply to Pac*Bell. > A cash deposit is required on *any* major installation that requires > capitol investment on a Telco's part, either that or a letter of > guarantee that the service will be used long enough to recover the > cost. Cash deposits are generally not required from customers who have substantial credit and history with telco. But 976 service was a special case. Customers who could get banks of DID trunks, servicing thousands of numbers, with five-year service commitments could get such installations with a phone call. These same customers had to fork over thousands of dollars to get so much as four 976 lines installed. > This will probably change with real competiton because there > will no doubt be companies that will do it just for the monthly > service charges. Thank you. That was my point. Pacific Bell had these practices because a) it could get away with them; and b) it wanted to place competition to its own excuse for IP services at a disadvantage. > As regards to other installation requirements, I have no idea what he > means by "The installation site had to have "excess facilities" which > meant that any 976 lines had to be installed on pairs that would never > conceivably be used for POTS." Perhaps John could explain his > comment. I would be happy to explain. Upon finding a site that significantly met Pac*Bell's requirements for 976 service (within the arbitrary perimeter of the serving CO, etc.,), a 976 provider could be told that there were insufficient facilities. There could be 100 spare pairs going into the building and the IP might only want six 976 lines, but Pac*Bell would say that those 100 pairs were inadequate for projected usage. It was as I said: there had to be "excess facilities", over and beyond any anticipated usage by other customers. > It's obvious that John knows nothing about the technical side of the > telephone business because any time you go outside the walls of the CO > you're going to have physical requirements: With all due respect, it is you who were unaware of the doctrine of "excess capacity". It is no secret that I have been involved with the information providing industry for over ten years as a developer and participant. I am well aware that the physical requirements of six 976 lines are no more nor less than the physical requirements of six POTS lines. Requiring the cash deposit of thousands of dollars or requiring a site to be grossly over-built is nothing more than a utility using its position of power to screw a customer base that happens to also represent competition. Significantly, since Pacific Bell has decided not to play in the information business, most of the anti-competitive practices have been terminated. Deposits are now insignificant if not non-existent (haven't ordered 976 for awhile). The arbitrary perimeter requirement has been lifted, as has the "excess facility" requirement. Pac*Bell's recharge policy is much tougher than it was -- and customers only get to do it once. Out of state callers have been cut off. And finally, recharges only amount to the IP's portion of the call -- Pac*Bell eats its own costs on every call it forgives. I appreciate your desire to defend your employer and her sisters, but it does not reflect well upon that defense to publicly tell major players and pioneers in an industry that they don't know what they are talking about. John Higdon | P.O. Box 7648 | +1 408 264 4115 | FAX: john@ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | +1 500 FOR-A-MOO | +1 408 264 4407 | http://www.ati.com/ati | ------------------------------ From: Schubert@nepo1.iaea.or.at (Samuel R. Schubert) Subject: In a Land With No Infrastructure, How to Connect to Internet Date: Thu, 25 May 1995 11:15:12 GMT Organization: IAEA Reply-To: Schubert@nepo1.iaea.or.at I have an urgent need to connect a site, literally in the middle of nowhere to the INTERNET. The situation is rather urgent. Money, interestingly enough, is a secondary issue. Who should I contact. I will need Satellite equipment for sure. Perhaps Radiographic transmitters etc. Could someone put me in contact with a company who can provide such a facility, anywhere on earth. The site would be stationary, so size is not a dramatic factor. Electricty may be. Please help. Thanks, SRS ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 May 95 11:25:23 EDT From: brisco@rab.ieee.org (Thomas P. Brisco) Subject: Meridian SL1 - Information Pointers? I've been working with someone locally to try and get a Fax-On-Demand system ("single call" configuration) -- and I'm attempting to have it as closely integrated into the existing environment as possible. Our Meridian reps aren't making this easy. Our tech rep indicates that our "Meridian SL1 with Option 61" can hand off an analog line. However, I also know that we're running some digital protocol between the PBX and our multi-line sets. When I inquire as to what this protocol is, he tells me "Its digital" (big help). This makes me worried about his information regarding the ability to do an analog handoff. Additionally; I've been working with a different group here as well and attempting to verify the configuration of the switch. The salescritter and tech rep claim "it can't be done". We're looking for some way to "map out" the configuration showing what calls should be going where when (this is primarily to verify that the system is configured the way that we believe it is.) To me, this sounds like a relatively straight-foward graphing problem. The tough part is getting the configuration data off the blasted machine. Again, the critters we have servicing us indicate that this is some hugely complex task -- which (frankly) I just don't believe. There's backups -- but it's on some seriously screwy *4MB* (yes, 4MB) 3.25" floppy. I'd be interested also in finding out where I could get one of these drives. Any pointers to information would be greatly appreciated. Tp. ------------------------------ From: stanford@algorhythms.com Date: Wed, 24 May 1995 11:06:56 -0400 Subject: Review -- FCC Docket # 91-281: Caller ID The requirement that Caller ID be delivered on all long distance calls by April 12 1995 was stayed by the FCC because of opposition on two primary points. 1. Some states mandate per-line Caller ID blocking, some don't. The FCC had ruled that only per-call Caller ID blocking be allowed on interstate calls. It is technically unfeasible to have per-line blocking within a state, but not on on interstate calls on the same line. California mandates that all unlisted numbers (44% of California numbers are unlisted) be automatically per-line blocked by default. 2. The long distance companies objected to being obliged to transport Caller ID without compensation. On May 4, the FCC released a new Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that addressed these two issues, and set a new date, December 1, 1995 for mandatory interstate transport of CalIer ID on all SS7 systems capable of such transport. The new Notice resolves the above issues in a fair and reasonable manner: 1. Where states allow per line call blocking, those blocked lines will be blocked for all calls, inter and intra state. Any unblocked line can be blocked for a single call by dialing *67 before the destination number. Any per-line blocked line can be unblocked for a single call by dialing *82 before the destination number. Dialing *67 on an already blocked line will yield a fast busy signal. No line (even in California) is to be per-line blocked unless the subscriber specifically requests it. Having an unlisted number is not considered to be such a request. 2. The long distance companies must transport Caller ID without compensation. The reasoning here is that if they have SS7 it doesn't cost them anything, and in any case if they charge the LEC's for transporting Caller ID on an inbound call, the LEC's will in turn charge them for providing the Caller ID on an outbound call. It is unlikely that the LEC's will charge the IXC's less for Caller ID than the IXC's charge them, so it would be a wash anyway! This ruling appears to be a big win for all telephone users, since many new and useful services will be enabled by this technology. There are many peripheral points in the ruling, including issues of caller ID blocking to emergency numbers, on payphones, on PBX's, on cellular phones, from hotels, and from various kinds of spousal abuse shelters. The ruling also requires that other CID based services, such as last number callback, be blocked for anonymous callers. The ruling also talks about ANI, and mandates restrictions on the use of ANI information. The ruling requires number delivery only, and does not require Calling Name Delivery. Caller ID is kind of like the little peephole that you have in your front door to see who is there before you open it. People who block Caller ID are like people who stick their thumbs over the peephole before they ring the bell so you can't see who is there. For those who would not open their door to a person blocking the peephole, there is an excellent service available from all LEC's called 'Anonymous Call Rejection.' If you subscribe to this service, callers who block their Caller ID when they call you are routed to a recording saying that your number does not accept anonymous calls. Your phone never rings. By the way, some countries are ahead of the USA on this technology. I called Germany from Washington DC a couple of weeks ago, and my number was delivered internationally! ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 May 95 22:41:09 CDT From: Gordon S. Hlavenka Subject: Re: Last Laugh! Mike and Terry's Lawnmower Service Organization: Vpnet - Your FREE link to the Internet (708)833-8126 > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Very clever! Some real cases of name > choices though include MCI and Sprint. MCI, or Microwave Communications, > Inc. did in fact get started as a small company in central Illinois where > the owner was involved in the production and repair of microwave radio > equipment. His name long since forgotten, he got involved in a partnership ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Don't let Jack Goeken, the man behind FTD, Airfone (now GTE Airfone) and In-Flight Phone, hear you say that! When I saw him this afternoon he was as unforgettable as ever ... and, he's still involved in new telecom ventures; right now he's working on wireless local-loop. > Often times letter abbreviations simply take on a meaning of their own > and the original phrase they represented is forgotten. Does anyone > remember ... [ITT or GTE]? I know you're talking telecom here, but what about the Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company? Gordon S. Hlavenka cgordon@vpnet.chi.il.us [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: MMM, or 3-M as they are sometimes called, makes a variety of tape products, including 'Scotch Tape' and other tapes used for sealing boxes, etc. They also make computer diskettes and tapes used to back-up computer data. I can see where all that would be considered manufacturing, but where does the mining part come into it? PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V15 #256 ****************************** Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa00363; 25 May 95 21:03 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA01320 for telecomlist-outbound; Thu, 25 May 1995 14:27:08 -0500 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA01312; Thu, 25 May 1995 14:27:04 -0500 Date: Thu, 25 May 1995 14:27:04 -0500 From: TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson) Message-Id: <199505251927.OAA01312@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #257 TELECOM Digest Thu, 25 May 95 14:27:00 CDT Volume 15 : Issue 257 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Unusual RF Stories (Kevin Magloughlin) Re: Unusual RF Stories (John Woods) Re: Telephone Voice "Broadcast" Software? (Steve Cogorno) Re: Telephone Voice "Broadcast" Software? (Mike Sandman) Re: Telephone Voice "Broadcast" Software? (Robert Virzi) Re: Auction All the Spectrum (Ed Mitchell) Infrastructure Conference in Atlanta (Barbara F. Hanes) Troubles With NYNEX Voice Mail? (Steve Samler) Looking For ETSI Documentation Online? (George E. Cabanas) Is it Northern or Nortel? (Holly Fenn) CD Changer For Music on Hold (Jerry Aguirre) Need One Mile PC Communications (Randy Constan) Independent Category 5 Cable Evaluations (Jean McGillivray) Clarifications to Oregon PUC Ruling on Area Code Split (Robert Hansen) Low Cost Router Alternatives? (art@ritz.mordor.com) 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: 500-677-1616 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: kmagloughlin@delphi.com Subject: Unusual RF Stories Date: Thu, 25 May 95 04:17:20 -0500 Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice) Pat - In your reply to my article, you asked why the engineer at the station in North Carolina was hearing the same program material at his board, with his station off the air, as you were in Chicago. My only conclusion would be both stations were receiving the same network feed at the same time. I suspect this was quite some time ago,before putting program feeds on satelite which would certainly limit the number of available feeds. Did you check the affiliation of the station in North Carolina, by chance? I would say this is why both places in the country had common programs when you made your phone call. Kevin Magloughlin KA0JQO KMAGLOUGHLIN@DELPHI.COM [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: No, I did not specifically inquire if the program on WBBM was being fed to the network, but I seriously doubt that it was; it was a locally originated discussion program airing in the middle of the night. Anyway, I don't think the station in North Carolina was a CBS affiliate. Good point though. PAT] ------------------------------ From: John.Woods@proteon.com (John Woods) Subject: Re: Unusual RF Stories Organization: Proteon, Inc., Westborough, Ma. Date: Thu, 25 May 1995 14:12:45 GMT kmagloughlin@delphi.com writes: > You were writing about receiving a carrier on 660 Khz that turned out > to be WBBM right there in Chicago. The explanation given about > subtracting this from that gives 660 Khz is not really the answer in > that situation. What you had there is a 2A-B mix occurance and most > likely was happening in your receiver. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: How does that explain the engineer at the > station in North Carolina telling me he could hear the same thing as > myself on the board over there when his AM station was off the air? PAT] If the antennas of the two radio stations were *very* close, and if there was any significantly large metal object in somewhat poor repair near both antennas (and I've heard of BC antenna farms that looked like scrap metal dumps), then a rusty joint could easily act as a crude diode, which would then act as an RF mixer to combine the two signals, generate the 2A-B mixing product, and then reradiate it. I wouldn't expect that to generate more than a couple of watts, even if located very close to two high-power transmitters, but if propagation was just right, the NC engineer could have heard the signal if the channel was otherwise quiet. (Unless the engineer was using a very sensitive receiver, in which case good propagation could have resulted in local generation of the spurious signal -- 2A-B calculates out to the same result regardless of where you are. Were there any stations on the two real channels in his area? If so, he would have been likely to hear *them* mixing, not the Chicago stations.) [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Quite a few years ago when we had a local, daytime only station here on 820 called WAIT, they would always go off the air at sundown, meaning in the winter as early as 4:30 pm some days and during the summer as late as 8:30 pm. It was always fun to catch them just as they were going off the air for the day since the second they powered down the transmitter a station from Toronto, Ontario (might have been CJR, not sure) would come booming in like gangbusters, loud and clear right on the same spot. I think I mentioned the two neighborhood kids here who got me to fix them up with an old tube radio that I had diddled with the IF on so it could be heard around the neighborhood with a little luck. They were back the other day, *pulling in a wagon* an old floor model Philco radio from about 1930. They had got it for a few dollars out of someone's garage sale. Since the cord had a short in it and the lightbulb over the tuning dial was burned out the original owners assumed it was unusable. I replaced the cord and the lightbulb, cleaned it up a little, dusted the insides out good and checked all the tubes. It worked just fine, and some of the tubes were new, or never used. We turned it on and got quite a few local stations. Those old floor model radios had great big speakers in them which made them sound great, just like Grundigs. But I said, "kids! you want to really hear this radio talking? ..." I got in the back and clipped onto the antenna leads with about fifty feet of wire which we strung out the window and along the side of my house. We came back inside and that radio was screaming. With its big huge tuning dial, stations all over the USA were easy to hear. I told them you wait until later on tonight, or maybe late on a hot summer night in August and turn this on. You haven't heard anything yet. Of course it had no FM, but it had four shortwave bands plus AM. The AM band was numbered up to 1750 kc of all things, and the area from 1650 to 1750 was labeled 'police'. They thought that was pretty funny and I explained that fifty or sixty years ago police used *one way* broadcast stations around that range in their cars. The police dispatchers would make announcements but that's all, and the police would then drive to wherever they heard mentioned on the radio. I helped them load it back in their little wagon and they took it home. I hope their parents let them keep it to play with. PAT] ------------------------------ From: cogorno@netcom.com (Steve Cogorno) Subject: Re: Telephone Voice "Broadcast" Software Date: Wed, 24 May 1995 18:18:11 PDT Harold Hallikainen wrote: > Anyway, the school where I teach is interested in software > that would do something similar to a fax broadcast, but it would be > voice. They'd have a list of the students in a particular class and > if the class were cancelled, the system could call each of them and > let them know. It SEEMS like this could be an option on the school's > phone system (I don't remember who made it), since it does have voice > mail and all sorts of fancy features. But I'm wondering if there's > some simple PC software that could also do it. I'm running SuperVoice > 2 with a Maxtech voice/data/fax modem and am quite pleased with it. I > spoke with the publisher of SuperVoice yesterday and they did not have > any voice broadcast software. So, anything like this around? > SuperVoice 2 with modem was about $70. It'd be real nice to find > something in this price area. This should not be hard to find; many schools have similar set-ups. All 22 high schools in the San Jose Unifed School District and the East Side Union High School District (both in San Jose, CA) have auto dialing systems connected to their attendance systems. The physical box is located at each campus, so it can't be too expensive, but I'm sure that *ANY* kind of system is going to cost you a lot more than $70. I think that $1000 to $4000 might be more accurate. The attendance dialer setup is actually quite interesting: the teachers have ScanTron sheets printed for each class with each student's name. They mark absent/tardy/etc. and the sheets get scanned right after school ends. Around four o'clock, the computer system starts calling the homes of absent students. The message is English, Spanish, Vietnamese, or Filipino depending on the what language is spoken at home (the computer has a record of the language and just passes a code to the dialer). It has apparently save the school district quite a bit of money, because it used to take a staff person 6 hours a day just to let parents know their child wasn't in school. Also, attendance increased around 5% and the schools were able to recover the cost of the equipment many times over in state funding (California funds schools by the number of days each student is in attendance). ------------------------------ From: mike@sandman.com (Mike Sandman) Subject: Re: Telephone Voice "Broadcast" Software? Date: Wed, 24 May 1995 21:43:06 LOCAL Organization: InterAccess, Chicago's best Internet Service Provider Harold Hallikainen wrote: >> Anyway, the school where I teach is interested in software >> that would do something similar to a fax broadcast, but it would be >> voice. They'd have a list of the students in a particular class and >> if the class were cancelled, the system could call each of them and >> let them know. It SEEMS like this could be an option on the school's >> phone system (I don't remember who made it), since it does have voice >> mail and all sorts of fancy features. But I'm wondering if there's >> some simple PC software that could also do it. I'm running SuperVoice >> 2 with a Maxtech voice/data/fax modem and am quite pleased with it. I >> spoke with the publisher of SuperVoice yesterday and they did not have >> any voice broadcast software. So, anything like this around? >> SuperVoice 2 with modem was about $70. It'd be real nice to find >> something in this price area. I just read in this week's {PC Magazine} that Creative Lab's new Phone Blaster card will do what you want. They had a review of a bunch of inexpensive voice mail type systems. It seemed like it said that it might not be out yet, but I'm not sure. Good luck, Mike ------------------------------ From: rv01@gte.com (Robert Virzi) Subject: Re: Telephone Voice "Broadcast" Software? Date: 24 May 1995 19:31:28 GMT Organization: GTE Laboratories, Waltham, MA > Harold Hallikainen wrote: >> Anyway, the school where I teach is interested in software >> that would do something similar to a fax broadcast, but it would be >> voice. They'd have a list of the students in a particular class and >> if the class were cancelled, the system could call each of them and >> let them know. >> But I'm wondering if there's >> some simple PC software that could also do it. and paraprasing here, Harold said, for about $70. David K. Leikam responded: > Well, nothing *I* am aware of, that I'd trust to do a halfway decent job. > Thinking about the problems of reliability sorta starts me towards a fair > sized headache ... (deep breath) > I suppose we *could* build something like this, that you could expect, > oh, an 80% reliability rate out of. But it would cost orders of magnitude > more, even if you didn't want maintenance or support. If you think about > the problems for a minute or two, you'll see why. (Did we get an > answering machine? If so, do we have a beep yet? What kind of beep? Has > the beep ended, and can we talk now? Did we get a forward to a pager? If > so, what number to we tell 'em to dial.? Are we talking to a person? Is > it the right person, i.e, do we want to do voice-recognition at all? Do > we want to be interactive? Do we want to deal with the 30% of the > population that doesn't have touch-tone service?) So David says, basically, 'No'. Or at least not for less than $2k - $10k. I think you are over engineering the solution. This is for a school. Most of the numbers that the kids have are POTS lines, nothing fancy like pagers and the like. Answering machines need to be dealt with, true. But generally the particular population might really benefit from a cheap, somewhat reliable system, rather than no system. Why not simply call through the list, playing the message on offhook, repeating the message until (a) the line is released or (b) 90 seconds has elapsed? If a person gets it, they listen to it, or have some time to call Mom over to the phone to hear the message. If its an answering machine, they get 90 seconds of the message (minus the time for the OGM) on the tape. Should be pretty simple for the system to track busy/no answer and call those numbers back. I'm not suggesting this is a bulletproof system. Far from it. But the requirements don't seem to call for one. If this user population knows about the system, it will work even better because parents will be hanging by waiting for the call to hear soccer is cancelled because of rain. This kind of simple system could be built on a Mac, and I'm guessing an Intel processor as well. For not much money, and a little development time. Bob Virzi rvirzi@gte.com Just another ascii character... +1(617)466-2881 ------------------------------ From: Ed Mitchell Date: Wed, 24 May 95 11:48:13 PDT Subject: Re: Auction All the Spectrum > When a company like McCaw sells to AT&T for $17 billion, it's easy > enough to infer the value of the FCC licenses in the transaction. On > that basis, the commercial spectrum currently used for broadcast, > cellular telephone, satellite and so on is worth somewhere between > $100 billion and $300 billion. The value of any property depends upon supply and demand. If all spectrum were suddenly put up for auction, the supply would suddenly be in excess of the demand. The result is that the value of the spectrum would fall until the price met the demand. Therefore, figures determined by multiplying the price of today's "scarce" commodity into infinity are appealing to justify a massive spectrum auction -- but the actual earnings are likely to be considerably less. Indeed, some prognasticators believe a lot of PCS buyers will be broke in five years and excess spectrum will go for sale at reduced prices. One advantage of assigning a $ value to a piece of spectrum is that the spectrum may be used more efficiently. Why spend billions for more MHz if converting to the latest whizbang digital thingamajigger will increase the effective bandwidth?The effect of deploying better technology is to create "virtual spectrum". And it may very well be cheaper to deploy technology than to buy spectrum. If, for example, CDMA enables a 10x capacity improvement for a given service, then we create have an excess of virtual spectrum. (What was once 1 MHz becomes equivalent to today's 10 MHz slice -- kind of like multiplying all spectrum by a factor of 10). Spectrum auctions state that the *only* valid use of radio spectrum is that which makes money. Any other use is not essential. But there are bonafide uses of the spectrum that are not measured (or easily measured) in a strict dollar value. For example, suppose we auction the marine frequencies and the cost of putting a two-way radio on a boat increases substantially to pay for the marine channels -- leading to people not putting radios on boats and decreasing the safety of the marine environment (I live near Puget Sound...). You push in on one side of the balloon and the cost pops out somewhere else. How about aviation? What about Amateur Radio and public access services? We currently have no experiencing selling spectrum for anything but cellular/PCS-like services. We need to move slowly to understand the impact and determine if such impacts are truly what we want. The last thing we want is to, say, auction the marine frequencies, then turn around and from a government subsidy program to ensure equal access to marine safety communications. Ed Mitchell edmitch@aol.com kf7vy ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 May 1995 11:57:31 -0400 (EDT) From: Barbara F. Hanes Subject: Infrastructure Conference in Atlanta "Infrastructure: the Framework for Development," a conference sponsored by the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta and the Policy Research Center of Georgia State University will be held on June 15 and 16, 1995, at the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, 104 Marietta Street, Atlanta, Georgia. This conference features nationally recognized experts -- economists, consultants, and industry executives -- speaking on critical issues facing traditional infrastructure industries like transportation and utilities as well as telecommunications. In addition to considering the regulatory framework and other important issues, this conference will address capital budgeting at the state level and the role of the private sector in infrastructure financing. Program speakers include Ned Gramlich, director of the Institute of Public Policy Studies at the University of Michigan; Wallace Hawkes of Greiner, Inc.; Tom Bradshaw of Smith Barney; Keith Bishop of the California Business, Transportation, and Housing Agency; and Steve Hewlett, Tennessee's Public Service Commissioner. Registration fee is $85. For further information call Ms. Jess Palazzolo at (404) 521-8747. To register, call (404) 521-8999 for an automated conference RSVP message. Barbara F. Frolik Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta (404) 521-8867 FAX:(404) 521-8572 bfrolik@solinet.net ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 May 1995 09:44:05 EDT From: Steve Samler Subject: Troubles With NYNEX Voice Mail? I've heard of and experienced some problems with Nynex's c.o. based voice mail. I called someone yesterday (5/25) and when they didn't pick up I heard "You have reached the Nynex message center. Please enter the phone phone number of the person you are calling ..." Eventually I heard their greeting and was able to leave a message. This same person has told me that she has called other Nynex voice mail subscribers and instead of getting their greeting heard the subscriber menu for picking up messages. Does anyone know what is going on? Anyone out there from Nynex that can shed some light? [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Supposedly your call goes in to voicemail on a DID trunk which shows who was being called in order to come up with the appropriate answer phrase or greeting. I think sometimes the system fails for whatever reason and voicemail does not know who is calling whom, so it has to ask you. People with telco voicemail might also try this little trick and see what happens: have you noticed how when you dial into the main number using the phone number assigned it does not ask you to enter your mail- box number? It already knows who you are, and just asks for your pass- word. Now try calling the main number but using *67 first ... does it still know who you are and merely ask for your password, or do you get the introductory part about 'please enter the number of the mailbox you are calling." I am told in some telcos they say to heck with that *67 business on calls to them; the privacy flag is ignored when you call into a telco function such as voicemail. How does it work in your community? PAT] ------------------------------ From: gec@panix.com (George E. Cabanas) Subject: Looking For ETSI Documentation Online? Date: 25 May 1995 10:03:22 -0400 Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and Unix, NYC Looking for ETSI recommendations online. Does anyone know if it exists? I'm looking for something similar to ITU gopher. Thanks in advance, George gec@panix.com ------------------------------ From: hfenn@mathworks.com (Holly Fenn) Subject: Is it Northern or Nortel? Date: Thu, 25 May 1995 11:55:33 -0400 Organization: The MathWorks, Inc. I purchased a Northern 61C Meridian system loaded with Meridian mail, IVR, CCR, ACD, Meridian MAX, and Meridian Link. For six months I have had the worst service and support through Nortel. Has anyone else had the same problem? I came from a 12 year ROLM background so I have nothing to compare this too. I can't figure out if my frustration lies within Nortel's organization, or if Northern just isn't the technological giant it markets itself to be? Any feedback and/or recommendations on an alternative service provider would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Holly Fenn hfenn@mathworks.com The MathWorks, Inc. info@mathworks.com 24 Prime Park Way http://www.mathworks.com Natick, MA 01760-1500 ftp.mathworks.com Phone: 508-653-1415 ext. 4395 Fax: 508-650-6725 ------------------------------ From: jerry@strobe.ATC.Olivetti.Com (Jerry Aguirre) Subject: CD Changer For Music on Hold Date: 25 May 1995 03:42:51 GMT Organization: Olivetti ATC; Cupertino, CA; USA I am thinking about getting a CD changer and feeding it into the music on hold port of our PBX. Any negative issues to doing this? I would appreciate any experience people have with particular models or features that make this more practical. Any speculation on how long a CD changer would last in continuous loop 24 hour a day use? ------------------------------ From: rconstan@gate.net (RC) Subject: Need One Mile PC Communications Date: 25 May 1995 16:16:01 GMT We're using reachout between two PCs, but the nominal 9600-28K baud rates available between the machines is not quite fast enough for the customers needs. However, the machines are one mile apart, and the customer is willing to string his own wire if necessary to gain thruput. Unfortunately, high speed phone lines are simply not available in this area. But it seems to me that a mile is not too far fetched for the right kind of direct connection. If anyone is familliar enough with the possible off the shelf solutions, please email me. Thanks in advance. Randy ------------------------------ From: jmcgill@cit.hmc.psu.edu (Jean McGillivray) Subject: Independent Category 5 Cable Evaluations Date: 25 May 1995 19:37:45 GMT Organization: Penn State College of Medicine Reply-To: jmcgill@cit.hmc.psu.edu We are interested in reviewing Category 5 cable and manufacturers to compare technical specifications and *actual* performance. Would someone please provide references to either an Internet site or independent testing organization who might be able to provide this level of detail? Please respond directly to jmcgill@cit.hmc.psu.edu. Thank you, Jean McGillivray Penn State College of Medicine Center for Information Technology jmcgill@cit.hmc.psu.edu ------------------------------ From: hansenr@ohsu.EDU (Robert Hansen) Subject: Clarifications to Oregon PUC Ruling on Area Code Split Date: Wed, 24 May 1995 20:05:41 GMT Organization: Oregon Health Sciences University On May 4, 1995, the Oregon PUB approved a new area code plan. On the original PUC list of exchanges, the Stayton exchange was inadvertently included on both the 503 and 541 area code lists. Stayton is assigned to the 503 area code. In addition, the Independence-Monmouth exchange was originally listed on the 503 list under the name "Independence" using the industry terminology. In order to avoid customer confusion, the name "Monmouth" has been added to the 503 list. ROBERT A. HANSEN Telecommunications Department Oregon Health Sciences University Portland, Oregon USA (503) 494-9160 [until 6/30/95] ------------------------------ From: art@ritz.mordor.com (ZEI) Subject: Low Cost Router Alternatives? Organization: ZEI Software - Client Server Business Solutions Date: Wed, 24 May 1995 20:08:14 GMT Does anyone swear by a super low cost router alternative that can migrate from 56K to T1? I am interested in reliability / problems / costs. I imagine this working with Linux / ethernet on intel box. Art art@zei.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V15 #257 ****************************** Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa00963; 25 May 95 22:02 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA03566 for telecomlist-outbound; Thu, 25 May 1995 15:36:11 -0500 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA03557; Thu, 25 May 1995 15:36:07 -0500 Date: Thu, 25 May 1995 15:36:07 -0500 From: TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson) Message-Id: <199505252036.PAA03557@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #258 TELECOM Digest Thu, 25 May 95 15:36:00 CDT Volume 15 : Issue 258 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Telecoms Newsline - an E-zine About UK Telecoms (Peter Judge) Re: Unusual RF Stories (Richard Jennings) Re: Unusual RF Stories (A. Padgett Peterson) Re: What is the Exact Meaning of POTS? (Gerald Serviss) Telecom history (Greg Schumacher) Re: Chicago Area Internet Providers Wanted (Kevin Martin) 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: 500-677-1616 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, 24 May 1995 07:24:33 GMT From: Peter Judge Reply-To: peter@techapp.demon.co.uk Subject: Telecoms Newsline - an e-zine about UK telecoms [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Quite a bit of this issue will be given over to a look at a relatively new telecom publication published in the UK but available on the internet. If you like it, sign up! I hope this mention will help Peter Judge obtain a lot of good subscribers. PAT] Hello, Telecoms Newsline is an independent bulletin of UK telecoms market news, sponsored by Hewlett-Packard. I attach a brief description suitable for posting, and a sample copy. Subscription details are included. Peter Judge 89 Upper Tulse Hill London SW2 2RA Tel/Fax: +44 181 671 4842 Brief info: ################################################################# # # # Telecoms Newsline # # A News Service for Telecoms Professionals # # Sponsored by Hewlett Packard # # # ################################################################# ############################################################# # Telecoms Newsline gives independent coverage of the UK # # telecoms market. It is sponsored by Hewlett-Packard, # # and edited by Peter Judge and Annie Turner. # # # # Telecoms Newsline is free and may be re-posted without # # restriction. As Telecoms Newsline is available globally # # on the Internet, we cannot guarantee availability of # # products in your area. # # # # To subscribe to Telecoms Newsline send mail to # # . To unsubscribe, mail to # # No message is required. # # # # Editorial comments or questions please mail to # # # ############################################################# ################################################################# # # # Telecoms Newsline # # A News Service for Telecoms Professionals # # Sponsored by Hewlett Packard # # # # Issue 10: 16 May 1995 # # # ################################################################# ==> In this issue: ==> MCI and Murdoch: alliance of giants ==> BSkyB comes down to earth for cable ==> Fighting phone fraud ==> Swedes fail to make turnips out of BT ==> A tactical error by BT? ==> TINA: telecoms middleware arrives ==> Italians help Mercury take flight again ==> The last thing Mercury needs is Analysys ==> Hey, big spender ==> HP in Franco-German ATM and German GSM ==> Drenched RBOC upgrades ==> Operators count the cost of phone tapping ==> Hutchison to provide 200 jobs ==> HP wins the Cup ******************************************************* * Hewlett-Packard's home page is at http://www.hp.com * * HP Labs' home page is at http://hplose.hpl.hp.com * ******************************************************* MCI and Murdoch: alliance of giants ----------------------------------- MCI is to invest $2bn, the equivalent of a 13.5% stake, in Rupert Murdoch's News Corp over the next four years in a global joint venture, with MCI providing the means of distribution and News Corp providing content. Previous attempts to marry telecoms and entertainment have come unstuck, with last year's failed merger of Bell Atlantic and TCI being the most spectacular example. News Corp's assets include extensive film, TV and publishing interests. MCI, the US' second largest long distance carrier, has pioneered mass Internet access. At the moment, the companies are giving no details of exactly what services they plan to offer, but say they are likely to be business information orientated, rather than consumer entertainment. Apparently services will begin this year. Last-mile delivery mechanisms will include satellite receivers, radio and cable TV networks. BT, which owns 20% of MCI, has professed itself pleased to be involved in such an enterprise, even at one remove. It has long argued against the government policy which prevents it from providing broadcast services in the UK, in order to protect the fledgling cable TV companies until the next century. MCI's alliance with News Corp is likely to help Murdoch in his US regulatory struggle over his ownership of Fox TV. BSkyB comes down to earth for cable ----------------------------------- Two of the UK's largest cable TV operators, Nynex CableComms and TeleWest Communications, have agreed to carry BSkyB's nine channels and the pay per view channel it plans to launch later this year. They reserve the right to launch their own channels if they wish and to transmit whatever programmes they wish. At least for these two companies for the moment, it will bring to an end the acrimony that exists between BSkyB and the cable operators. Fighting phone fraud -------------------- The UK's four cellular operators (Vodafone, Cellnet, One2One and Orange) have joined forces with handset manufacturers and service providers in an attempt to stamp out fraud - which costs the UK industry UKP50m annually. The four operators have stumped up UKP650,000 to set up a team of undercover investigators to catch dishonest dealers who connect stolen mobile phones to the networks, signalling their willing- ness to do so, with slogans like `Previous history no problem'. Swedes fail to make turnips out of BT ------------------------------------- Telia, the Swedish state-owned operator, has failed to keep a consortium headed by BT out of its domestic market. BT's partners are Tele Danmark and Telenor of Norway; their joint company is to be called Telenordia and they will own and fund it equally. Telia appealed to the EU to block the venture on the grounds that the Danish and Norwegian markets are closed to competition, but the Commission dismissed the complaint. Such judgements are becoming increasingly complex; Telia is one of the founding partners of the Unisource consortium which is becoming more closely affiliated to AT&T and its would-be world-domination vehicle, WorldPartners. Needless to say, they view BT and its global joint venture with MCI, Concert, as their greatest rival. Telenordia has already said it will spend US$276m in the attempt to capture 10% of the Swedish market by the end of the century. Existing Tele Danmark and BT business will be taken over by Telenordia and while Concert will offer Swedish corporations worldwide data and voice services, the new company is to focus on intra-nordic region traffic which amounts to half of Sweden's international traffic. In Sweden Telenordia will offer closed user group voice and data transmission as well as PSTN services. A tactical error by BT? ----------------------- BT could regret involving the Monopolies and Mergers Commission (MMC) in its dispute with Oftel over who should bear the cost of implementing number portability (see TN8). The Government is coming under growing pressure to strengthen competition law, making consumers' welfare the primary concern. This goal could lead to the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) and the MMC being merged into a single organisation, a step backed by the outgoing Director General of the OFT, Sir Bryan Carsberg. The Labour Party has added its support to the cause of stiffening competition law and it is an open secret that Sir Bryan, who is leaving OFT half-way through his five year term of office, is exasperated by the Government's neglect of competition policy since Mr Michael Heseltine took charge of the DTI in 1992. Sir Bryan, the first Director General of Oftel, says UK compet- ition law lacks teeth, with no rules banning anti- competitive agreements and no means to enforce what little competition law we have. The UK and the Netherlands are the only countries not to have adopted rules based on articles 85 and 86 of the EC Treaty. These prohibit price fixing and market-sharing agreements, abuses of market power by monopolies and impose fines of up to 10% of worldwide turnover for offenders. No wonder these have not been taken up in the UK; some of the cornerstones of telecoms policy would have to go immediately including the RPI-7.5% price cap fixed by Oftel on BT and the apportioning of access deficit cont- ribution charges if BT slips to less than an 85% market share. ==> TN wonders... what if someone objects to an OFT/MMC merger? ==> Where would the matter be referred? Telecoms middleware - TINA paves the way ---------------------------------------- The telecoms industry is a step closer to a standard architect- ure for services and management software, with the launch of telecoms-specific middleware which merges distributed computing with telecoms. In July 1995, Hewlett-Packard will ship a middleware product based on Bellcore's Information Networking Architecture (INA) framework. It will be a first step towards the specifications from the ambitious TINA-C (Telecommunications Industry Networking Architecture Consortium) as they are published. TINA-C is a coalition of service providers and suppliers aiming to produce an open, next generation architecture for telecoms by 1997. HP is a member (represented by HP LABs, Bristol), alongside 40 other leading companies including AT&T, IBM, Digital, NEC, Fujitsu, NT, Ericsson, Siemens, Alcatel, Nokia, NTT, BT and France Telecom. TINA's work is being done at Bellcore in New Jersey, where INA was developed. Both TINA and INA include a software backplane for applications to plug into, called the Distributed Processing Environment (DPE), and based on distributed object technologies such as the Object Management Group's CORBA and the Open Software Foundation's DCE. Bellcore showed its prototype earlier this year with sample ATM applications; HP's product will also include OpenView DM. HP, Bellcore and other ISVs are working on applications which use DPE. TINA and INA are well grounded in the standards world: they refer to the ITU's Telecommunications Management Network (TMN), ISO's reference model for open distributed processing (RM-ODP), Intelligent Network (IN), and Network Management Forum work. Italians help Mercury take flight again --------------------------------------- An Italian company, Industria Politecnica Meridonale looks set to take over Mercury Communications' 2,873 public payphone sites, for an undisclosed price. Divesting itself of payphones was part of the cost cutting plan set out last December, after Mercury's interim results revealed falling profits despite growing revenue. The Italian firm makes telephone equipment in Naples and operates around 200,000 payphones in Italy. It is awaiting a licence from the DTI to operate payphones. Unlike Mercury's card-only phones, the new Italian payphones will take cards and coins. To add insult to injury for Mercury, BT's Patricia Vaz has been named Veuve Cliquot Businesswoman of the Year. Her achievement? Turning BT's payphone business from running at a 46m loss in 1990 when she was put in charge of it to making a 74m profit in 1993-94. She also radically increased their reliability and upped the number of BT payphones nationwide from 97,000 to 130,000. The last thing Mercury needs is Analysys ---------------------------------------- Consultancy Analysys reckons that for UK residential customers and businesses with fewer than six lines cable operators and BT are cheaper than Mercury. Apparently for those with more than 12 lines, Mercury is still more economic. Analysys' conclusion was reached via calculations of average line costs for most European carriers. Mercury commented that the definition of an average customer could be misleading; its business has never been in the provision of local telephony nor for very low volume users. Hey, big spender ---------------- BT invests more money in technology than any other UK business according to a survey conducted by Corporate IT Strategy magazine. It spent almost UKP580m last year, UKP200m more than the second largest IT spender, GEC. British Gas came third with UKP313m. However, Reuters was streets ahead of everyone else in terms of the percentage of turnover spent on technology; it invests over 10%. On this scale, BT came seventh, at 4.4%. HP in Franco-German ATM and German GSM -------------------------------------- Deutsche Telekom and France Telecom will use HP's OpenView DM to manage their common ATM network, using extensions from Debis Systemhaus, Germany, and CAP SESA, France. Meanwhile DeTeMobil, Deutsche Telekom's subsidiary and Germany's largest mobile network operator, is to run the geographical information systems used for planning its GSM network, and some customer care system, on HP systems. The deal may eventually be worth around $3.5 million. ==> Not surprisingly, HP's UK manufacturing divisions won a Queen's Award for Export Achievement in 1995. With UKP 445 million in 1994, the company is the UK's 39th largest exporter. Drenched RBOC upgrades ---------------------- Meanwhile, in the US, AT&T keeps its finger in the RBOCs' pie by selling them IT systems... and those systems use Hewlett-Packard equipment. At US West, HP delivered two systems overnight, when the RBOC's legacy loop management systems were overloaded by high service call-outs due to rain - and won an order for eight more machines. Another deal at Pacific Bell, for systems to supporvideo, could be worth $15 million. Operators count the cost of phone tapping ----------------------------------------- A row has erupted in Germany between the government and mobile phone network operators after operators were told to modify their systems so that the police could eavesdrop on criminals. It is likely to cost the operators - Deutsche Telekom, MannesmanMobilfunk and E-Plus - a total of about UKP114m to change their digital networks to comply. They argue they should not have to pay, as the civil service should have made official eavesdropping a condition of the licences it awarded in 1989. Hutchison to provide 200 jobs ----------------------------- Hutchison Telecom is to create 200 jobs in a UKP3m expansion of its Darlington-based HQ which is to be the main base for customer service operations for the Orange PCN and paging services. HP wins the Cup --------------- Hewlett-Packard is over the moon to have wrested the prized World Cup IT deal from Sun Microsystems. TV coverage of the 1998 Cup, held in France and watched by 37 million people, will feature HP's name. Soccer enthusiast HP announced earlier this year plans to sponsor Tottenham Hotspur from the 1995/6 season. But will this be enough to make up for the loss of Jurgen Klinsman? ############################################################# # (c) 1995 Hewlett Packard Co. # # # # If you like it, pass it on. This publication is free # # and may be re-posted without restriction. As Telecoms # # Newsline is available globally on the Internet, we # # cannot guarantee availability of products in your area. # # # # To subscribe to Telecoms Newsline send mail to # # . To unsubscribe, mail to # # No message is required. # # # # Editorial comments or questions please mail to # # # ############################################################# ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 May 1995 19:21:30 +0100 From: C-News owner c/o Richi Subject: Re: Unusual RF Stories Date: Thu, 25 May 1995 18:10:25 GMT Organization: Hewlett-Packard EMO-Pinewood, UK Ed Ellers wrote: >> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It was during the Second World War that >> the radio stations in the USA went through a frequency realignment > That was actually before Pearl Harbor -- most of the AM stations in North > America had to change channels on the same day, in March 1941. This was a Ahem. Us Europeans might like to remind everyone that the 2WW started in 1939. Richard Jennings, Software Specialist. [|< [\] PADI RD EMO Pinewood, home of HP's advanced messaging solutions. Hewlett-Packard Voice: (+44)/(0)1344 763738 A=GOLD 400 Nine Mile Ride Fax: (+44)/(0)1344 763526 OU=HP1600 O=hp Wokingham RG40 3LL e-mail: richi@hpopd.pwd.hp.com G=Richard P=hp England or: richi@hpopd.pwd.hp.co.uk S=Jennings C=GB [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You are of course correct, and so was I in my original statement. The war did begin in 1939, but the United States did not get involved until Sunday, December 7, 1941 following the attack in Hawaii. There are a number of theories behind the attack which thrust us into the war; those are best left for other forums. All I will say here is that President Roosevelt was just *itching* to get into it right from the beginning, but he had no valid excuse for sticking his nose where it did not belong until that Sunday morning ... FDR wanted to get in the war so badly he could taste it. A good war works wonders for the economy you know. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 May 95 10:22:23 -0400 From: padgett@tccslr.dnet.mmc.com (A. Padgett Peterson) Subject: Re: Unusual RF Stories > WEFM was almost certainly the first FM station in the Midwest, but it was > by no means the first in the U.S. -- that was Major Armstrong's own > W2XMN, outside New York City. Would like to suggest the book "Empire of the Air" (also a documentary) for a slightly biased account of early radio in the US. Have to take some of it with a grain of salt (few items I knew about did not jibe, for instance had Cmdr. McDonald holding up adoption of color TV by Zenith until 1961 -- neat trick since he died in 1958). > (Of course the station is now WUSN -- I wonder what Commander > McDonald would think of *those* initials on "his" station...:-) Probably not much, the "Commander" was a Navy rank earned in WW1 and the Naval excursion of 1924 played a big part in making Zenith a success. Warmly, Padgett PS: amazing the overlaps on the net - I also collect Zenith TransOceanics. PPS: of course it took two years and some intense lobbying, but Sarnoff did make "General" so outranked both McDonald and Armstrong. ----- and now back to telecom ----- [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Oh indeed, Zenith made out like bandits during the Second War as well; so did all of the defense contractors including RCA, and I might add, Western Electric/AT&T. The manufacture of telephone instruments was suspended from 1942 through early in 1946 when Western Electric 'went to war'. There was such a shortage of phone instruments during that time that if you had an extension phone in your house the patriotic thing to do when the phone company called on you was to give it up in order that the instrument might be used to provide service for other people who had could not obtain a phone instrument at all. Lots of people gave their extension phones back to telco so that needy subscribers could be serviced while Western Electric was unavailable due to wartime production for the armed forces. That is one of the reasons it took so long to get Chicago converted from manual service (beginning in 1939) to completely dial service (in 1951). About one third of the city was coverted to automatic dialing when the USA got into WW-2 and the government seized Western Electric for its own requirements. Once the war ended Western Electric was allowed to resume normal manufacturing for AT&T beginning early in 1946. It is worth noting also that during WW-2, military personnel were given priority status on AT&T long distance circuits. If all circuits from point A to B were busy and a military commander (as an example) needed to make a call, the operator would select a trunk -- yours, or whoever she saw first -- and tell you, 'sorry, line is needed for priority call in the war effort.' Then she pulled the cords down and that was that. Also, telephone books and other advertising by AT&T warned against the use of the telephone to discuss military secrets. For example your son or husband was in the military, off in Germany or the UK or the South Pacific or the North Atlantic or wherever. Finally you got word that he would be able to speak with you on the phone at a certain time, and the AT&T operator would put the call through while the whole family waited anxiously by the phone, each one wanting to get at least a few seconds of conversation in with their father, their brother, husband or whatever. But the AT&T ads in the newspapers and the phone directories plainly warned, "Loose lips sink ships. When conversing with a military person on the telephone, please do not ask him to compromise our nation's security by discussing military secrets to which he may have knowledge. There may be so much he wants to tell you, but cannot, because of the war, and you never know when the telephone lines may have been sabatoged by the enemy ....'. (From {Chicago Tribune} AT&T advertisement, 1944). ------------------------------ From: serviss@tazdevil.cig.mot.com (Gerald Serviss) Subject: Re: What is the Exact Meaning of POTS? Date: 24 May 1995 14:57:00 GMT Organization: Cellular Infrastructure Group, Motorola Gareth J. Evans wrote: > POTS - Plain Ordinary Telephone System > PANS - Potentially Attractive New Services > CUPS - Customer Unspecified Private Services I was at an AIN (Advanced Intelligent Network) COMFORUM when I heard PANS . The definition given then was: Pretty Amazing New Services Jerry Serviss Motorola Inc serviss@cig.mot.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 May 1995 12:29:55 EDT From: Greg Schumacher Subject: Telecom History Pat, I have a question that is somewhat tangential to the serious telecom discussions usually found here for the telecom historians or veterans. Last weekend I was at a yardsale and while poking through the piles of books found one titled "Principles of Electricity applied to Telephone and Telegraph Work 1953 Edition". Scanning through it briefly, I found some intresting photos and diagrams of cross bar and step by step switches. And at $1 it was a deal I could not pass up. Later upon closer examination, it turns out to be "A Training Course Text Prepared for Employees of the Long Lines Department, American Telegraph and Telephone Company, January 1953" being a revision to a 1938 edition. My question is this: The frontispiece is a photo of a statue labeled "Spirit of Communication". The statue is a winged nude male in the classic roman style holding up 3 lightning bolts in his left hand and holding the end of a thick cable in his right hand. This cable is coiled around his arm and midriff providing "some" modesty. Does anybody know the origin or location of this statue and where it is today? PS. This book has a couple of paragraphs about transisters, pulse code modulation and todays T carriers (though not named as such in the book.) Greg Schumacher, Director of Systems Engineering & Advanced Research Priority Call Management 226 Lowell St., MS A-2 Wilmington, MA 01887 gregs@world.std.com 508-694-2762 voice Greg_D._Schumacher@wirelessnow.com 508-694-2762 FAX Greg_Schumacher@bcsmac.org [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It was -- still is? -- at the AT&T Building on Broadway in lower Manhattan. A picture of that statue was also the standard back cover of Bell System telephone directories for many years, and quite a few business offices, including the one in downtown Chicago had replicas of it. The phone books always had that statue on the cover somewhere, along with the little circle and the words 'American Telephone and Telegraph and Associated Companies' in the circle. I guess they quit using the statue about 1960. PAT] ------------------------------ From: sigma@mcs.com (Kevin Martin) Subject: Re: Chicago Area Internet Providers Wanted Date: 24 May 1995 08:55:48 -0500 Organization: MCSNet Services kadokev@ripco.com (Kevin Kadow) writes: > Because of the "band" system for local calls used by Ameritech, you'll > want to find a provider who's central office is within 8 miles of your > central office -- otherwise you pay Ameritech by the minute, rather than > a flat per-call rate. A bit misleading -- for your data calls, it's not the central office that matters. It is, of course, their nearest Point Of Presence to you. MCS actually has quite a presence in 708, more so than in 312 even. Here's the current modem list from "http://www.mcs.net/phones", for example: POP Location V.32bis or below V.34/V.FC Chicago/Lakeview 312-248-0900 (55) 312-248-5687 (48) Naperville 708-637-0900 (32) 708-637-0964 (16) Wheeling 708-465-0990 (24) 708-465-1091 (16) Blue Island/Alsip 708-385-0997 (10) 708-385-1142 (6) St Charles/Geneva 708-262-0900 (10) 708-262-0949 (6) Schaumburg 708-413-8450 (24) Totals 131 116 Total network-wide = 247 Kevin Martin sigma@mcs.com Pinball Archive: ftp.mcs.com(192.160.127.87):/mcsnet.users/sigma/pinball Many a sober Christian would rather admit that a wafer is God than that God is a cruel and capricious tyrant. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: MCSNet has expanded greatly over the Chicago area in the past couple years. I would recommend Karl Denninger and his company to anyone looking for internet services. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V15 #258 ****************************** Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa14327; 26 May 95 16:18 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA18816 for telecomlist-outbound; Fri, 26 May 1995 09:27:09 -0500 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA18808; Fri, 26 May 1995 09:27:06 -0500 Date: Fri, 26 May 1995 09:27:06 -0500 From: TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson) Message-Id: <199505261427.JAA18808@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #259 TELECOM Digest Fri, 26 May 95 09:27:00 CDT Volume 15 : Issue 259 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Broadband Networking News (Electronic Newsstand) U.S. Schools and Libraries Ask For Affordable Telecom Access (Nigel Allen) Mayors Seek Protection From Preemption in Telecom Reform (Nigel Allen) How to Make a Long Distance Call in 1942 (Andrew C. Green) Telecom Finland to Use DCS 1800 to Back up GSM (Kimmo Ketolainen) Algorithm For Parsing Phone Numbers? (Kate Weber Brown) Centrex Voice Mail Notifier (John Zambito) SS7 <--> MFR2 Conversion? (Ronald Reiner) Looking For Short Haul 56kbps Solution (Michel Adam) Book Review: "Netlaw: Your Rights in the Online World" by Rose (Rob Slade) 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: 500-677-1616 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: enews@access.digex.net (enews) Subject: Broadband Networking News Date: 25 May 1995 20:47:59 -0400 Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA The featured article from the May 16 issue of BROADBAND NETWORKING NEWS looks at combinations of cable and phone companies. Here is an excerpt from "ALLIANCE TARGETS BROADBAND INTERNET SOLUTION." -------------------------- Thanks to a new solution being developed by AT&T Network Systems, Intel Corporation, and Hybrid Networks Inc., local cable and phone companies are one step closer to offering Internet access -- and to bypassing traditional Internet service providers (ISPs). The joint solution will enable consumers to access the Internet at speeds up to 27 Mbps from their home computers, while allowing telcos and cable companies to offer another new service over their growing broadband networks. "Online access is a rapidly growing area," said Stan Holcomb, director of business strategy for visual consumer broadband networks for AT&T Network Systems. "We hope to bring [cable and phone] companies into this growing market. This will bring service providers a new revenue source -- PC-based services. These services will especially be important for Internet access and for work-at-home applications." "We think there is a big market in bringing broadband to PCs," said Tom Waldrop, an Intel spokesman. "We think the PC -- not the television -- will be the consumers' choice for interactive data services like Internet, work-at-home, education, and news." ...Creating the Service AT&T will integrate the Internet solution into both of its broadband networking systems -- the HFC-2000 Broadband Access System, a hybrid fiber-coax solution, and the SLC-2000 Access System with FLX Switched Digital Video, a fiber-to-the curb, switched video solution. AT&T is developing the latter system jointly with BroadBand Technologies (see BNN, October 18, 1994). Both systems incorporate AT&T's GlobeView 2000 ATM switch as a central component, and AT&T is installing both around the country. Southwestern Bell has deployed the SLC-2000 with FLX Switched Digital Video in Richardson, Texas, while Pacific Bell is using the HFC-2000 solution in California. Southern New England Telephone and Comcast Cable are also deploying the HFC-2000, and Bell Atlantic is using both broadband systems. Although running TCP/IP over ATM has been troublesome, AT&T's Holcomb says the problems of running the protocol over its networking solutions have been solved, and the systems have been tested. AT&T plans to introduce additional, related networking products over the next 12 months. Hybrid Networks will integrate its point-of-presence network hubs into the broadband solution. The hubs are used to link the Internet and other multimedia content providers to broadband networks. For its part in the solution, Intel will provide the CablePort adapter technology needed to connect PCs to cable networks. The products, which are still being tested, will include a card that goes inside a PC and an external module that connects the computer to the cable. Both Viacom and Comcast Cable have been testing the technologies. In the test, each firm is providing access to online service providers and the Internet as well as additional programming such as home shopping. Intel expects to introduce the products later this year. According to both Holcomb and Waldrop, local cable and phone companies will be able to install the solution and begin offering Internet access by year's end. They don't, however, expect the solution to become widespread until the end of 1996. ____________________________________ So begins this issue's featured article from Broadband Networking News. This article and others from Broadband Networking 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 260 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 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 May 1995 04:36:55 -0400 Subject: U.S. Schools and Libraries Ask For Affordable Telecom Access Organization: 52 Manchester Avenue, Toronto M6G 1V3 From: ndallen@io.org (Nigel Allen) Here is a press release from the National School Boards Association. I downloaded the press release from the U.S. Newswire BBS in Maryland at (410) 363-0834. I do not work for the association. --------------------- Education and Technology Groups Rally to Ensure Access for School and Libraries in Pending Telecommunications Reform Bill Contact: Michelle Richards of the National School Boards Association, 703-838-6208 WASHINGTON, May 25 -- A broad-based, non-partisan coalition of more than 40 organizations has joined to rally support for provisions of the Telecommunications Competition and Deregulation Act of 1995 that assure the nation's schools and students receive universal and affordable access to emerging telecommunications and information services. The provisions for school and library access, co-sponsored by U.S. Senators Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), J. Robert Kerrey (D-Neb.), and J. James Exon (D-Neb.), are expected to be the focus of heated debate in the Senate which is scheduled to take up consideration of the bill over the next few weeks. The coalition is working to protect language in the Senate bill that ensures all children will have an affordable "on-ramp" to the Information Highway by providing the nation's schools and libraries with universal and reasonably-priced access to telecommunications and information services. Opposition to the provision has been raised by those who believe that competition alone should result in affordable access without the necessity for specific assurances. The coalition counters that, especially in rural areas, competition will be insufficient to lower rates. Schools and libraries are not asking for a "free ride," just affordability. Since schools and libraries are public service institutions rather than commercial markets, it is in the public interest to assure such affordable access. The coalition is also encouraging leaders in the U.S. House of Representatives to include a similar provision in its version of the telecommunication bill, H.R. 1555. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: And it *is* possible for libraries and schools to get online inexpensively. A lot of equipment is *not* needed; extensive telecom equipment is *not* needed. What often times are needed are terminals, printers and modems to provide the most elementary access and in effect the only access needed by many small institutions. Yes, more would be useful, but is not needed. I have said many times that if I were to win the Illinois State Lottery and a couple million dollars I would see to it that every small library in the Chicago area and school got at least the minimum basics needed to use the Internet. There is some outfit now trying to sell the Chicago Public Schools a massive, millions-of-dollars comptuter network for the same purpose; it will be a ripoff! Politicians and bureaucrats trying to figure out how the Internet works and squandering all their money in the process. Did you know that with even a small, used 386 you can operate a small site with accomodations for a couple dozen users, newsgroups, email, etc? For the longest time, I have wanted to see a Freenet in operation here for the libraries and schools in Chicago where such a thing is badly needed. People would be amazed how much can be done with very little expense *if they know how to do it*. Now I am not suggesting a Freenet can be run on a 386; but I am saying lots of small sites for use by library patrons could be established with a lot less money than they think, if dedicated and knowledgeable netters would assist in setting them up. The trouble is -- and here shows up my cynicism of government, politi- cians and bureaucrats in general -- they probably won't ask any of us for help. They'll stumble along, somehow millions of dollars later manage to get connected, then a lot of the equipment will set unused because people do not know how to operate it. I only wish I were in a position to do something about it. Somedays I feel so helpless here, seeing how much needs to be done to truly bring America on line ... PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 May 1995 04:38:08 -0400 From: Nigel Allen Subject: Mayors Seek Protection From Preemption in Telecom Reform Organization: 52 Manchester Avenue, Toronto, Ontario M6G 1V3 Here is a press release from the United States Conference of Mayors. I downloaded the press release from the U.S. Newswire BBS in Maryland at (410) 363-0834. I do not work for the association. ------------------- Mayors Seek Protection From Preemption in Telecommunications Reform Contact: Mike Brown, Kevin McCarty of the United States Conference of Mayors, 202-293-7330 WASHINGTON, May 25 -- In a statement delivered to reporters today in Washington, Knoxville Mayor Victor Ashe, president of The U.S. Conference of Mayors, called on Congress to respect local governments' right to manage the use of their roads and streets and to be compensated for their use when telecommunications companies install their communications networks. Ashe also asserted that local governments should not lose their very basic police power -- zoning -- in the name of launching new technologies. "We can't let companies, in the name of expediency, simply sweep our community interests and needs to the side," said Ashe. "And we can't let Congress and the Federal Communications Commission pretend that they are in the zoning business or that they are the local utilities board." Noting that the House Commerce Committee was marking up new telecommunications legislation at that moment, Ashe described mayors' concerns that, in the name of building the information superhighway, commercial interests were seeking legislation to preempt what traditionally have been local authorities. "Efforts have been made to compromise our property rights; efforts have been made to devalue the compensation we receive for the use of local property; more recently, some are trying to avoid local zoning," Ashe explained. Because the fiberoptic cable and conduit networks needed to support new telecommunication systems will share space with other occupants of cities' rights-of-way -- gas companies, sewer and water utilities, electric companies and existing telecommunication providers -- mayors anticipate costly problems for local governments in accommodating the overlay of these new networks. "To suggest that the Congress and the Federal Communications Commission can manage the rules, resolve the conflicts and protect local community interests is simply foolhardy," said Ashe. An amendment to the Communications Act of 1995 which addresses the mayors' right-of-way concerns had been offered by Rep. Bart Stupak (Mich.). While the amendment was not acted upon, Commerce Committee Chair Thomas Bliley (Va.), a former mayor, indicated today that the mayors' concerns would be addressed as the legislation moves toward full House consideration. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 May 1995 22:57:32 CDT From: Andrew C. Green Subject: How to Make a Long Distance Call in 1942 In my hobby of listening to Old Time Radio programs, I came across this gem which I've transcribed below, which gives a fascinating insight into what it took to make a long-distance phone call in 1942. This is an episode of the dramatic series "Suspense". This particular broadcast occurred on September 2, 1942, starring Orson Welles and entitled "The Hitchhiker". Welles plays a man named Ronald Adams, who is traveling alone cross-country in his car, and as the story progresses, he is becoming increasingly tormented by a mysterious figure he keeps encountering along the way, usually along the side of the road. At a tense and dramatic point near the end, he decides to call his mother in Brooklyn, New York from a payphone in Gallup, New Mexico, several thousand miles to the west. Note that the complexity of making the call has nothing to do with the story; it's just presented as how things were routinely done. PAT, feel free to jump in and clarify, if you can, why it takes at least four operators working in sequence to pull this off: (Adams deposits a coin and waits) OPERATOR #1: Your call, please... ADAMS: Long distance. OPERATOR #1: Long distance... certainly... (a buzzer is heard on the line...) OPERATOR #2: This is Long Distance... ADAMS: I'd like-- *cough* *cough* (louder now:) I'd like to put in a call to my home in Brooklyn, New York... I'm Ronald Adams... um, er, the number is BEechwood two, oh eight two eight. OPERATOR #2: Certainly; I will try to get it for you... (another buzzer, fainter this time) OPERATOR #3: Albuquerque... OPERATOR #2: New York, for Gallup... (two faint electronic beeps heard on the line) OPERATOR #4: New York... OPERATOR #2: Gallup, New Mexico calling BEechwood two, oh eight two eight. ADAMS: (talking quietly to himself:) I read somewhere that love could banish demons... (his payphone abruptly swallows the first coin into its box) ... it was the middle of the morning ... I knew mother'd be home... I pictured her, tall and white-haired, in her crisp house dress, going about her tasks. It'd be enough, I thought, just to hear the even calmness of her voice-- OPERATOR #1: (brisk, sing-song businesslike voice) Will you please deposit three dollars and eighty-five cents for the first three minutes? When you have deposited a dollar and a half, will you wait until I have collected the money ... (we hear six quarters go in one at a time, each striking the heavy bell inside the phone. After the sixth quarter, we hear a slight avalanche of coins falling inside the phone.) OPERATOR #1: (more sing-song business script:) All right, deposit another dollar and a half ... (six more clangs and an avalanche) OPERATOR #1: Will you please deposit the remaining eighty-five cents ... (three more clangs, then a ringy-ding from a dime) OPERATOR #1: Ready with Brooklyn. Go ahead, please ... ADAMS: Hello? VOICE ON THE OTHER END: Mrs. Adams' residence ... Whew! It all moves briskly along, but still takes a full two minutes and six seconds of airtime between the time Orson puts his first nickel in the phone and the time the phone is answered at his mother's house. Contrast that with how little time it takes us today to pick up the phone, rip through a speed dial and have someone halfway around the world answer in seconds. (And it probably costs less than $3.85!) Andrew C. Green (312) 266-4431 Frame Advanced Product Services 441 W. Huron Internet: acg@frame.com Chicago, IL 60610-3498 FAX: (312) 266-4473 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The above is mostly accurate. Usually if the coin deposit required was more than the collection table inside could hold, the operator refrained from asking for payment until the called number or party answered. The reason was, if there was no answer the money had to be returned, and what had been dumped in the box already could obviously not be returned through the coin return slot. If it was a small enough amount the operator would ask for it and it would be held inside on the table. The operator's switchboard had two buttons on it marked 'return' and 'collect' and by pressing one button or the other, the money would fall in the box or the table would tip in the other direction and dump the coins back out to the caller. If the amount or number of coins made it impossible to hold them all (and this usually only happened on international calls costing ten or fifteen dollars) then the operator would get the distant party on the line, tell them to hold on a minute and come back to the caller asking for the money. If the caller tried to be smart and talk to the other end before the money all got deposited the operator would either tell them to shut up and try to talk over them or she would 'split the connection'; that is, cut off the one party from hearing the other until all the money was deposited. Then if she had to collect it in increments of a few dollars at a time, tell them to wait while she collected and then ask for more, she would. For calls costing less than a couple dollars they asked for all the money up front because even with a busy/no answer at the other end, this could still be funneled down the return slot by tipping the table inside the phone to the left. It took as many operators as it did because there were apparently (in the example on the radio) no direct lines between Gallup and New York. Had there been a direct line between Albuquerque and New York then you might have heard an operator answer 'Kansas City' or 'Chicago' (or maybe both!) along the way, with a request from the earlier operator to please extend the call. Had it been in the late 1920's or 1930's, it is likely there would have been a half dozen more operators on the line in the process of making the connection. In some places, the operator who collected the money could not return it. Here in Chicago as late as about 1970, from some payphones in the south end of the downtown area if you called a suburban point which required the deposit of extra coins (over and above the five cents needed for the local connection) you had to dial '211' and tell the operator the number desired (to call Skokie for example). She would ask for the additional twenty cents due then ring the number. If there was no answer or the line was busy, she would tell you to hold on a minute for the return of your money. She plugged in on the switchboard somewhere and got another operator who answered 'Wabash' and your operator would then say something like 'return on trunk 178'. You would hear a rather rude popping noise in the earpiece and the coins would come clattering down into the coin return slot. Now and then an accident would occur: the operator would collect the coins when she meant to return them or even return them when she meant to collect them. In the former case, it was handled rather casually. If the customer indicated he would be attempting the call again in a few minutes, he would be told "when the operator answers, tell her you have ten cents credit coming from your prior call." If the coins were returned in error, the operator would ask you politely to redeposit them. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Kimmo.Ketolainen@utu.fi (Kimmo Ketolainen +358 40 500 2957) Subject: Telecom Finland to Use DCS 1800 to Back up GSM Organization: University of Turku Date: Fri, 26 May 1995 03:58:35 GMT According to {Helsingin Sanomat} (25 May) Telecom Finland plans to use the 1800 MHz frequencies in the major cities to enhance GSM efficiency. DCS 1800 will only be taken into use in the metropolitan areas where the GSM frequency bands around 900 MHz are getting more and more populated. The new frequ ency does not require any major capital investment, as it can and will be us ed by the current GSM base stations. ------------------------------ From: kwbrown@panix.com (Kate Weber Brown) Subject: Algorithm For Parsing Phone Numbers Date: 26 May 1995 06:58:45 -0400 Organization: Bank of Bermuda Hello, all, Is there anyone who can send me an algorithm for taking apart a string of numbers and working out which digits are area code or country code, etc.? I'm trying to build an application which bills fax calls from the log ... Thanks, Kate Weber Brown Office Automation The Bank of Bermuda kwbrown@panix.com ------------------------------ From: jvz@pt.com (John Zambito) Subject: Centrex Voice Mail Notifier? Organization: Performance Technologies, Incorporated Date: Fri, 26 May 1995 12:32:28 GMT We just got centrex and they want $35 for the red LED indicator that plugs into the phone line and flashes when there is a voice mail message. How do these work? John Zambito, Performance Telecom Corporation jvz@pt.com 315 Science Parkway, Rochester, New York 14620 uupsi!ptsys1!jvz Maker of HDSL systems for sending 1.544kbs 16,000 ft ------------------------------ From: rreiner@clark.net (Ronald Reiner) Subject: SS7 <--> MFR2 Conversion? Date: 26 May 1995 02:43:21 GMT Organization: Clark Internet Services, Inc., Ellicott City, MD USA I am seeking advice about a specialized conversion unit that accepts SS7 from the PSTN and converts it to R2. We sell facsimile store and forward equipment and manufacture our own hardware for interfacing over the PSTN for incoming and outgoing fax delivery. These fax ports are R2 capable so that we can capture called number and calling number for some of our value added features. We now have a customer who wants us to use our value added features on and SS7 network. It sure would ease our lives if we could find a "black box" which could sit between us and the PSTN and make the PSTN look like R2. We know of one product: Pit Boss. Is anyone out there aware of other vendors for this type of product? If so, please respond by E-mail. Thanks, Ron Reiner ------------------------------ From: Michel Adam Subject: Looking For Short Haul 56kbps Solution Date: Thu, 25 May 1995 14:44:25 MDT Organization: NTNet Society I am in need of the expertise of the readers of this group. We need to provide 56kbps connections to numerous customers in town (we are a non-profit society providing internet connections in the Canadian North), and have had some success with expensive Synchronous CSU/DSU. We would like to use an abundance of Asynchronous ports on our Netblazer to provide 56kbps at a much lower cost. We will be using leased lines, the 4-wire garden variety, 24ga., over up to 4 miles (5 would be better, but it appears to be stretching it...). Using good old RS-232, and preferrably Rack mounted at our central location, and stand-alone at the remote end. Is there anything that will do the job? Our target price per connection is around $US 730, or $CAN 1000. The current candidate for the central site is a Black-Box rack with Mini Driver MP Cards (page 20 of the summer 95 catalog), ME778C-RJ11. The only problem is that there does not appears to be any Stand-alone equivalent for the other side. Does anyone know who actually MAKE these units? Any help greatly appreciated. Thanks, Michel Adam michela@ntnet.nt.ca ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 May 1995 17:41:47 EST From: Rob Slade Subject: Book Review: "Netlaw: Your Rights in the Online World" by Rose BKNETLAW.RVW 950406 "NetLaw: Your Rights in the Online World", Lance Rose, 1995, 0-07-882077-4, U$19.95 %A Lance Rose %C 2600 Tenth St., Berkeley, CA 94710 %D 1995 %G 0-07-882077-4 %I McGraw-Hill %O U$19.95 510-548-2805 800-227-0900 lkissing@osborne.mhs.compuserve.com %O pmon@osborne.mhs.compuserve.com %P 372 %T "NetLaw: Your Rights in the Online World" Very similar to his earlier "Syslaw" (cf. BKSYSLAW.RVW), this is a general guide to various legal aspects of life online. The major changes are the broadening of the scope from BBS level systems to include online services and the Internet, and very handy (and interesting) sidebars, which give a thumbnail sketch version of the topic under discussion. These usually include a reference to some specific case. Chapters address the issues of censorship, contracts, commerce, and copyright. Chapter four, which deals with the responsibility of the system operator in light of online dangers, does touch on the topic of malicious software. I was disappointed that this is limited to a not terribly accurate defining of terms, and almost no discussion of the admittedly confused legal situation. Further chapters cover privacy, crime, search and seizure, and a rather disappointing chapter on obscenity. Appendices include some very useful sample contracts, and various US laws. Given recent developments which have strongly indicated the international nature of the net and international legal ramifications, it is discouraging to see that Rose still presents only a limited and US-centric view. However, the general principles he describes are held in common law, and this book should at least provide guidance for the broader online world. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1995 BKNETLAW.RVW 950406. Distribution permitted in TELECOM Digest and associated publications. Rob Slade's book reviews are a regular feature in the Digest. Vancouver ROBERTS@decus.ca Institute for Robert_Slade@sfu.ca Research into rslade@cyberstore.ca User rslade@sfu.ca Security Canada V7K 2G6 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V15 #259 ****************************** Received: from ns1.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa12215; 31 May 95 2:09 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA26228 for telecomlist-outbound; Tue, 30 May 1995 20:00:04 -0500 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA26220; Tue, 30 May 1995 20:00:02 -0500 Date: Tue, 30 May 1995 20:00:02 -0500 From: TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson) Message-Id: <199505310100.UAA26220@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #260 TELECOM Digest Tue, 30 May 95 19:59:30 CDT Volume 15 : Issue 260 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Telecom Privacy at Americtech (Van Hefner) ITU World Wide Web Server (Robert Shaw) Sunday's OTR on WTIX (Mark Cuccia) Jobs at AT&T Bell Labs (Jiming Liu) UCLA Short Course: Wavelet Transform Applications (William Goodin) Cantel and the New Area Codes (Jeff Bamford) Cellular One of NYC Credit (Keith Knipschild) California's New Area Code: 760 (Greg Monti) Re: Mayors Seek Protection From Preemption in Telecom Reform (Mark Crispin) Re: Troubles With NYNEX Voice Mail? (Scot M. Desort) Re: Troubles with NYNEX Voice Mail? (Stan Schwartz) 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: 500-677-1616 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: VANTEK@aol.com Date: Tue, 30 May 1995 01:00:39 -0400 Subject: Telecom Privacy at Americtech Pat, I thought that your readers may find this artice disturbingly interesting. Has Ameritech gone off the deep end?!!? ================================================== By David Adams, {Akron Beacon Journal}, Ohio Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News May 24 -- Deborah Tarvin let her fingers do the walking right into her neighbor's telephone bill. Due to changes in Ameritech's automated toll-free customer service line last year, anyone can access basic billing information about almost any of the company's 10.8 million households in Ohio, Illinois, Wisconsin, Michigan and Indiana -- just by knowing that customer's phone number. That means anyone -- your boss, your neighbors, your ex-spouse. Ameritech previously required customers to use a three-digit access code printed on their monthly bill. But early last year, as part of a technological upgrade, the company dropped the code, citing Ameritech studies showing customers overwhelmingly didn't want them. But when Tarvin, a 42-year-old Akron resident, called last week to find out about her May bill, she was surprised to learn how easily anyone else could gain that information and much more. Concerned, she tried her teenage daughter's phone number, and got her daughter's billing information. Then, in successive calls, she obtained the billing records for her parent and neighbors. "I am outraged -- I feel those records should be private," Tarvin said. "I think it's a breach of privacy." Getting billing information by phone from Ameritech is markedly easier than getting similar information from other businesses. Most banks, credit card and other services require customers to use a combination of account numbers and personal identification codes to access billing data. The information available through the customer service line, 800-660- 2626, includes a customer's balance due, last payment date, and when the a payment was received by the company. Customer service representative available on the service can also arrange payment of a bill with a credit card. Duplicate bills can also be obtained through the service but those bills are only sent to the address of the customer listed on the bill. The mailing addresses cannot be changed by telephone. It isn't possible for anyone using the service line to find out what numbers a customer has called. Still, Tarvin says simple billing information can reveal plenty, and she called the 800 number to complain. "I kept telling her about right of privacy, and she kept telling me about test studies," said Tarvin, recalling her conversation with an Ameritech representative. That's close to the company's official position on the subject. "We did customer research, and they wanted this system to be quick and convenient as possible," said Tim Fitzpatrick, Ameritech spokesman. "They don't consider overall bill information vital, and they don't want to keep track of another number ... the primary driver in this is to make it as simple as possible." Ameritech's move so far hasn't caused much of an uproar, according to Ohio's Public Utility Commission, and Consumers' Counsel, the state consumer advocate. "We haven't had any calls about it, and we watch for things like that," said Consumers' Counsel spokeswoman, Susan Gaskell. "There may be some who would abuse this. But does that outweigh the convenience of having this? It doesn't seem so." Ameritech considered keeping the code system, Fitzpatrick said. But it found out that most people who were calling to find out what they owed had misplaced their bills. Without their bills, they couldn't find the required three-digit code -- rendering the service line useless to most people who needed it, Fitzpatrick said. Since the change, use of the company's service line has doubled to about five million calls a year, while Ameritech has received only about a dozen complaints, Fitzpatrick said. "Our customers are extremely satisfied with the system," he said. Just the same, Ameritech is blocking access to the service for customers who request it, and is considering returning to a system that requires customers to use private access codes. Van Hefner VANTEK COMMUNICATIONS vantek@aol.com Publisher of Discount Long Distance Digest -1995 LONG DISTANCE RESELLER SOURCEBOOK- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 May 1995 08:39:41 CET From: SHAW +41 22 730 5338 Subject: ITU World Wide Web Server Dear Patrick, Thought your readers might like to learn that the International Telecommunication Union in Geneva has made available its World Wide Web server. The URL is: http://www.itu.ch The ITU WWW Server contains thousands of documents on telecom standardization, radiocommunication and telecom development. Information on TELECOM 95 in Geneva from October 3-11, 1995 is also available from the home page or directly at: http://www.itu.ch/TELECOM/ Questions should be directed to helpdesk@itu.ch. Thanks also to many of your readers who supplied URLs for "Telecom Resources on the Net" (available on the home page). Happy telesurfing... Robert Shaw Information Services Department International Telecommunication Union Place des Nations 1211 Geneva 20, Switzerland TEL: +41 22 730 5338/5554 FAX: +41 22 730 5337 X.400:G=robert;S=shaw;A=arcom;P=itu;C=ch Internet: shaw@itu.ch [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: And my sincere thanks goes to the ITU as well for their continued financial support of TELECOM Digest. ITU has provided a monthly grant to this Digest for quite awhile now without which I do believe continued publication would have been impossible. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Mark Cuccia Subject: Sunday's OTR on WTIX Date: Mon, 29 May 95 09:23:00 +6C Yesterday, George Buck's Golden Era of Radio on WTIX aired an episode of The Whistler (from 1951) in the morning edition of OTR, and a 1953 Suspense episode that evening - each episode had an interesting telco/telecommunications aspect - In 'A Law of Physics' on The Whistler, the murderer tried to claim in his alibi was that he used his phone when the murder was committed -- his CAR PHONE -- but the sheriff made him 'test' his carphone at the same point he claims he placed the call -- he tells the sheriff that he pulled the car to the side of the road, lifted the reciever and pressed the 'call-request' button 'like-this' and gave the operator (verbally) the number he wanted to reach. When the sheriff says 'well, where's your operator', the murderer says 'I don't understand what's going on' (and you hear just crackle comming out), to which the sheriff replies 'It's just a simple law of physics - You can't get any radiotelephone transmission/reception along this stretch of highway - It's in the valley' (boom-boom, followed by the whistling and the announcer closing out the Signal Oil commercial and 'Stay tuned for Our Miss Brooks, which follows immedietely on most of these same CBS Stations. Marvin Miller speaking -- This is C.B.S., the Co-LUM-bia Broadcasting System' In 'Public Defender' on Suspense (with Frank Lovejoy) which was a network aircheck tape, (1953), the program is interrupted (and this was NOT part of the story) with 'We interrupt this program -- we have more names of American Prisoners of War just released by the Korean Communists' and the news announcer begins reading a list of 16 names of American Servicemen and their hometowns. While you couldn't hear any clatter of the teletypewriter, the news announcer states that 'More of the names are coming across the wire now'. This News Bulletin lasted about three to four minutes, and while the original pre-produced 'SUSPENSE' tape was continuing to roll from CBS Hollywood, there was not much of a loss of storyline in the program when 'rejoined'. The announcer states further 'As more names are released, we will interrupt our regularly scheduled programming on the CBS Radio network. This News Bulletin has come to you from CBS Radio News in New York, we now return to the regularly scheduled programming on this CBS Radio Network Station.' There were NO musical-jingles/sound-effect-beeping to alert listeners that an important bulletin was breaking in, and obviously there was NO 'bleep' tones (CBS did NOT introduce 'NetALERT' automation to alert affiliates not carrying a program at that time that a bulletin was moving and to join the net-feed or to start their 'cart' machines or reel-tapes -- until around 1961/62). ALSO, the announcer did NOT identify himself, but I THINK that it was Dallas Townsend who also anchored the weekday CBS World News Roundup (8-8:15am ET) on CBS Radio in the late 60's, 1970's, early 80's. (Neil Strawser did the Saturday WNR on CBS Radio in the 60's/70's/80's). I know you Chicago area people heard this on WBBM (which I have listened to at night). I might be only 34, but I know my nostalgia -- telco, radio, TV, etc. -- and I grew up in the 1960's listening to the stations that my parents listened to -- which were the CBS, NBC, Mutual, and ABC affiliates -- and I remember MONITOR, weekends on NBC Radio, whose jingle incidently was donated to them by AT&T in 1955 -- the jingle for Monitor was a tape of the AT&T inband MF KP tones, played at regular speed, fast-speed, and slow-speed. ANYONE OUT THERE REMEMBER THE MONITOR JINGLE (NBC called it the Monitor Beeper)? MARK J. CUCCIA WRITE, PHONE, or WIRE: HOME: CHestnut 1-2497 (tel, forwards on No-Answer/Busy to cellphone/voicemail) 4710 Wright Road New Orleans 28 LOUISIANA (70128) WORK: mcuccia@law.tulane.edu UNiversity 5-5954 (tel) UNiversity 5-5917 (fax) (AREA CODE 504) [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I remember well the news bulletins which interuppted the television programs repeatedly at the end of the Korean War (oh excuse me! 'police action'; Harry Truman never did ask Congress to declare war). As the war was ending, and the American prisoners of war were being released, there was a period of about a week where those bulletins were coming over the air two or three times every hour, and each time, the names and home towns of the prisoners on the list were read for the benefit of their families, etc., who were listening to the radio or television for the latest word. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Jiming.Liu@att.com Subject: Jobs at AT&T Bell Labs Organization: AT&T Date: Mon, 29 May 1995 01:53:42 GMT The Advanced Decision Support System (ADSS) organization at AT&T Bell Labs is interested in outstanding candidates who are considering consulting and development careers in Operations Research and Computer Science. AT&T Bell Labs ADSS has a long record of developing large-scale decision support systems and providing optimization-based consulting, object oriented design and software development, and implementation of client/server architectures. We have 3-4 openings for regular employees as well as for post-doctoral positions with a possibility of converting to regular employee positions. What AT&T Bell Labs ADSS requires: Education: Advanced degree (M.S. or Ph.D.) in Operations Research, Computer Science or related field required. In addition, an undergraduate degree in Engineering is desirable. OR Expertise: Practical experience and a theoretical background in general optimization and/or stochastic processes required. Knowledge of network analysis, system design and analysis, decision support systems, and basic statistical analysis desirable. Work Experience: A minimum of 2 years of non-academic professional experience required (may be waived for an applicant with a Ph.D.). Experience in the telecommunication area is desired. Previous consulting experience a plus. Computer Skills: Proficiency in programming C++ or C required. Knowledge of UNIX, object-oriented methodology, use of state-of-the-art optimization and statistical packages desirable. Experience with graphics and spreadsheets a plus. General: Highly developed oral and written communication skills as well as excellent interpersonal skills. Willingness to learn, self-motivation, and self-management. What AT&T Bell Labs ADSS can offer: A challenging and informal work environment. Work on leading-edge problems, develop innovative decision technologies, using the latest in high-performance commercial software technology (object oriented development, etc.). An opportunity to make an impact in a leading industrial laborotory environment. Competitive salaries, excellent benifits, and exciting career growth. If your background and interests match these expectations, please send your resume via fax, e-mail or regular mail to: Jiming Liu AT&T Bell Laboratories Room 2L-320 101 Crawfords Corner Road Holmdel, NJ 07733 e-mail. jiming@kingfish.att.com fax. 908-949-4001 ------------------------------ From: BGOODIN@UNEX.UCLA.EDU (William R. Goodin) Subject: UCLA Short Course on Wavelet Transform Applications to Data Date: Tue, 30 May 1995 16:01:21 Organization: UCLA Extension On September 11-15, 1995, UCLA Extension will present the short course, "Wavelet Transform Applications to Data, Signal, Image, and Video Processing", on the UCLA campus in Los Angeles. The instructors are Dr. Harold Szu, Research Physicist, Washington, DC, and Prof. John Villasenor, UCLA. The National Information Infrastructure (NII) has generated substantial interest in the broad tele-informatics processing area in which a new mathematical tool called the Wavelet Transform (WT) has been developed based on human sensor wideband transient characteristics. The wavelet transform has proved to be a powerful and efficient mechanism whenever the noisy data, signal image, and/or video processing functions are related to the quality of human sensory perception. This course builds the basics of both continuous and discrete WTs (CWTs and DWTs) and demonstrates both techniques with various real world signal restoration and pattern recognition applications. Case studies are then examined, including the FBI's decade-long fingerprint compression program, the five-year NIST/ATP program in digital video information infrastructure, the ARPA tele-medicine program, among others. The topics to be discussed include: Introduction to the Wavelet Transform (WT); Applications-Driven Wavelet: Principles by Dimensionality, Design by Functionality; Continuous and Discrete Mathematics of WT and Comparisons, How to Design Mother Wavelets; Neural Network Adaptive WT; Applications of Super-Mother Wavelets; Advanced Medical Applications Using WT; Nonlinear Dynamics Applications: Soliton WT Kernel; WT Implementation: Hardware and Software Issues; Image Compression; 2D Wavelet Theory and Practice; and Video Compression Applications. The course fee is $1495, which includes extensive course materials. For more information and a complete course description, please contact Marcus Hennessy at: (310) 825-1047 (310) 206-2815 fax mhenness@unex.ucla.edu ------------------------------ From: jeffb@audiolab.uwaterloo.ca (Jeff Bamford) Subject: Cantel and the New Area Codes Organization: Audio Research Group, University of Waterloo Date: Tue, 30 May 1995 14:30:26 -0400 Rogers Cantel in Canada seems to have a problem with the new area codes. I tried the test numbers that were posted here last week and they were unable to connect me to *any* of the test numbers! I called their service line and reported that I couldn't call a Southern Alabama number. She did the standard things: Did I dial the area code? Was I sure the number was right (worked fine from my home phbone I said)? She checked to make sure there was no block on long distance (shouldn't be, they just bill my MasterCard every month) and there wasn't. Since it was Sunday she said someone would look into and give me a call back on Monday. I left her the test number to try. We'll see what happens. Any other cellular users in Canada having a problem with these new area codes? Unitel (whom Cantel's parent company Rogers own 29%) had no problem with them except the new Chicago code, but if Pat can't even reach it from the Chicago area you really can't blame other companies for not reaching it. Interested to know what the status is. I'm sure all hell will break loose next year with the 604 split in BC. That will affect many more Canadians than the Alabama split. Jeff Bamford Email - jeffb@uwaterloo.ca -- NeXT Mail welcome Office/Lab: +1 519 885 1211 x3814 Fax: +1 519 746 8115 WEB Page: A.R.G. Home Page ------------------------------ From: Keith@unix.asb.com (Keith Knipschild) Subject: Cellular One of NYC Credit Organization: ASB Date: Tue, 30 May 1995 18:42:04 GMT On Tuesday last week, Cellular One was OFFLINE ... I tried to use my phone for one hour; all I got were fast buzy signals, even to 611 So I called C1 from a landline phone, they told me there was problems with the system andd they would CREDIT my account for the time thay were offline ... I guess if you don't ask for a credit you won't get it. Keith ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 May 95 18:55:09 PDT From: Greg Monti Subject: California's New Area Code: 760 {Comm Daily} has reported that area code 619 in California will split. No date was given. The "area north of San Diego" and the "five counties out to the Nevada and Arizona borders" will get a new code: 760. Presumably, 619 will be retained for the city of San Diego and for the southern and western suburbs down to the Mexican border. Greg Monti Arlington, Virginia, USA gmonti@cais.com ------------------------------ From: Mark Crispin Subject: Re: Mayors Seek Protection From Preemption in Telecom Reform Date: Tue, 30 May 1995 08:49:45 -0700 Organization: Networks & Distributed Computing I live in a community where this is an issue. It has very little to do with infrastructure costs. What is really going on is that in many cities and towns across the US, political power has been seized by a small but very organized clique of individuals who mistrust technology and will do everything possible to hamper it, including using junk science. The cellular industry has been a popular victim. We can not get a small monopole installed because of bogus "health" concerns. "The cellular rays have been proven to cause brain cancer!" "Our health is more important than allowing yuppies to make calls from their cars!" It wouldn't be so bad if the land lines were reliable, but they aren't; winter storms take them down regularly. Cellular is a crucial communications backup link -- unless you're in a dead zone or a fade-out zone. I welcome any/all pulling of the fangs from these aging hippies. It isn't just federal over-regulation that needs to be ended. Mark -- (still living in a fade-out zone, thanks to the cretins) DoD #0105, R90/6 pilot, FAX: (206) 685-4045 ICBM: N 47 39'35" W 122 18'39" Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The 'aging hippies' get their due every now and then. Remember how so much of California burned down a couple years ago after *some people* had refused for how many ever years to allow the Fire Department to do controlled burns? How *some people* out there in a town left unnamed full of 'aging hippies' refused any and all cooperation with state and federal authorities who wanted to change the agricultural scene around a little to prevent or greatly reduce the chance of a major fire? They resisted, they protested, they sued, they carried on and then one day their town burned down ... remember? All these people with their deluded agendas and will you please stop the world so they can get off greatly annoy me also. Now let's watch the Mothers of America unite in wrecking the Internet as the newspapers relate all kinds of foolishness and many times outright lies. PAT] ------------------------------ From: gsmicro@ios.com Date: Tue, 30 May 1995 23:52:48 -0400 Subject: Re: Troubles With NYNEX Voice Mail? steve@individual.com wrote: > I've heard of and experienced some problems with Nynex's c.o. based > voice mail. I called someone yesterday (5/25) and when they didn't > pick up I heard "You have reached the Nynex message center. Please > enter the phone phone number of the person you are calling ..." > Eventually I heard their greeting and was able to leave a message. > This same person has told me that she has called other Nynex voice > mail subscribers and instead of getting their greeting heard the > subscriber menu for picking up messages. What you experienced is not all that uncommon. The voicemail system is supposed to retrieve the number you're dialing from thru a DID-like delivery system as Pat stated. If the call to the voicemail number was direct-dialed from a line that subscribes to voicemail, is it supposed to play the greeting prompting you to enter your PIN. If the call was "forwarded" to the voicemail number, the system should play your greeting. However, if the voicemail number is dialed from a phone that does *not* subscribe, the system plays the generic "Welcome to voicemail ..." greeting. If there is corruption of the CLID to the voicemail switch (we all know Caller ID is never corrupt) or the system is overloaded, you will experience what you have described. I have personally had this happen to me on my business lines. Not too great for customers to get that message. I've also had the voicemail system ring without answering, and even sometimes pick up then disconnect. Also quite yukky. then, Pat wrote: > People with telco voicemail might also try this little trick and see > what happens: have you noticed how when you dial into the main number > using the phone number assigned it does not ask you to enter your mail- > box number? It already knows who you are, and just asks for your pass- > word. Now try calling the main number but using *67 first ... does it > still know who you are and merely ask for your password, or do you get > the introductory part about 'please enter the number of the mailbox you > are calling." I am told in some telcos they say to heck with that *67 > business on calls to them; the privacy flag is ignored when you call > into a telco function such as voicemail. How does it work in your > community? PAT] Tried it here, Pat. In my CO (Bell Atlantic, 5ESS (release 9 I believe, non-generic), *67 does not disable CLID detection - voicemail properly prompts me for my PIN. I don't think that the system really uses the same delivery method as CLID (at least not CLID as we end users know it). If you dialed *67 before dialing 0 or 00, the operator would still know who you are (same is true for 911). But, the privacy flag may be ignored for calls to the voicemail number, as you stated. Interesting test though, Pat. Regards, Scot M. Desort Garden State Micro, Inc. +1 201-244-1110 +1 201-244-1120 Fax gsmicro@ios.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The Ameritech voicemail users manual claims that the 'envelope' function on messages will give not only the time and date of the call, but also the phone number of the calling party. So far it does not work that way here, and it seems a shame they can't add it to the service. Just as the computer voice tells you the time and date the call was received, it could easily tell you the number that called. When I asked Ameritech about this they claim it is not part of the service, yet their user manual says it is. PAT] ------------------------------ From: stanschwartz-aviswizcom@e-mail.com Date: Tue, 30 May 1995 17:32:01 EDT Subject: Re: Troubles with NYNEX Voice Mail? > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: > People with telco voicemail might also try this little trick and see > what happens: have you noticed how when you dial into the main number > using the phone number assigned it does not ask you to enter your > mailbox number? It already knows who you are, and just asks for your > password. Now try calling the main number but using *67 first ... > does it still know who you are and merely ask for your password, or do > you get the introductory part about 'please enter the number of the > mailbox you are calling." I am told in some telcos they say to heck > with that *67 business on calls to them; the privacy flag is ignored > when you call into a telco function such as voicemail. How does it > work in your community? PAT] Pat, Here in the 516 part of NYNEXLand, the telco voicemail works exactly as you described. There's one additional catch. If you three-way call FROM YOUR OWN PHONE into the voicemail server, the server does not receive the CID or ANI information from you, and asks you to enter your mailbox number. On a semi-related note, I have a Visa card from First USA Bank in Philadelphia. When dialing in for customer service, the voice response system only asks me to touch-tone in the last four digits of my account number for verification (it has already done an account lookup based on the incoming ANI). When I received a new card from them, they sent what the industry calls a "dead plastic". It's not "live" until you call the number on the sticker on the card and verify that you received it. The sticker on the card emphasizes that you only activate your new card "FROM YOUR OWN PHONE", as it does the same verification. How is this related, you ask? When I was on a call telling a friend about this, I tried to three-way into First USA's 800 number (800-955-9900) and it acted as if it didn't receive the ANI information ("Please enter your 16-digit account number"). I wonder why that is? Stan ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V15 #260 ****************************** Received: from ns1.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa20775; 31 May 95 5:32 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA28055 for telecomlist-outbound; Tue, 30 May 1995 21:53:14 -0500 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA28039; Tue, 30 May 1995 21:53:01 -0500 Date: Tue, 30 May 1995 21:53:01 -0500 From: TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson) Message-Id: <199505310253.VAA28039@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #261 TELECOM Digest Tue, 30 May 95 21:53:00 CDT Volume 15 : Issue 261 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Prodigy Held Liable in Libel Case Caused by Subscriber (Dave Banisar) Book Review: Unix Communications and the Internet by Anderson (Rob Slade) Foreign Exchange Lines in Oregon (Greg Tompkins) CD-ROM of Residental and Business Phone Listings Wanted (david@america.com) New Name For LDDS (Greg Monti) Telco Northwestel Errs With PBX; Help Please (Ian Gamble) Asynchronous Dial Access Study Participants Wanted (Dennis Shen) ATLAS alliance between France Telecom and Deutsche Telekom (Yves Blondeel) 'Sorry, Wrong Number' (was 'Long Distance in 1942') (Mark Cuccia) 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: 500-677-1616 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: 26 May 1995 23:12:00 -0400 From: Dave Banisar Subject: Prodigy Held Liable in Libel Case Casued by Subscriber A New York state trial court ruled on May 24 that Prodigy is responsible for the libelous statements of its users because it exercises editorial control over their posts. In the case, an anonymous Prodigy user made statements against New York Investment firm Stratton Oakmont accusing it of criminal and fraudulent acts. Stratton Oakmont sued Prodigy and the volunteer moderator of the forum where the statements were published. The Court found that Prodigy was acting as a publisher and therefore was responsible for the content of the posts. The Court distinguished the case from the earlier Cubby v. Compuserve decision, which found that Compuserve was subject to the standards of a bookstore or library. It that case, the US District court ruled that Compuserve had no editorial control over the text. According to the New York state court: In contrast, here Prodigy has virtually created an editorial staff of Board Leaders who have the ability to continually monitor incoming transmissions and in fact do spend time censoring notes. Indeed, it could be said that Prodigy's current system of automatic scanning, guidelines, and Board Leaders may have a chilling effect on freedom of communications in Cyberspace, and it appears that this chilling effect is exactly what Prodigy wants, but for the legal liability that attaches to such censorship. Let it be clear that this court is in full agreement with Cubby and Auvil. Computer bulletin boards should generally be regarded in the same context as bookstores, libraries and network affiliates...It is Prodigy's own policies, technology and staffing decisions which have altered the scenario and mandated the finding that it is a publisher. The court also attempted to downplay the significance of its decision on the greater area of electronic networks: Prodigy's conscious choice, to gain the benefits of editorial control, has opened it up to greater liability that Compuserve and other computer networks that make no such choice. For the record, the fear that this Court's finding of publisher status for Prodigy will compel all computer networks to abdicate control of their bulletin boards, incorrectly presumes that the market will refuse to compensate a network for its increased control and the resulting increased exposure. The Court also found that the volunteer "Board Leader" of the Prodigy Bulletin Board was acting as an agent of the company. The Court found Prodigy exercised control over the Board Leaders though the the Bulletin Board Leader Agreement and the actions of Prodigy's employees. Prodigy has said that it will consider appealing the decision. EPIC has materials on free speech available at http://epic.org/free_speech/ We will be making a copy of the decision available in the next few days. David Banisar (Banisar@epic.org) * 202-544-9240 (tel) Electronic Privacy Information Center * 202-547-5482 (fax) 666 Pennsylvania Ave, SE, Suite 301 * ftp/gopher/wais cpsr.org Washington, DC 20003 * HTTP://epic.digicash.com/epic [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I think the decision was fair and proper. So many folks involved in net publishing, operating BBS's, newsgroups and whatever are insistent on having the same legitimacy granted to them that the print media recieves. I agree with this, and think it should be. I believe for example the TELECOM Digest is just as legitimate a publication -- admittedly all electronic -- as say, {Telephony} or Harry Newton's magazine. But the flip side of that coin is that with that legitimacy comes responsibility. It used to be -- and maybe still is, I don't use them enough to know -- that all the BBS sysops used to whine and cry when they were called on the carpet about pirated files on their system or porn or whatever the current crusade happened to be. They'd say 'well I cannot be held responsible! I am just running a little system as a volunteer! I have no control over what people post on my computer ... well of course they had control; they can unplug the computer from the phone line and turn off the electricity to it, but that is *not what they meant*. What they meant was they wanted to play along with the big boys but not be held accountable to the same standards. Somehow, because they are little and operate as non-profit, all the rules should be changed. I support Prodigy's right to have full editorial control over every last item on their system if they want. Its their 'computer', their business, their product. I support the right of people to sign up for and use such a system if they want, or ignore it if they want in the same way people either buy and read the {New York Times} or they read something else. I'm sure Prodigy's customers are a happy lot, pleased with the service and what they are getting for their money, etc. I know I certainly do not intend to relinquish control of the editorial content of this Digest, and I would not expect it of others. So if they do their thing, then they are responsible for what they 'publish'. And I'll tell you who I think will be the next one to get their corporate neck on the chopping block: America On Line. Those folks lean hard and breath heavily on their user/subscribers also with their 'Terms of Service' provisions which the Guides are *constantly* reminding people about. Say a profane word in a chat room? Read those Terms of Service! Put up something disagreeable in one of the forums? Read those Terms of Service! Like Prodigy, I think AOL is perfectly entitled to market a product they think people want -- and they seem to be pretty much on the mark, and the money if their growth in the past year means anything -- but if they are going to structure it so much and make their users comply so closely with their rules, etc, then watch what happens when someone breaks the rules big time: well, let's sue AOL also, it was their carelessness in screening the user ... the classic example of this is the story making the rounds about how the pedophile lurked on AOL in Teen Chat and lured some kid to meet him in person; mommie and daddy then sued AOL when they found out. Its still going to be a long time before the electronic media has full parity with the print media, if we ever do. But whimpering about how there is nothing we can do; no way to control the problems and troublesome users on the net just won't work any longer. Do you want to clean things up a little here or would you prefer to have Senator Exon and his cronies do it instead? He is chomping at the bit to do it himself, we all know that ... so I think we need to let Prodigy hang on this ... just blow in the wind so to speak, and learn their own lessons. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 May 1995 17:45:18 EST From: Rob Slade Subject: Book Review: "UNIX Communications and the Internet" by Anderson BKUNCMIN.RVW 950405 "UNIX Communications and the Internet", Anderson/Costales/Henderson/Pike, 1995, 0-672-30537-2, U$35.00/C$47.95/UK#26.95 %A Bart Anderson %A Bryan Costales %A Harry Henderson %A Tod Pike tpike@pittslug.sug.org %C 201 W. 103rd Street, Indianapolis, IN 46290 %D 1995 %G 0-672-30537-2 %I SAMS Publishing %O U$35.00/C$47.95/UK#26.95 800-858-7674 75141.2102@compuserve.com %P 817 %T "UNIX Communications and the Internet" Despite the increasing popularity of dial-up IP connections to the Internet, the most common situation is still the dial-up shell account. The most common platform for providers is UNIX, and, although there are many and varied menu- based shells available, at some point the active Internet user is likely going to have to use UNIX, and the UNIX communications tools. The first edition of this book was written seven years ago, when UUCP and the Usenet network (as opposed to the Usenet news application) held a more significant position in global network communications. Internet users may therefore find the non-Usenet material to be a somewhat cursory add-on to the original text. Email addressing examples often give only the UUCP ("bang path") specifications, without adding the more familiar domain name (user@subdomain.domain) format. (Given the size of the work, I was surprised that the explanation lists only "logical" domains, such as .com and .edu, without discussing geographic or more complex structures.) The coverage of Internet particulars is so terse that the explanation of URLs (Universal Resource Locators) describes only HTTP (HyperText Transer protocol, the underlying system for displaying W3 pages). The whole Internet "part" contains only three chapters (twenty-four is really an extension of the UUCP content.) Overall, however, the quality of the material is quite high. There is solid coverage of email, dealing both with concepts and the major mail user agents. The section on Usenet news is also good, though it shows a similar lack of updating: neither trn nor tin are mentioned, and the coverage of "network etiquette" is to be found in the chapter on postnews. UUCP is not dead by any means, and active Internauts, particularly those working at multiple sites on the net, are likely to encounter it at least occasionally. The extreme domination of this book by UUCP applications (readnews and postnews are, by now, specialty applications at best) at the expense of Internet-specific information, will limit the usefulness of this edition. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1995 BKUNCMIN.RVW 950405. Distribution permitted in TELECOM Digest and associated publications. Rob Slade's book reviews are a regular feature in the Digest. Vancouver ROBERTS@decus.ca Institute for Robert_Slade@sfu.ca Research into Rob_Slade@mindlink.bc.ca User rslade@vanisl.decus.ca Security Canada V7K 2G6 ------------------------------ From: Greg Tompkins Subject: Foreign Exchange Lines in Oregon Date: 30 May 1995 00:27:12 GMT Organization: 4-T Acres I called GTE and wanted to know some rates for foreign exhange lines the other day. The lady told me "In Oregon, we do not have Foreign Exchange, but we have a service called Group A service". I asked her what Group A was. She went on to tell me that it would cost $700 to install, cost approximatly $325 per month and I would be billed on both incoming and outgoing calls at a rate of .07 per minute. My plan was to get a foreign exchange line to a city that is only ten miles away from me, but is long distance. I was so disgusted that I called and complained to the PUC about GTE. Why do you all think it's not an available service in Oregon? Any other ideas to have foreign exchange without paying these ridiculous rates. I have checked into leased lines, RF links, everything but they are all expensive options. Maybe I can get right of way and string my own wire to someone who lives in the area I am trying to call free! :-) GREG [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Unless you think your usage per month would be great enough that you would amortize that $700 install plus $325 per month plus .07 per minute of useage in a short time, why not consider an 800 number in the place you are trying to reach? Even if the cost was 15 to 20 cents per minute, you would need a great deal of usage before that $325 per month fee becomes less expensive. I don't have a lot of sympathy these days for people who feel they need FX in view of the large number of inexpensive 800 service providers around. FX was a service devised fifty years ago for businesses who literally had the volume of traffic required to keep that FX line loaded all the time, which is about the only way they ever are cost effective. I think one time here in the Digest someone analyzed this pretty closely and detirmined there were times you could get by with 70 percent occupancy on an FX line over a great distance; shorter FX's required still more use. PAT] ------------------------------ From: david@america.com (David) Subject: CD-ROM of Residental and/or Business Phone Listings Wanted Date: 30 May 1995 07:43:32 -0400 Organization: PSS InterNet Services, InterNet in Fl 904 253 7100 I was wondering what the name of such a CD-ROM would be. Does it allow you to extract listings to an ASCII format? How much does something like this cost, etc. Thanks. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 May 95 14:07:15 PDT From: Greg Monti Subject: New Name For LDDS A brief notice in {Communications Daily} on 5/26 noted that LDDS shareholders had approved "WorldCom" as the new name of the merged long distance carrier made up of LDDS, IDB Communications Group, WilTel Network Services. Sidebar: Company founders developed the LDDS name after asking a Hattiesburg, Mississippi, waitress for help. She suggested "Long Distance Discount Service." Greg Monti Arlington, Virginia, USA gmonti@cais.com ------------------------------ From: Ian Gamble Subject: Telco Northwestel Errs With PBX; Help Please Date: Mon, 29 May 1995 23:31:20 MDT Northwestel, the telco for northern Canada, has nearly completed the installation of a Northern Telecom Meridian 1 Option 11E PBX for the hotel where I work. There will be about 150 new telephones installed, all digital. The system was represented by the salesperson as being compatible with analog devices. The intent was to have a modern, and upgradeable, system to serve the needs of business travellers. Particularly, each room was to have the capacity to support fax and modem use by guests. Three days ago the technician installing the system informed the manager of the hotel that the digital PBX was incompatible with analog devices. The proposed fix, to install analog cards into the system unit, would be prohibitively expensive: 1.) the cards support a limited number of lines, 2.) each card is expensive, and 3.) if the digital lines were to be retained, a complete rewiring would be required to provide access in each of 130 rooms. I understand that there are risks to analog equipment if it is connected to the PBX due to the higher voltage, and the PBX itself can be harmed if modems or fax machines are hooked up. Is this true? Are there any analog to digital converters available that can be installed to permit this use on the PBX? Where can they be purchased? What should be done about the representation by the salesperson that the system would be suitable "out-of-the-box" for this purpose? Thank you for your attention. Regards, Ian Gamble iang@ntnet.nt.ca [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: If you have him saying in writing that the two would be compatible -- or even if you don't but there are a few witnesses to the conversation -- you can always sue the company. And by all means, don't make any further payments on the new system. Let them *sue you* if they want to get paid the balance due. PAT] ------------------------------ From: dshen@interserv.com Subject: Asynchronous Dial Access Study Participants Wanted Date: 30 May 1995 18:13:34 GMT Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, US Reply-To: dshen@interserv.com If you have ordered ADA in the past sixty days or will order ADA in the next sixty days, please consider participating in our study of new ADA users. Participants will receive results of the study which may help you receive better service from your provider, gain you insight into the experiences of other new users, and allow you to better understand some of the practical benefits and drawbacks of your new service. If interested, please contact Dennis Shen at dshen@interserv.com. Please include your name, e-mail, and a phone number (if you feel comfortable giving out your number great, if not feel free to leave that out). Thanks, Dennis Shen ------------------------------ From: Yves Blondeel Subject: ATLAS Alliance Between France Telecom and Deutsche Telekom Date: 30 May 1995 16:03:02 GMT Organization: T-REGS ATLAS alliance between France Telecom and Deutsche Telekom. I hereby forward the statement made by the European Commission's Competition Commissioner Karel Van Miert concerning the proposed alliance between France Telecom and Deutsche Telekom. Extracted from the European Commission's RAPID Database, which is publicly accessible via: http://www.cec.lu/ml/rapid/rapmain.html * * * Rapid Ref: IP/95/524 - 24/05/95 - EN TELECOMMUNICATIONS ATLAS PROJECT: STATEMENT BY COMMISSIONER KAREL VAN MIERT I have instructed the services of the Commission's Directorate-General for Competition to inform Deutsche Telekom AG and France Telecom that certain aspects of their cooperation through the ATLAS joint venture company raise preliminary concerns under the EC Treaty's competition rules. I have indicated on numerous occasions,that the Commission is all in favour of strategic alliances involving European telecommunications operators (TOs) which allow them to enter the newly emerging market for sophisticated Europe- and world-wide telecommunications services. This new market mainly addresses the needs of large multinational companies with operations over the globe and which require 24 hour services regardless of differences in time zones, linguistic borders and currencies. The Commission has already last year issued a favourable Decision regarding the global telecommunications venture between BT and the US operator MCI. In examining the ATLAS venture, my services have gathered extensive information from the parties themselves, from other telecommunications service providers and from users. As a result, several problems have been identified which will need to be examined further before the Commission can take a definite position on the ATLAS venture: - the ATLAS venture in its present form does not appear to be in a position to address the global needs of multinational companies; - the ATLAS venture appears to relate mainly to the provision of domestic data communications services to companies operating in France or Germany and not at a global -- or even European-level; given the very high market shares of the parent companies on those domestic markets (+75% in both cases)and the fact that through the joint venture, the parent companies will not compete with each other on those markets, competition is likely to be eliminated or at least seriously restricted. The main victims will be small-and medium-sized companies, whose choice of service providers will be reduced and who are not in a position to exert any downward pressure on the prices for such services; - the national markets in question are very important in terms of size in the total EU context: approximately 45 % of data communications services in the entire EU are accounted for by services provided in France and Germany; - the elimination of competition on national markets is aggravated by the fact that the parent companies of ATLAS at present enjoy monopolies for the provision of infrastructure, the necessary building blocks for service providers competing with ATLAS; in the absence of alternative infrastructure allowing competing service providers to build up their own networks at competitive prices, competition will suffer a set-back precisely at the time that action taken by the Commission to liberalize all telecommunications services except basic voice services should begin to bear its fruits for the benefit of users. My services have set out these major concerns as well as other competition problems in an administrative letter addressed to the parties, which I should stress by no means involves a definite position on the part of the Commission. The next step in the procedure will consist of examining any changes which the parties put forward to meet the concerns expressed by the Commission's services. Yves Blondeel ------------------------------ From: Mark Cuccia Subject: 'Sorry, Wrong Number' (was 'Long Distance in 1942') Date: Tue, 30 May 95 11:07:00 GMT Suspense was produced in Hollywood from about four weeks into its run in 1942, thru August or September 1959. It was produced in New York from then until its end at the end of September, 1962. Los Angeles (and most ALL of Southern California was primarliy a 'step by step' type of switching area thru the early 60's. New York was 'Panel' and 'Crossbar' as was Phily, Chicago, Frisco, DC, etc. FOR THE MOST PART - Panel/Crossbar areas used N11 codes for special services, Step areas used 11X codes. Sorry Wrong Number - this episode took place in New York, although Agnes did it live and later on tape from CBS/KNX at Sunset & Gower in Hollywood. She did no more than seven performances on the Suspense series -- the 1957 performance (by that time Suspense was pre-taped sometime earlier than the network feed/broadcast) which was rerun in 1960 (with new commercials and slight reformatting for open/close) is the one I have a good copy of -- I have the 1960 rerun on tape. I also have some 'bad' copies of earlier editions of this episode. Agnes at one point calls information, and she dials (if you listen to the pulls of the dial) 113. THIS was the code for Information at that time in Southern California, while NYC really used 411. In many an episode of Perry Mason (TV, Raymond Burr -- I've never heard the 'soap-opera' daytime radio version from the 1940's thru mid 50's), people dial Information with 113, and Long Distance with 0 or 110. In Panel/Crossbar areas, LD was 211. Perry Mason took place in L.A., and was of course filmed there also. While Panel/Crossbar offices COULD handle 11X service codes, most areas that had Panel/Crossbar switches since the 1920's used N11 service codes. There have been many posts to the three groups lately about the N11 codes. The OLD 'standard' assignments were: 211 - Long Distance 411 - Information 611 - Repair 811 - Telco Business Office 911 - Emergency (assigned in the 1960's) OTHER codes have been used for ringback, testboard, reading back your number, etc. The OLD (and here, I MEAN OLD) 'standard' assignments for 11X codes were: 111111111... (each subsequent '1' keeps getting 'absorbed') 112+ Long Distance Access (later replaced by 1+) 113 - Information 114 - Repair 115 - Mobile/Conference/Marine/etc. 'Leave-Word' Operator 116 - 'COUNTY' operator for reaching nearby rural points 117 - Testboard 118 + N1 - ringbacks on four and eight party (i.e.calling someone who shares your party line. You could NOT just dial them from a step office -- you had to dial a special code and hang up -- and then you and the party-on-your line who you were calling -- would alternately ring with your coded rings). 119 + 1 - ringback for two party lines -- after hanging up, each party would alternately ring. 110 - Long Distance. These codes were not ALWAYS the same in every place -- and not ALL codes were used for any place. MARK J. CUCCIA HOME: 4710 Wright Road New Orleans 28 LOUISIANA (70128) CHestnut 1-2497 (rolls to cellular on busy/no-answer; cell has voicemail; +1 504 241 2497) WORK: mcuccia@law.tulane.edu UNiversity 5-5954 - TEL.(+1 504 865 5954) UNiversity 5-5917 - FAX.(+1 504 865 5917) [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Back in the days of '211' for the long distance operator in Chicago -- prior to about 1975 -- we also had '811' which served two purposes over a period of about forty years. During the Second World War, '811' was called 'Priority Long Distance' and it was used by military personnel who had the authority to ask that some other connection be dropped if necessary to allow for completion of an urgent military call. At the same time, and for the thirty years following the war, '811' was used by hotel switchboard operators, along with hospital and university switchboard operators for 'automatic time and charges callback'. If the call came in on 811 rather than 211, the Bell long distance operator knew it was a switchboard calling where some chargeback arrangement was in effect, meaning time and charges had to be quoted to the hotel operator immediatly when the call was finished. The guest might be checking out momentarily and the front desk needed the charges so they could be put on the guest's bill. AT&T paid a commission to the hotels/hospitals/universities, etc with switchboards for their traffic in return for the hotel/hospital/university guarenteeing paying of the bill caused by the guest's telephone calls. After all, strictly speaking, a transient person could call telco and demand an installation. This would be a nuisance to telco so the deal was the institution would run all the traffic through the switchboard and pay the bill, which had usually a 10-12 percent discount on it. The hotels, hospitals, etc naturally collected the full thing from the tenant/guest/patient. Part of the deal was though that the telco operators had to quote T&C 'as promptly as possible' following the completion of the call so the switchboard could complete their ticket which was then passed to the front desk or bookkeeper or whatever for adding to the guest's account. If telco failed to quote T&C on any given call, they wrote it off. The institution was only responsible provided the operator quoted the charge to be collected. To resolve the problem of 'you never quoted on that call' versus 'yes we did', the switchboard toll tickets were serialized, as were the toll tickets used by telco operators. The switchboard operator had to introduce each call to the long distance operator by saying 'hotel time and charges, room XXX' unless the call went out from the switchboard via 811, in which case the hotel operator merely had to introduce each call saying 'room XXX'. When the call came down a few minutes later the Bell operator frequently held the line up and would ring back to the switchboard saying 'T&C Room XXX, one dollar seventy cents plus tax, I am who are you?' And the switchboard operator would respond 'I am '. Disputes over whether or not T&C were quoted could be resolved at billing time when telco was able to produce the hotel's toll ticket serial number as proof it had been called back. In the case of bigger switchboards, often times all the toll tickets for a given period of time, usually one hour, were given to the telco supervisor to all be quoted at one time. Then the conversation would go on for several minutes, with the long distance operator telling the hotel operator, 'ready to quote are you ready?' When the hotel operator had all the tickets for the past hour or so in front of her then the LD operator would rattle off the time and charges on each, stopping after each quote for "I am 'operator ' you are?" and the hotel operator's response. In the very, very big phone rooms such as the Conrad Hilton Hotel, the University of Chicago, Rush-Presbyterian Hospital and places like that, instead of callbacks with T&C telco sent the charge amounts via telex. U of C for example had a telex machine just for use by the long distance operators. Once an hour or so that telex would come to life noisily and on the other end a clerk at telco was banging out the time and charges for all long distance calls sent through the university switchboard over the past hour. Of course the big phone rooms such as the above did not dial anything to get long distance. They did not have to use 811 or 211 ... the university operators, like the operators at the Conrad Hilton Hotel simply plugged into 'tie lines' located right on their switchboard. Little jacks that looked like any other extension on the switchboard, they were actually direct to long distance. When the long distance operators got the corresponding signal on their switchboard, it was known who was calling and the university or hotel operator merely had to pass the extension number or room number of the user since that was not readily apparent to the Bell operator. The hotels and others getting commissions from Bell for handling and paying for the long distance traffic were not supposed to use those lines (or '811') for their own administrative traffic. Those lines and the commissions paid by Bell as a result were only supposed to be used by the 'guests', (or patients, or students). Administrative traffic from the institution itself was supposed to go out over 211 the same as any 'regular' subscriber and was not commissionable. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V15 #261 ****************************** Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa26816; 31 May 95 17:23 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA11845 for telecomlist-outbound; Wed, 31 May 1995 09:21:34 -0500 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA11837; Wed, 31 May 1995 09:21:32 -0500 Date: Wed, 31 May 1995 09:21:32 -0500 From: TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson) Message-Id: <199505311421.JAA11837@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #262 TELECOM Digest Wed, 31 May 95 09:21:00 CDT Volume 15 : Issue 262 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Can I Bring Legal Action to Force NYNEX to Do Its Job (Bradley Ward Allen) Telecom (NON)-Privacy at Ameritech (Lauren Weinstein) Help Wanted With BigMouth (Guido DeMarchi) Notice From FCC Regards ISDN - SLC Charges Today (hihosteveo@aol.com) Looking For Short Haul 56kbps Solution (Michel Adam) Is LDDS Pulling my Leg? (Dave O'Shea) French Hotels May Overcharge For Phone Calls (Nigel Allen) Fax/Voice Switches (Gary Breuckman) 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: 500-677-1616 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: ulmo@panix.com (Bradley Ward Allen) Subject: Can I Bring Legal Action to Force NYNEX to Do Its Job Date: 31 May 1995 04:36:20 -0400 Organization: URL:http://www.armory.com/~ulmo/ (see rivers.html for PGP key) Is someone willing to give me free legal advice who can point me at information that will work as intended in court? Here's the question: Is it possible for me to bring legal action to force NYNEX to follow laws and/or agreements it is bound to, when my relationship with it in each particular case is via some other entity, in one case via MFS, and in another via a company which uses MFS, both of which are depending on NYNEX to do something or other with their lines? In each case I am willing to do the legal procedure whereas the people I'm dealing with may or may not have the balls to do it, may or may not have the same approach to dealing with this issue, and may or may not have the same amount of stake in the issues as me, nevermind may or may not have already received appropriate bribes from the appropriate companies (hint hint?? Would I be considered an accessory if I were to ask for this?) I would have a hard time quantifying money lost. I would need to identify laws and agreements being broken; some of these may be hard to find or private; are there things that help me obtain these items? The most basic general ideas I have come up with are: causing unfairness in market; causing second, third, fourth, etc. parties to violate their own promises based on missed and/or inappropriate deadlines, reasonable levels of service, etc. I know that in the true spirit of open market, the biggest incentive for NYNEX to do their job would be for me to switch companies. However, there is no other company which is free totally from the reins of NYNEX within Manhattan except Me, Myself and I; therefore in the interest of settling these issues should I start my own telephone company just to serve myself, including all the governmental communications necessary to secure access and ability to modify the necessary properties which are between the two points which I wish to connect, and the associated money involved? Or should I see that to serve myself I must start or cause to have started a company which works for many who share similar interests and can obtain my goals? Or am I being really blind and dumb and not realizing other options to connect me at the data rate of at least 14,400 bits per second to another location within Manhattan 24 hours a day as a personal adjunct to my life that I can afford? For example, I have called the two cable companies but have not bothered researching a microwave link because I have made the rash assumption (without checking) that my four story building is not line-of-sight and microwavable to the other building (whose location I do not know) and/or the use of another radio device (not so direction dependent and humanly dangerous as microwave) is prohibitively expensive considering the applications necessary to the FCC and various other entities for bandwidth which I may use for any purpose I want to at any time via any particular transceiving method(s) which would also yield at least 14,400 bps around the clock with fairly low latency (less than 2s). Thank you for any and all help. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Bear in mind that free legal advice is always worth everything you paid for it. Furthermore, I am not your attorney and you should seek the advice of counsel specializing in communications law before taking any action. With that said, I believe I am correct in noting that since you have no direct dealings with NYNEX, you cannot sue them for anything. They made no promises or commitments to *you*; they have violated no contracts or conditions with *you*, and your losses, if any, are due to promises that were made to you by MFS. Now perhaps 'everyone knows' that MFS has been unable to meet its commitments to you because of something NYNEX did or did not do, but that's the problem of MFS and not yourself. MFS said to you in effect 'we can do a better job' and you took them at their word and entered a contract with them. I imagine you will see their contract -- what they actually agreed to in writing with you -- gives them a way to weasel out of this also, but whether it does or does not, your complaint is with promises and commitments MFS made; promises they made when they knew or should have known that *their vendor NYNEX* was unlikely to cooperate. You did not enter into any contracts with NYNEX, therefore they owe you nothing. You can call yourself a 'telephone company' if you want to; that does not mean you are one by any generally understood use of the term, and I suggest you talk at length with the state utility commission before foolishly designating yourself with this title. And speaking of the utility commission, I think laws in many states and the telco's own tariffs require you to exhaust any and all administrative remedies prior to bringing suit -- in your case against MFS since that is the company which you allege made promises and commitments to you. But more to the meat of the matter: you say you are unable to get 14.4 on a 24 hour per day basis 'at a rate you can afford'. If that is the case, I don't think you are going to be able to pursue this legally at a rate you can afford either. Are you really serious that dialup as needed won't work just as well? Have you looked at technical explanations to your problem as well or just thought in terms of legal action? What do you suppose a judge is going to do if one did agree to hear this case? He'll listen to the technical experts from NYNEX and go along with whatever they tell him. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 May 95 01:52 PDT From: lauren@vortex.com (Lauren Weinstein) Subject: Telecom (NON)-Privacy at Ameritech Greetings. In a recent Digest, it was reported that Ameritech now allows anyone to obtain bill payment information for any Ameritech line (unless blocked by specific subscriber request) -- a true bonanza for snoops in general and for folks trolling for big bill customers to target for marketing. Obviously, this is a terrible policy. It is unfortunately not a unique situation. Ameritech's explanation (as reported in TELECOM Digest) has been spouted by numerous other utilities, banks, and other entities. If a subscriber complains, they are frequently told that "hardly anyone else has complained about the system". If 1000 people complain, they may each individually be told that they're essentially the "lone wolf". It is also common for these entities to say that they're just trying to make things easier for their customers. This is the logic used for simple passcodes (e.g. zipcode, which anyone can determine), ill-advised passcodes (e.g. use of the SS number), or as in the case of Ameritech, no passcode at all. It is unfortunately nearly always the case that "most" people won't complain about such a system until something happens that impacts them negatively as a result of the poor security on the system. The entities with these poor security policies are simply trading off the hassles and disruptions caused to subscribers about whom information from the system is misused, against having to deal with callers who can't remember their passcode. The "solution" is obvious. Ameritech should return to a "random" passcode system, and allow customers who have a problem remembering the code to either choose something simple ("0000") or opt for no code at all. But such a choice of no security should be made by the individual customer -- to make it the default condition for all customers is very bad policy. Experience has shown that the only effective way to deal with these types of situations is to complain loudly to the highest level you can reach. In the case of Ameritech, complaints (and suggestions for "fixing" the problem, as mentioned above) should be made to the billing supervisor level at least -- better yet, speak to the managers. And while it means taking the time to put it down in written form, letters to state PUCs are *extremely* important with such matters. I'm sure there are just a *few* Ameritech subscribers reading this now. If each of you expressed your opinion (one way or another) to the PUC and Ameritech regarding their system, I suspect you could have considerable impact. --Lauren-- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 May 1995 18:35:41 EST From: Guido De Marchi Subject: Help Wanted With BigMouth Dear Mr. Townson: In a recent article appeared in your TELECOM e-zine (May 9) you described, in quite a detailed way, the implementation of an auto- attendant system for a Greyhound bus station, in which you employed Talking Technology's BigMouth card. I have used the same card for a very similar application in my parents' shop, in Italy. I've put that card behind their Panasonic KX-T61610 PABX to answer all incoming calls (on 4 C.O. lines) and direct customers to the specific department and/or sales assistant of their choice, by means of announcements over the shop P.A. system. Needless to say it works flawlessy, and it pleases callers too. I noticed, however, that in your article you mentioned the use of a (probably) temporised job for after hours service. For a number of reasons, my parents would like the system to switch automatically to "night" mode at evenings and on weekends, and then back to the regular telebox scheme during regular business hours. I have been struggling with this problem for quite a while now, but have not made any progress yet. I must admit that my knowledge of personal computers and DOS is quite limited (after all, I'm an astronomer .... and we generally deal with quite different problems here ...). I was then wondering if you could possibly give me some hints or point me to some appropriate readings that could help me make this one more step ahead. Best regards, Guido De Marchi Space Telescope Science Institute Tel: 410 338-4810 3700 San Martin Drive Fax: 410 338-4767 Baltimore MD 21210 E-mail: demarchi@stsci.edu [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Do you have a copy of the BigMouth Programmer's Manual? Check out the routines there very carefully to see some excellent tricks you can play with BigMouth. You have to have two 'phone books' on the system, and a short script which logs in as the administrator, swaps out the phone books at the aappropriate times, etc. With the new phone book in place, the system is then rebooted and it comes back up with the overnight phone book in place, which is really the same as the daytime book except for a couple different introductory messages and the way calls are transferred to a live person. PAT] ------------------------------ From: hihosteveo@aol.com (HiHoSteveo) Subject: ISDN - SLC Charges Date: 30 May 1995 14:34:07 -0400 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: hihosteveo@aol.com (HiHoSteveo) The FCC is expected to issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) today, freezing the charges applied to the derived channels of an IDSN facility as discussed here in prior notes. The LEC's have proposed various charges ranging from one SLC for the BRI & add'l chgs, to someone's proposal of 24 SLC's for a T-1 facility. The goal of the user community is of course to minimize the number of SLC's applied, keeping the ISDN rates as low as possible. I'll look for the public notice and post it for what it is worth - i.e. PN's tend to be very vague, and the order itself has up to 30 days to hit the street. (And a later message which arrived ... PAT) In answer to my own expectation of today's FCC order - here it is on ISDN - see also other note posted containing the lengthy NPRM. NEWSReport No. DC 95-76 ACTION IN DOCKET CASE May 30, 1995 COMMISSION CONSIDERS CHANGES TO SUBSCRIBER LINE CHARGE RULES FOR ISDN AND OTHER DERIVED CHANNEL SERVICES (CC DOCKET 95-72) The Commission is considering changes to its Subscriber Line Charge rules as they apply to Integrated Services Digital Network (ISDN) and other derived channel services. Derived channel services provide customers with multiple voice-grade-equivalent channnels over a single facility. The Commission described several basic principles that should guide this process. The Commission stated that it must be careful to avoid creating regulatory barriers to the development of beneficial new technologies, particularly when those services and technologies can facilitate access to the benefits of the National Information Infrastructure. At the same time, the Commission added that it should not favor one technology or service over others. The Commission today released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeking comment on the application of Subscriber Line Charges (SLCs) to ISDN and other derived channel services. This proceeding will consider changes in the existing rules, which provide for application of a SLC to each derived channel in the case of such services. In a Public Notice, also released today, the Common Carrier Bureau announced suspension of its enforcement authority against local exchange carriers (LECs) that do not apply a SLC to each derived channel for services such as ISDN pending further action in the rulemaking proceeding. This suspension of enforcement was subject to LEC compliance with certain conditions to ensure that interstate toll rates would not increase. In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Commission proposed several alternatives for applying SLCs to derived channel technologies in addition to the current rule. These options include, among others: o Apply one SLC per facility. For example, a subscriber to either Basic Rate Interface or Primary Rate Interface ISDN service would pay one SLC for each ISDN facility. o Charge SLCs based on a ratio of the average LEC cost of providing a derived channel service to the average LEC cost of providing an ordinary local loop or T-1 facility. o Permit local exchange carriers some flexibility in setting SLC rates for derived channel services, but modify the price cap rules so that any reduction in SLC flat rate recovery does not increase the Carrier Common Line (CCL) rates and potentially increase interstate toll rates. The Commission also expressed concern about measures that could reduce SLC revenues, and potentially increase interstate toll rates. The Commission stated that the implementation of SLCs to recover a portion of the cost of local loops (that connect a subscriber's home or business with the local telephone company central office) has produced significant benefits, including reduced interstate toll rates. (A reduction in SLC revenues would permit LECs to increase CCL charges, which affect the level of interstate toll rates.) The Commission stated that policies that appear to reduce dramatically SLC charges to large business customers, but not to residential customers, would need to be carefully examined. The Commission also noted that resolution of these issues should take into account competitive developments in the interstate access market. ISDN permits digital transmission over ordinary local loops and T-1 facilities through the use of advanced central office equipment and customer premises equipment. Currently, carriers offer two basic types of ISDN service. Basic Rate Interface service allows a subscriber to obtain two voice-grade-equivalent channels and a data/signalling channel over an ordinary local loop. Primary Rate Interface service allows subscribers to obtain 23 voice-grade-equivalent channels and one data/signalling channel over a T-1 facility. The costs of the local loop portion of the telephone network are recovered through charges levied at both state and federal levels, with approximately 25 percent of those costs collected through interstate charges. Since 1984, those charges have been collected through SLCs, a flat fee on every subscriber's monthly telephone bill, as well as a usage-sensitive charge called the Carrier Common Line charge. For residential and single line customers, the SLC is capped at $3.50 per line. For multiline business users, the charge is capped at $6 per line. That portion of the interstate costs not collected through the SLC is collected through the CCL charge, a per minute charge reflected in interstate long distance rates. Action by the Commission May 24, 1995, by Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FCC 95-212). Chairman Hundt, Commissioners Quello, Barrett, Ness and Chong. -FCC- News Media contact: Susan Lewis Sallet at (202) 418-1500. Common Carrier Bureau contact: Claudia Pabo at (202) 418-1595. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: A more detailed version of the above was also sent out in a special mailing to Digest subscribers earlier today for those of you who wanted more specifics. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Michel Adam Subject: Looking For Short Haul 56kbps Solution Date: Wed, 31 May 1995 04:44:25 MDT Organization: NTNet Society I am in need of the expertise of the readers of this group. We need to provide 56kbps connections to numerous customers in town (we are a non-profit society providing internet connections in the Canadian North), and have had some success with expensive Synchronous CSU/DSU. We would like to use an abundance of Asynchronous ports on our Netblazer to provide 56kbps at a much lower cost. We will be using leased lines, the 4-wire garden variety, 24ga., over up to 4 miles (5 would be better, but it appears to be stretching it...). Using good old RS-232, and preferrably Rack mounted at our central location, and stand-alone at the remote end. Is there anything that will do the job? Our target price per connection is around $US 730, or $CAN 1000. The current candidate for the central site is a Black-Box rack with Mini Driver MP Cards (page 20 of the summer 95 catalog), ME778C-RJ11. The only problem is that there does not appears to be any Stand-alone equivalent for the other side. Does anyone know who actually MAKE these units? Any help greatly appreciated. Thanks, Michel Adam michela@ntnet.nt.ca ------------------------------ From: dos@panix.com (Dave O'Shea) Subject: Is LDDS Pulling My Leg? Date: 30 May 1995 15:55:44 -0400 Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and Unix, NYC I had thought the days of this kind of blame-shifting were over, but it seems not. Recently, I moved to the Houston area, and ordered three dial lines for my house. The local telco did a fairly adequate job of installing the new cable and lines on time, and only needed to come back once to get it working. The problem started as soon as I tried to use a high-speed (14.4 or 28.8) modem on the lines. Connections either renegotiate or drop off constantly. 2400 seemed to be the only thing that worked. Southwest bell was called in, and their answer was to send a guy to hook a butt set to the demarc, and check for dial tone. (The analogy of a speed-bump on the Infobahn didn't cross my mind. Well, maybe only once.) Same problem continued, until I finally noticed that this was only happening on long-distance connections. Aha! I use LDDS as my carrier, since they have good rates, so I tried having the modem stick a 10288 in front of a number, to see if the old death-star folks could do any better. Call gets completed, and the signal levels have my modems practically singing Beethoven's ninth in praise of a clear signal. Call went in to LDDS. (24 hrs later, no response, so opened up a second trouble ticket). The next evening, I call LDDS to check up on the ticket, and their CSR proudly announces that it has been tracked down to an AT&T problem. (I remind her that using AT&T is the only way I can actually COMPLETE a call, and if that's a symptom of the problem, for God's sake, please don't fix it!) Two days later, and I'm ready to use tin cans and string. Call up LDDS, and track down the tech who worked on the ticket. Bottom line: LDDS will not guarantee any data connection at all, and simply suggests that I switch to AT&T, or go back to using a 1200bps modem. Vague mumblings were offered about AT&T either having better connections or less aggressive compression algorithms, and that if I screamed enough, I might get someone to listen, but no specific suggestions or where to turn could be given. Well, I just got off the phone with AT&T, who seemed quite happy to have my business. I guess the old "you get what you pay for" holds true in this case. I wonder if anybody out at LDDS heard it. :-) So, my question is, if I were serious about getting LDDS to provide decent service, who would I have to chase after -- them, or Southwest bell? ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 May 1995 17:02:48 -0400 Subject: French Hotels May Overcharge For Phone Calls Organization: 52 Manchester Avenue, Toronto, Ontario M6G 1V3 From: ndallen@io.org (Nigel Allen) An article in the Toronto {Globe and Mail} travel section (page E1, May 27, 1995) warns that hotels and restaurants in France are now free to charge whatever they want for calls made from pay phones and room phones on their premises. The rates are supposed to be posted, but may be confusing to people from outside France if they are quoted per pulse rather than per minute. People travelling in the U.S. have learned to watch out for COCOTs, and for hotel phone rates anywhere in the world. Now it seems that France has been added to the list of countries with rip-off pay phones. Nigel Allen, Toronto, Ontario, Canada ndallen@io.org ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 May 1995 00:07:48 PDT From: Gary Breuckman Subject: Fax/Voice Switches Scott A. Merlino wrote: > Does anyone know of any high-quality (as in reliable and easily > implemented) FAX/MODEM/phone switches on the market? If anybody is using > such a switch, and is satisfied with it, I would sure appreciate a > recommendation. Our office cannot afford to install a separate FAX line > for data transmissions, so we would like to use our existing phone line. You are probably aware (but didn't mention!) that there are two different kinds of switches. The first silently answers the call and listens for the "CNG" tones from a "calling" fax, or touchtone codes, or "reverse" modem tones, and routes the call accordingly generating it's own ringing signals on the appropriate output jack. The other type uses "distinctive ringing" or "ringmate" or whatever your local telco calls that service, and routes the call by listening to the ringing pattern, without actually answering the call first. This telco feature provides more than one number for your line with different ring patterns, at a lower cost than a separate line, although of course you only have one real line and except for features like three-way-calling and call-waiting, you can only have one call in progress at a time. I use a ComSwitch 660, one of the first type. The box has an input jack and outputs for FAX, PHONE, ANS-MACHINE, and AUX. Phone and Ans-mach are really just connected together, AUX is for your modem (or other). The box answers the call, listens for the CNG (calling) tone from a fax, and if found rings the fax, if not rings the Phone/ans-mach jacks. You can also assign a touch tone code of up to 4 digits to both the FAX and AUX lines and route calls that way - the box has applications beyond just FAX switching. I only have one regular caller who has a fax so old it doesn't send CNG tones. FAX machines in manual mode also don't send CNG (ie., if you pick up the handset to place the call). That person uses the touchtone code to route it to the fax. Reverse modem tone is a modem that places a call with itself in ANSWER mode so it sends a tone. The answering modem must then be in originate mode to communicate. All this doesn't work well with the new modems that have type recognition and multiple handshakes, I find using the touchtone codes to work fine. Cost of this box was around $90. This type of box can be used on any line without additional telco costs. The second type is possibly more reliable and lets you advertise separate fax and voice numbers, but with a monthly telco cost. puma@netcom.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V15 #262 ****************************** Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa00378; 1 Jun 95 1:53 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA00669 for telecomlist-outbound; Wed, 31 May 1995 18:49:14 -0500 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA00661; Wed, 31 May 1995 18:49:11 -0500 Date: Wed, 31 May 1995 18:49:11 -0500 From: TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson) Message-Id: <199505312349.SAA00661@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #263 TELECOM Digest Wed, 31 May 95 18:49:00 CDT Volume 15 : Issue 263 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson $0 to $3 per Month Cellular Service (Keith Jaret) ALI From Centrex With Many Locations (Tom Steegmann) Latest ITU-T (CCITT) Country Code List (Mark Cuccia) International Jobs for Telecom Specialists Up to $500/day (Dave Herndon) Information Wanted on ADSI Standard (Alex Zacharov) Synergy Semiconductor Attacks Speed Barriers w/High Speed FIFOs (Gelphman) Avon Park, Florida Area Code Question (Carl Moore) Centrex Research Project (Charles P. Whaley) Information Wanted On V.SAVD, Cable Modems (Matthew A. Earley) Information Wanted on FSL (Gary Mason) Local Call From Norfolk to Hampton VA? (Guy Cox) Phone Line Voltage (Keith Knipschild) Information Needed on GST or GST Net (John Royce) Re: FCC ISDN SLCs Ruling (Steve J. Slavin) Re: New Name For LDDS (Nigel Allen) Re: Telephone Voice "Broadcast" Software? (David K. Leikam) 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: 500-677-1616 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: KEITH@tcs.com Date: 31 May 95 14:38:09 PST Subject: $0 to $3 per Month Cellular Service! After reading an earlier article in this Digest entitled "Using a Unregistered Cellular Phone", I decided to try it myself with a recently acquired "brick" phone. I posted a Usenet request and received helpful private email replies from Darrel, Simon, and David. Their information is incorporated here, and I thank them for it. Here is what I have learned about low-cost emergency cellular service in northern California: PLAN A In northern California, setting the MIN (phone number) and the carrier code to all zeros, as described in the article, worked very briefly only. By working, I mean that an attempt to call any number would reach a recording telling me to dial *311 for an operator to place a credit card call. I dialed *311 and verified Cellular One's rates: $1.25 for setup and $1.95 per minute, as I recall. Of course you do have to give your credit card number over the air, which is a bit of a worry. Alas, a few hours later, any use of the Send button yielded only a reorder (fast busy) signal. Even 911 was blocked! Since I did not write the carrier's MTSO switch software, I do not know exactly what caused the system to block my phone. But I suspect that it was either the fact that my phone number was all zeros or that I attempted a non-free call by entering a local number and pressing Send. I next set the MIN to a non-zero value, using a known non-cellular phone number, since I didn't want to appear to the switch software to be impersonating a valid user. I left the carrier code as all zeros. This time, I did not attempt a non-free call. Instead, I restricted my testing to *nnn calls. An attempted call to the traffic reporting line of a local all-news radio station gave me the same recording I described above. Sure enough, *311 now gets me the credit card operator. I have not tried 911, but I'll bet it does work at the moment, and I'd rather not annoy the CHP. Through two weeks of occasional testing, the phone has continued to give me the recording asking me to dial *311, rather than the fast busy that I got when service was blocked. Thus, although I have not actually placed any calls, I believe that the phone will allow me to make a call when I need to. On the basis of this testing, I believe that in northern California, to have durable *311 access for credit card calling without a cellular subscription, one or both of the following actions is required: 1) setting the MIN to a non-zero value; 2) refraining from attempting any non-free calls. Minimizing the time your phone is powered on wouldn't hurt, either, so the phone will not be sending its MIN and ESN (equipment serial number) to the network every five minutes. My testing did not reveal a problem here, possibly meaning that the switch software does not check the MIN/ESN pair until a call is actually attempted. But you might as well keep the phone off and save the battery. There is really no need to turn the phone on until you want to make a call, since you can't receive calls anyway. I have not experimented with carrier codes other than zero, so I recommend setting the code to zero unless the above does not work. I can't imagine that anything good would happen if the switch software finds out that your supposed carrier either doesn't exist or doesn't know who you are. If the above technique works for you, you have emergency cellular service, outgoing calls only, at roughly $2 per minute, $0 per month -- not a bad deal! Otherwise, it's time for ... PLAN B If the above does not work, you have several other options. First, if you can call at first but get blocked shortly thereafter, you could become a *paying* hacker, figuring out how to change your ESN and doing so once per credit card call, so that the switch software does not have the ESN in its "kill file". Not very practical and not recommended. Second, you could sign up for a cheap "zero minutes free" service. For $35 per year, roughly $3 per month, you can subscribe to HELPTEL, which provides outgoing-only call capability at $3.50 per minute (ouch!) anywhere in the US. If you were in northern California, you could dial *311 for cheaper outgoing calls instead. Your local carriers may have an equivalent service. The main thing HELPTEL does for you is to make your phone officially subscribed, so that the MTSO switch software will not block your MIN/ESN pair. Call Lindsay Communications in Leominster, Mass. 800-370-4445 for the brochure on HELPTEL. I did. They are a direct reseller of air time. They normally charge $45 for programming, but they will give you the necessary information to program your own phone, which isn't any more difficult than programming a VCR. My thanks to Darrel for this find. Third, for slightly greater use, and rates lower than $3.50 per minute, you can sign up for an emergency plan with a Canadian cellular carrier. The rate is $15 Canadian per month, which is probably better than your local carrier offers. The bonus with this option is that you should be able to make calls *to* the cellular phone in unusual circumstances. For example, a one-minute call would suffice to notify you to call home from the nearest pay phone. In fact, if you knew no one else would be calling, you could simply turn the phone off when it rings (rather than answering the call and incurring a one-minute charge), drive to the nearest pay phone, and call home. That would let your cellular phone work as a crude wide-area pager. The fourth option costs a bit more and requires a trusted friend. I don't claim to fully understand this suggestion, but I am told that you and your friend can split the cost of a cellular phone and extension with the same number. This would work much better if you don't plan to take incoming calls on the cellular phone. Cellular One tells me that they do not offer this service here in northern California. Such an offering would probably require that the switch software be able to associate two different ESNs with the same MIN. Or you could alter the ESNs to match each other and hope that both phones are never turned on at the same time (which the switch software would interpret as fraudulent use). Based on my limited understanding, I can't recommend this option unless your carrier offers it officially. CONCLUSION In summary, it's time to buy a used cellular phone for your wife's birthday! Costs about the same as a couple dozen roses. One way or another, you *can* make it work for outgoing calls! keith@tcs.com Keith Jarett ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 May 1995 10:27:39 -0800 Subject: ALI From Centrex With Many Locations From: steegman@tomcindy.rotterdam.ny.us (Tom Steegmann) Date: Tue, 30 May 1995 13:26:34 -0400 (EDT) I work for Schenectady County, NY E911, and we are having a problem with some of the larger centrex operations (including the one for our county office building). The problem is that the ALI information coming from any of the trunks is undependable. The county government is based at 620 State St, but has offices in at least seven other buildings all on 388-xxxx. According to NYNEX, it is actually a centrex sitting on top of a PBX, if that helps. Anyway, the centrex has only 14 lines going out, and the 15th line picked up rolls over to a non dedicated 386-2xxx line, of which there are 30 extras. The 386-2xxx lines are based in 1 Broadway Center, where my office is. Now, if anyone calls 911 from ANY 388-xxxx line, it will either show up as 620 State St, or if it the 15th or greater line picked up, 1 Broadway Center. I am wondering if there is any way to program the centrex into recognizing a 911 call and forcing it through with the correct ALI information. I thought maybe installing a dedicated outside line (not on the centrex) at each location that to use for 911 calls might be a solution. I don't know, I'm new at phones. At any rate, NYNEX has been reluctant to engage in discussion with us so I can assume they don't really want to deal with it. We can't possibly be the first people to recognize the risks involved here. If anyone has any idea what I'm talking about, please reply to my email address. Thanks for any ideas, we are getting close to going on line, and have only non-solutions so far (NYNEX suggested that we blank out all ALI information for all the numbers on that centrex. That's not a solution.) Tom Steegmann Schenectady County E911 steegman@tomcindy.rotterdam.ny.us [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Centrexes do *not* all have to return the same address. I just now tried the Name and Address service offered by Ameritech (312-796-9600) and punched in a couple different numbers on the centrex for the City of Chicago Police Department. The response -- although somewhat convoluted -- came back 'City of Chicago 25th District Grand- Central, 5555 West Grand Avenue'. I was advised there are 'many' listings for that number and did I want another one? A second listing for the same number was 'Police Chicago Dept 25th Dist. 5555 W. Grand Avenue'. And that was the 25th District station of the Chicago Police Department at the address given. The City of Chicago uses 312-744, 312-746, and 312-747 for its centrex, and this covers all agencies and departments. When I tried 744-4000 which is the main switchboard number the listing was 'Chicago City, 121 N. Lasalle' which is City Hall. Now I realize the database which is used for Caller-ID and public services such as Ameritech's are not going to be entirely the same as those used by 911, however the different numbers on a centrex can be picked out and identified one from another *provided it was set up that way*. If all the centrex lines were listed with the same address when the centrex was installed then so be it; that's what the database will show. In the case of a PBX where all the trunks are at one place, and users at an OPX (off-premise extension) dial 9 to get an outside line, then everyone is going to show up at the address where the switchboard is physically located, since usually when the telco central office responds to the PBX trunk it has no idea which user the PBX is dealing with. Maybe some readers with E911 experience will write in to tell how they deal with oddities such as you describe. One of the reasons I have not bothered with CID Name and Number (we can now get this enhanced service if we buy new Caller ID boxes) is that a friend who has it says there is little consistency in how the listings come through. Residences are almost always consistently correct, but the large companies with DID, Centrex, humongous PBX's and other specialized arrangements are likely to come through with the 'name' given as whatever someone punched in when the order was being installed, if they bothered to punch in anything at all. In a few cases here, entire prefixes although working show up as 'no information listed' when you try to cross-check through the Name and Address service. And my friend with CID Name and Number service says in the case of large companies calling him, quite often the number will be displayed as one of the lines used for outgoing calls with the 'name' given as 'Unknown' or 'Not Listed' -- not to be confused with non-pub numbers which are not listed with directory assistance but do show up with name and number via Caller-ID. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Mark Cuccia Subject: Latest ITU-T (CCITT) Country Code List Date: Wed, 31 May 95 10:27:00 GMT In surfing the ITU WWW & Gopher site, I looked at the latest Telephone Country Code List, NUM & ALPHA. Here are some of the LATEST changes/assignments which may not have been discussed in previous in TELECOM Digest: 296 for Tr & Tob is NOT on it anymore - it NOW IS listed as '1' (Tr & Tob. was not previously included with '1' with the other 1-809 Carib.points)(296 is now 'spare'). 295 is gone. The entire 87 series is reserved or used for Intl.Maritime/Mobile (871 thru 874 USED, 875-879 reserved, 870 says reserved for InMarSat 'SNAC' trial). Russia and five Central Asian former SSR's use 7. Czech & Slovakia still share 42. Comoros & Mayotte still share 269. 41 is still shared by Switz. & Liecht. Greenland still 299. Faroe still 298. Aruba still 297. 382,3,4,8 are still 'spare'. 970,8,9 still 'spare' (altho' I DO remember that 15 years ago, 971 was UAE except for Abu-Dhabi(sp) and Dubai -- one was 978 and the other was 979). 969 is stated as 'reserved - but currently under investigation' -- Seems as the unified Yemen will all have 967. (I know that one of the two 'former Yemens' was known at one time as Aden). Of course, 886 is listed as 'spare' with Taiwan shown in a footnote as 86-6, part of (Red) China. 255 is Tanzania, while 259 is still listed as Zanzibar (Tanzania). 800 is still 'reserved' for future International FREEFONE. 0 is stated as 'Assignment not feasible until after Time-T, 31 Dec.96'. There is still no assignment for Pitcairn Island (I would guess that it will be 693 if ever assigned its own code), nor a seperate code for 'Sikkim' (a territory near Bhutan, India, Nepal, Red China -- but I am never quite sure who it belongs to politically), nor Easter Island (but I would think that it is part of Chile's code), nor any of those small British Islands in the South Atlantic (probably would be part of 500 Falklands or maybe part of Ascension 247 or St.Helena 290), nor any other small French Is.in the Indian Ocean. For those interested, there are also updated lists for Telex country codes, Data Network country codes, '89' International Telephone Chargecard country/network/card-issuer codes, and Intl.SS7 network codes (some are NUM only, some are ALPHA by country/network/region only, and some have two seperate lists Numerical and Alpha). These various code lists are as of December, 1994 thru May, 1995. MARK J. CUCCIA PHONE/WRITE/WIRE: Work: mcuccia@law.tulane.edu UNiversity 5-5954 (TEL, +1 504 865 5954) UNiversity 5-5917 (FAX, +1 504 865 5917) Home: 4710 Wright Road New Orleans 28 Louisiana (70128) USA CHestnut 1-2497 (Home Tel) (fwds.on busy/no-answr.to cellphone/voicemail) (+1 504 241 2497) [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Your use of the phrase 'Red China' is incorrect. Yes, when you and I were growing up that was correct. There was China and euphemistically 'Red' (or Communist) China. That was as of 1949 until about ten years ago, when international politics changed. Now we have 'China' and 'Taiwan'. We now recognize the legitimacy of the former but not the latter. Taiwan is what we in the USA used to call 'China' and China is what we in in the USA used to call 'Red China'. Always be politically correct in this forum, just like me! PAT] ------------------------------ From: daveh@aol.com (DaveH) Subject: International Jobs for Telecom Specialists Up to $500/day Date: 30 May 1995 02:25:23 -0400 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: daveh@aol.com (DaveH) This position is available through SCII U.S. Technologies, International specialists in systems architecture consulting and in software and MIS placement. Areas of expertise include Banks, Telecommunications and Transportation. CONTRACT Job Title: Oracle? Unix Consultants, Telecommunication specialists Location: USA, Phillipines, Mexico, South Africa Compensation: up to $500/Day + Expenses Education Requirements: BS in CS Years Experience: 3-5 Required Experience: Oracle, UNIX, Billing Systems Preferred Experience: French or Spanish speaking Comments: If you wish to be a candidate for SCII Technologies technical assignments, please send us your current resume and a completed confidential professional profile form (see below). (Your name will not be submitted to any company without your consent.) CONFIDENTIAL PROFESSIONAL PROFILE FORM Name: Address: City, state, zip: Home phone: Work phone: Company: Title: Current salary: Education: Years experience: Are you a US citizen, Permanent Resident, other?: If "other", please explain: Are you a homeowner or renter?: Would you consider relocating?: Are you willing to consider contract assignments?: Send this registration form and your resume to: America Online EMAIL: DaveH Fax: 415 546-4198 Or mail to: SCII U.S. Technologies Ltd. Attn: Dave Herndon Acount Manager 1 Sansome St. Suite 2100 San Francisco Ca. 94104 ------------------------------ From: alexz@tmx100.elex.co.il (TMX1002 Alex Zacharov 2396) Subject: Information Wanted on ADSI Standard Date: Tue, 30 May 1995 14:49:59 GMT Organization: Telrad Ltd. I am looking for text sources of Bellcore standard ADSI. Can anybody tell me where can I get it? (anonymous ftp is preferable). Please, send me information to: alexz@tmx100.elex.co.il. Thanks in advance, Alex, Telrad Ltd. ------------------------------ From: gelphman@ix.netcom.com (Rob Gelphman) Subject: Synergy Semiconductor Attacks Speed Barriers w/ High Speed FIFOs Date: 30 May 1995 20:24:34 GMT Organization: Netcom Synergy Semiconductor is now offering two, new ultra-high speed FIFO (first in, first out) buffers. Both are 64 word - by - 18-bit components. The SY69167 performs one write OR one read operation at up to 200 MHz (5ns cycle) and the SY69168 performs one write AND/OR one read operation at up to 100 MHz (10ns cycle). Both devices are 10KH ECL compatible. These FIFO buffers are used in automatic test equipment as vector data buffers, in telecommunications systems in data rate conversion subsystems, and in computers for minimizing data skewing, and any other system where high-speed data buffering is a critical requirement. These new FIFO products offer designers several key design benefits. As wide-word devices, these products can buffer two parity-checked bytes per chip. Thus, designers need fewer devices, less board space, and lower power supply, reducing overall design and production costs. A single-clock synchronous design makes these two ECL FIFOs easier to use while avoiding the complicated timing constraints imposed by the more traditionally-used and lower-performance CMOS FIFOs. The SY69167 and -168 are both single-stage pipeline designs with all control and data signals registered on the rising edge of the clock. Thus, designers need only concern themselves with set up and hold timing with reference to the clock. All input signals are sampled on the rising edge of the clock and a read or write operation begins during the next clock period. All output signals are driven by registers which are also clocked on the rising clock edge. Thus one read or one write operation can occur with each clock cycle in the -167, or both operations in the -168. Status flag logic provides empty, half full and full status flag outputs. In addition, there are interrupt outputs for overflow and underflow conditions. Chip initialization is easily done using the reset input pin. When pulled low, this pin initializes the device and resets both read and write pointers to zero. On-chip voltage and temperature compensation circuitry provide improved noise margins. Finally, the chip is designed for enhanced alpha-particle immunity. Both the SY69167 and SY69168 are available in 64-pin QFPs, and are priced at $125 in quantities of 1000. For More Information: kent@synergysemi.com Synergy Semiconductor 3450 Central Expressway Santa Clara, CA 95051 408/730-1313 fax: 408/737-0831 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 May 95 17:24:57 EDT From: Carl Moore Subject: Avon Park, Florida Area Code Information Wanted I have an old area-codes file which has Avon Park in 813. Is it staying there or is it going to 941? ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 May 1995 10:55:55 -0500 From: cwhaley@astral.magic.ca (Charles P. Whaley) Subject: Centrex Research Project Basically, I'm in the early stages of a research project on Centrex. I'm pretty much up to speed on what's offered by the telcos, and will shortly be interviewing some actual customers. Before I do, however, I'd be interested in whether anyone out there knows of any Centrex user organizations, user groups, or online discussion groups. I've been searching through the Archives here, and (so far) haven't seen much with a user bent to it. Any help will be appreciated. Charles P. Whaley, Ph.D. Phone: (416) 423-3582 Suite 3702, 85 Thorncliffe Park Drive Fax: (416) 423-0331 Toronto, Ontario M4H 1L6 Email: Charles_Whaley@magic.ca ------------------------------ From: mearley@acsu.buffalo.edu (Matthew A Earley) Subject: Information Wanted On V.SAVD, Cable Modems Date: 31 May 1995 16:15:46 GMT Organization: UB I'm aware of the V.xx series standards such as the V.34, V.42, V.32, etc. However, recently I came across a new one V.SAVD, it was briefly mentioned in an article without reference. Does V.SAVD have anything to do with the proposed V.34 fax standard, or possibly a cable modem? Any information on V.SAVD, Cable Modems, or the V.34 Fax would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance as they say, Matthew A. Earley SUNYAB IEEE VP Buffalo NY 14228 716-639-9211 ------------------------------ From: g_mason@ix.netcom.com (Gary Mason) Subject: Information Wanted on FSL Date: 31 May 1995 17:02:55 GMT Organization: Netcom FSL (Flexible Service Logic), a component of service building in AIN (Advanced Intelligent Network), is said to be addressed by Bellcore and CCITT.3. Haven't been able to Gopher anything up. Does anyone know titles of documents (what does CCITT.3 stand for?) or know of any literature discussing this subject? Gary Mason ------------------------------ From: cox2@ix.netcom.com (Guy Cox) Subject: Local Call From Norfolk to Hampton VA? Date: 31 May 1995 11:26:48 GMT Organization: Netcom Subject says it all. I am getting ready to move to Hampton VA. The only local access number in the tidewater Virginia for Netcom is in Norfolk. ------------------------------ From: keith.knipschild@asb.com Organization: America's Suggestion Box (516) 471-8625 Date: Wed, 31 May 95 16:07:31 -0500 Subject: Phone Line Voltage I am having a problem with the phones in my house, I have about seven extensions, with many different types of phones, such as a Panasonic, Western Electric Princess, Northern Tel. 9516, ATT 8110. Well the problem is: I'll be talking on the Northern Tel 9516 phone,and then my wife picks up the ATT 8110 phone, she gets NOTHING!! (a dead line); and if shes on the ATT8110 phone and I pick up a phone (any phone) the ATT 8110 goes dead ... Also, if I put the call on HOLD (using the hold button on the Panasonic) I sometimes can pick up the line from the ATT 8110 or even the WE Princess. (Don't blame it on the ATT 8110, I just used it as an example.) It seems that different phones draw different amounts of CURRENT when on line and some phones need a certain voltage/current to work to pick up the line. So what is the minimum amount of voltage when the the line is in use? I measured the following : ATT 8110 7.11 v NT 9516 6.61 v WE Princess 5.20 v Panasonic 10.76 v Now with the 9516 and 8110 the voltage droped to 5.58 v and with the 8110 and Panasonic the voltage was 4.96 v What can I do to solve this problem? so now I connected 4+ phones and the voltage was 2.95 v Please help me out. Thanks, Keith.Knipschild @ asb.com === Internet Address Keith @ Unix.ASB.com === SLIP Internet Address N2NJS @ KC2FD.NY.USA.NA === Ham Radio AX25 Packet Address 70302,2701 === CompuServe Address K.Knipschild === GENIE Address [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I guess what you have to do is call the Telephone Company and tell them to quit being so chintzy with the amount of power they send down the line. Tell then you need at least a couple more volts on a regular basis. . You are really pressing your luck with that much stuff -- and such a variety at that -- on the line all at the same time. I am surprised the bells even ring correctly when a call comes in. Do you have a second, or third phone line there? Try balancing the load a little if you do, moving a couple of the phones using the most current to another line and putting something simple in their place on the original line. Normally three or four instruments is the most you should have on a single line. I guess another way of phrasing your question would be this: I have an air-conditioner, a television, a microwave oven and a clothes washer in my house, but the single circuit in my fuse box has a 15 amp fuse. Why can't I stay cool watching television while I wash my clothes and cook my dinner? Someone told me about 30 amp fuses so I went and got one of those and all my appliances kept right on running, even when I was out one day and forgot to turn them off. Imagine my surprise to get home and see the Fire Department there putting out the blaze started by the overheated wiring. The Telephone Company sends you a certain amount of current. That's it. Live with it. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Turnip@ix.netcom.com (John Royce) Subject: Information Needed on GST or GST Net Date: 31 May 1995 03:33:16 GMT Organization: Netcom Anyone having any information regarding this telecommunications company, your response would be appreciated. ------------------------------ From: sjslavin@aol.com (SJSlavin) Subject: Re: FCC ISDN SLCs Ruling Date: 31 May 1995 12:52:01 -0400 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: sjslavin@aol.com (SJSlavin) [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Earlier Wednesday, I circulated the FCC notice on ISDN. I got various copies from different readers but not a single one came intact. I printed what I had, which seemed to be the gist of it. I used sjslavin@aol.com as the source for the one I sent out, and he now responds. PAT] Thanks PAT -- no that's not where it was to end -- it is about 13 pages long when I printed the whole thing off line and pasting it blew my mind. This is a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) and apparently exceeded buffer length. I wasn't able to truly download it v. buffer it. Interested parties should check the FCC server under Common Carrier. The note above was an auxilliary Public Notice (odd way of doing business). Steve ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 May 1995 02:28:13 -0400 From: ndallen@io.org (Nigel Allen) Subject: Re: New Name For LDDS Greg Monti writes: > A brief notice in {Communications Daily} on 5/26 noted that LDDS > shareholders had approved "WorldCom" as the new name of the merged > long distance carrier made up of LDDS, IDB Communications Group, > WilTel Network Services. Interestingly, the telecommunications services (telex and cablegrams) unit of ITT was known as ITT Worldcom, at least in its later years. I think that ITT eventually divested its telecommunications operating unit, but I don't know who acquired it. (ITT's telecom manufacturing unit became part of Alcatel.) Nigel Allen 52 Manchester Avenue, Toronto, Ontario M6G 1V3, Canada Internet: ndallen@io.org http://www.io.org/~ndallen Telephone: (416) 535-8916 ------------------------------ From: dkl@crl.com (David K. Leikam) Subject: Re: Telephone Voice "Broadcast" Software? Date: 31 May 1995 07:22:31 -0700 > Harold Hallikainen wrote: >> Anyway, the school where I teach is interested in software >> that would do something similar to a fax broadcast, but it would be >> voice. They'd have a list of the students in a particular class and >> if the class were cancelled, the system could call each of them and >> let them know. But I'm wondering if there's some simple PC software that could also do it. and paraprasing here, Harold said, for about $70. I responded: > Well, nothing *I* am aware of, that I'd trust to do a halfway decent job. > Thinking about the problems of reliability sorta starts me towards a fair > sized headache ... (deep breath) Robert Virzi wrote: So David says, basically, 'No'. Or at least not for less than $2k - $10k. I think you are over engineering the solution. This is for a school. Most of the numbers that the kids have are POTS lines, nothing fancy like pagers and the like. Answering machines need to be dealt with, true. But generally the particular population might really benefit from a cheap, somewhat reliable system, rather than no system. I suspect you're not reading between the lines enough, Robert. Harold was speaking of calling the students in a class to tell them it has been cancelled. That sounds a lot more like a college than a grade-school, to me. So, first off there's the POTS question -- some of them likely live in dorms on campus, so you've got the university pbx, if any, to deal with as well. Second, pagers and the like are cheap and getting cheaper. Likewise voicemail services. I think you'd find more of that kind of thing than you expect. And for most of the issues I detailed, the type of service isn't too material -- it's what you get on the other end, no matter how you get there. > Why not simply call through the list, playing the message on offhook, > repeating the message until (a) the line is released or (b) 90 seconds > has elapsed? If a person gets it, they listen to it, or have some > time to call Mom over to the phone to hear the message. If its an > answering machine, they get 90 seconds of the message (minus the time > for the OGM) on the tape. Should be pretty simple for the system to > track busy/no answer and call those numbers back. The students are going to want to be notified according to their schedules, not yours. That means, in all likelihood, at work sometimes. You'll need to deal with secretaries, company pbx's, long hold times, voice attendants, extension numbers, and so forth. Otherwise, you're just blurting the message and hoping someone/something was there to get it, and hopefulling willing to deliver it (correctly) to the intended receiver. > I'm not suggesting this is a bulletproof system. Far from it. But > the requirements don't seem to call for one. If this user population > knows about the system, it will work even better because parents will > be hanging by waiting for the call to hear soccer is cancelled because > of rain. This kind of simple system could be built on a Mac, and I'm > guessing an Intel processor as well. For not much money, and a little > development time. A soccer game is one thing. A rescheduled class, another. One bit of private feedback that I got from this, someone told me that if they missed an important class because of something like this, they'd probably sue the university. Can't blame 'em, myself. The bottom line is, can you live with the failure rate you're likely to get? For a lot of applications, yes. For this one, I don't think so. The 20-30% of people who show up for the cancelled class are going to be upset, and downright angry if it happens a lot. And suppose it's not a class, but a major exam? If you're willing to accomodate those who say they didn't hear about the change, what's to stop anyone from claiming that, and will you fade the heat from irate faculty who have to deal with them, because of your system's shortcomings? Let's suppose you think that you can. You put in the system, but later, when the stack of complaints and hate-mail overflows your in-basket, you decide you need to improve it. Can you, with the particular system you've chosen? What will it cost? Do you have the budget, or is it better to just cut your losses and scrap it? How many people need to be notified and what amount of time does that take? What if you need more lines than you thought? Can you expand your budget system to handle more lines? What if your university rewires the phone system for a different pbx, maybe even a digital one? Can your budget system adapt? What will that cost? There are some very important issues here, and I think they need more engineering, not less, to avoid unpleasant surprises later on. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V15 #263 ****************************** Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa00590; 1 Jun 95 2:04 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA02433 for telecomlist-outbound; Wed, 31 May 1995 19:47:32 -0500 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA02425; Wed, 31 May 1995 19:47:30 -0500 Date: Wed, 31 May 1995 19:47:30 -0500 From: TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson) Message-Id: <199506010047.TAA02425@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #264 TELECOM Digest Wed, 31 May 95 19:47:00 CDT Volume 15 : Issue 264 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Book Review: "Education on the Internet" by Ellsworth (Rob Slade) Wanted: Low-Cost Multiplexers (Diamantis Papazoglou) AC 303: What Number Should I Use to Get Number of This Phone? (Dawn Adler) BC to Wisconsin Data Line Type? (Andrew Tuline) Plan to Abolish FCC (Bennett Z. Kobb) T1/FT1 Provider in LA Area (Philip Kim) Re: Telco Northwestel Errs With PBX; Help Please (Mike Sandman) Re: Telco Northwestel Errs With PBX; Help Please (Fred R. Goldstein) Re: Is it Northern or Nortel? (Richard Parkinson) Re: Algorithm For Parsing Phone Numbers (Linc Madison) Re: California's New Area Code: 760 (Scott D. Fybush) Re: Telecom History (James H. Haynes) Re: Telecom History (Robert B Muderick) 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: 500-677-1616 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, 31 May 1995 14:21:29 EST From: Rob Slade Subject: Book Review: "Education on the Internet" by Ellsworth BKEDCINT.RVW 950413 "Education on the Internet", Ellsworth, 1994, 0-672-30595-X, U$25.00/C$34.95 %A Jill Ellsworth je@world.std.com %C 201 W. 103rd Street, Indianapolis, IN 46290 %D 1994 %G 0-672-30595-X %I SAMS Publishing %O U$25.00/C$34.95 800-858-7674 75141.2102@compuserve.com 317-581-3743 %P 591 %T "Education on the Internet" Appendix A gives a "once over lightly" on the various Internet tools, and Appendix B describes ERIC (the Educational Resources Information Center). The rest of the book lists different mailing lists, newsgroups, telnet sites, gopher sites, and other resources. There are divisions by level and subject, although the formatting can make it very hard to find what you want. Most of the resources have something to do with education. Educators may find it worthwhile getting the more general resource catalogues, where it is easier to find a specific topic. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1995 BKEDCINT.RVW 950413. Distribution permitted in TELECOM Digest and associated publications. Rob Slade's book reviews are a regular feature in the Digest. DECUS Canada Communications, Desktop, Education and Security group newsletters Editor and/or reviewer ROBERTS@decus.ca, RSlade@sfu.ca, Rob Slade at 1:153/733 Author "Robert Slade's Guide to Computer Viruses" 0-387-94311-0/3-540-94311-0 ------------------------------ From: dpapaz@makper.the.forthnet.gr Subject: Wanted: Low-Cost Multiplexers Organization: Computer Science Department, University of Crete HELLAS Date: Wed, 31 May 1995 17:20:24 GMT Hello everybody, We are looking for low-cost Statistical Data Multiplexers that support at least following features: * 2/3/4 EIA-232 ports. Speed from 300 to 19200 baud; * One composite link. Speed at least 19200 baud. Many thanks in advance. Diamantis Papazoglou Technical Director NETConnect Dept. Macedonian Peripherals S.A. Tel. ++30-31-326190 NETConnect Department Tel. ++30-31-306800 Diamantis Papazoglou FAX. ++30-31-325841 D. Glinou 26 54249 Thessaloniki E-mail: dpapaz@makper.the.forthnet.gr GREECE CompuServe ID: 100101,1566 ------------------------------ From: dadler@ix.netcom.com (Dawn Adler) Subject: AC 303: What Number Should I Use to Get Number of This Phone? Date: 31 May 1995 07:34:17 GMT Organization: Netcom I'm moving to a Denver suburb next week, and I ordered two lines, one for personal and other is for my BBS. I need to know if USWest has a three digit code to get the number of my phone(s)? In Tampa, FL (GTE) I use 311. Thanks, Michael Adler System Adminstrator Lakewood Online (offline) [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I don't know what the readback and/or ringback codes are for that area, but it won't do you much good until you get there and are actually using the phones in question, and at that point in time I am sure the telco will have already notified you of what your new numbers will be. If you are there when the installer arrives -- if one is needed -- I'm sure he will tell you the numbers, else whatever rep you called out there will be glad to work with you on it. I suppose a Denver reader will be in touch with you soon to give you the specifics. PAT] ------------------------------ From: adt@dsi.bc.ca (Andrew Tuline) Subject: BC to Wisconsin Data Line Type? Organization: Dynapro Systems Inc. Date: Wed, 31 May 1995 14:51:09 GMT We need to exchange data between companies in Milwaukee and Vancouver. Traffic is typically: - email - a few large file transfers daily (> 10M) - IPX and IP protocols - marginal telnet traffic Function is to co-develop software between the two sites. We felt that 112K of bandwidth would probably do the trick. Suggestions were: - dedicated lines? (Hopefully not. We don't need the line up ALL the time. This is about $4K CDN/mo.) - frame relay? (Throw in a T1 local loop, and run 112K frame relay. Sounds reasonable. Users would be pissed if they didn't get close to 112K bandwidth though. Also, the company in Milwaukee doesn't seem very keen on frame relay for some reason). - Switched 56? (How about a couple of switched 56 lines? I didn't get good vibes about this from BCTel or fONOROLA. Additionally, how would you combine them?) Any comments, suggestions for a relatively inexperienced WAN type would be appreciated. ------------------------------ From: bkobb@newsignals.com (Bennett Z. Kobb) Subject: Plan to Abolish FCC Organization: New Signals Press Date: Wed, 31 May 1995 14:25:58 GMT The Progress and Freedom Foundation in Washington has released its plan to abolish the Federal Communications Commission. Highlights from the "comprehensive plan" of particular interest to wireless users: * Unless Congress acts to preserve regulations, all FCC rules and regulations will be rescinded in three years. * Immediate repeal of all FCC licensing authority. * All current FCC license holders would receive property rights in the spectrum, enforced by the trespass laws. * Deeds recorded in a central Spectrum Registry File. * Any spectrum that has more than one claimant would be auctioned within 180 days. Government would establish standardized spectrum parcels for auction. * Government agencies must "disgorge" their unused spectrum within a determined timeframe. * All restrictions on use of spectrum would be eliminated. Those who win title could develop and/or re-sell the spectrum subject to antitrust review and geographic and interference boundaries; however, legislation would not set forth interference rights in detail. * Department of Justice would confiscate any devices used in violation of communications rules. * Complaint investigation and answering of general inquiries from the public discontinued. * Spectrum above 300 GHz is infrared rather than radio. Bennett Z. Kobb bkobb@newsignals.com Editor and publisher, Spectrum Guide [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, I dunno ... readers please give your thoughts on this; I will run them soon. PAT] ------------------------------ From: pkim@cts.com (Philip Kim) Subject: T1/FT1 Provider in LA Area Organization: CTSNET Date: Wed, 31 May 1995 20:17:06 GMT Does anyone know of a good, inexpensive provider of T1/FT1 lines in the LA (California) area? Just wondering if PACBELL is the only, or best choice. The application is an internet site for a non-profit organization. Please email me at 'pkim@cts.com' TIA, Phil ------------------------------ From: mike@sandman.com (Mike Sandman) Subject: Re: Telco Northwestel Errs With PBX; Help Please Date: Wed, 31 May 1995 15:49:25 LOCAL Organization: InterAccess, Chicago's best Internet Service Provider Boy, what a horror story! Personally, I don't know why you would need digital phones in a hotel room, especially since they normally don't have an analog port in them to hook up a modem etc. If you are a real upscale hotel, you may want to have two extensions in each room, so that you could use a modem while being able to make and receive calls. I don't recall that anyone makes a PBX with hotel features that gives you a digital phone with an analog port, so that both can be used simultaneously (but there may be one). If you really need a new PBX (as in the old one is obsolete and no longer supported -- or you've outgrown it), you may want to have your vendor reconfigure his proposal for analog phones in the rooms -- that way you would only need the analog station card -- not the digital. Stick some nice single line feature phones with a bunch of speed dial buttons in the rooms, preferably with a data port on them. If your old PBX works fine, you may want to go out and buy 150 of those nice feature phones, and get the same results for lots less money. The people in the rooms won't have a clue of how old or how messy your PBX is. Personally, I wouldn't want to deal with a company that tried to do this to me, but you may be able to make the most of it since it sounds like your vendor is a pretty big company. In the interest of keeping up their numbers, and not causing a lot of bad feelings, they may offer you a discount to reconfigure to the above scenario (which should cost a little less than the digital phones/cards anyway). Salespeople seldom change their spots, so your vendor probably won't be surprised about what your salesperson pulled. If your old system works OK for now, there's nothing to push you into accepting anything other than exactly what you want. If it takes them six months to resolve the situation -- make the best of it! Many companies figure that they'll install the system, get their sales numbers and deal with suing you later. I wouldn't let them do that if I were you. Also, if you're leasing the system, don't sign the acceptance (or anything that remotely looks like an acceptance), until you're happy as hell. Once you sign an acceptance, the leasing company has a perfect right to bill you and sue you. If you don't sign it, they usually won't pay the vendor anything -- and will never start billing you. You can't plug any kind of single line phone into a port designed for a digital phone. You may be able to kludge an adapter, or get a gizmo that lets you hook up a single line device through the handset port (a nice one is available through Vive Synergies in Canada). In a hotel, it would be very difficult to keep track of these external devices. Either the single line device, or less often the digital station port on the PBX could be damaged if you plug the single line into the digital jack. You'll really hate yourself in the morning if you go for some half-assed solution! Good luck, Mike ------------------------------ From: fgoldstein@bbn.com (Fred R. Goldstein) Subject: Re: Telco Northwestel Errs With PBX; Help Please Date: Wed, 31 May 1995 16:57:01 LOCAL Organization: Bolt Beranek & Newman Inc. In article Ian Gamble writes: > Northwestel, the telco for northern Canada, has nearly completed the > installation of a Northern Telecom Meridian 1 Option 11E PBX for the > hotel where I work. The Meridian 1 is a nice switch. It can take analog, proprietary- digital, and ISDN extensions. Each uses a different line card, and of course the phone sets are different. > There will be about 150 new telephones installed, all digital. The > system was represented by the salesperson as being compatible with > analog devices. The intent was to have a modern, and upgradeable, > system to serve the needs of business travellers. Particularly, each > room was to have the capacity to support fax and modem use by guests. Somebody blew it Big Time! You NEVER use digital extensions for things like fax and modems! Those devices are built to work with analog lines ONLY. (There are "ISDN modems" and even a nice IBM PCMCIA ISDN card but it's new and not yet common.) I've never stayed at a hotel with digital room phones. The norm nowadays is an analog phone with a secondary jack on the side and a message waiting light (good old 90v neon). > I understand that there are risks to analog equipment if it is connected > to the PBX due to the higher voltage, and the PBX itself can be harmed > if modems or fax machines are hooked up. Is this true? "Risk" is not the right word. You are guaranteed 100% that an analog modem, fax or other device will NOT work on a digital line! It may harm the modem, but is unlikely to harm the PBX, because most analog devices do not generate power, but expect power from the analog line. Note that it will not always harm the modem, but you don't want to risk liability ... > Are there any analog to digital converters available that can be > installed to permit this use on the PBX? Where can they be purchased? For a proprietary-digital interface, no. That's likely what you have. For an ISDN interface, there are terminal adapters like the Adak that have analog outputs. I doubt you have ISDN extensions, though. PBX vendors prefer proprietary, since they can run on one pair, are cheap, and lock the customer in to that brand of PBX (when upgrade time comes). > What should be done about the representation by the salesperson that the > system would be suitable "out-of-the-box" for this purpose? Pat's advice is good. Check your contract. Check your lawyer. Fred R. Goldstein k1io fgoldstein@bbn.com Bolt Beranek & Newman Inc., Cambridge MA USA +1 617 873 3850 Opinions are mine alone; sharing requires permission. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: My original advice was to make no further payments -- if any had been made -- on this mess. It sounds like it might be quite expensive to repair the problem. I suggested the writer could sue the company to force the corrections needed, but he would have to sue them in their jurisdiction most likely. He would be better off letting them sue him for the balance due, since the company would have to come to his location to do that, and once they sue for the remainder due then the hotel can countersue without having to make a trip out of town to wherever the company is located. But the other person responding in this thread today says waiting to get sued is not a good idea. I don't see why not; even if its a third party leasing company handling the paper which claims it has already made the payout, a lot of courts won't give any credence to 'holder in due course' arguments. I certainly agree with Fred that the hotel should seek legal counsel on this as soon as possible if anything has been signed or the work has commenced. Otherwise, sign *nothing* and the next time a representative from the company shows up have your security staff show him the door and how to open it going outward. PAT] ------------------------------ From: rparkins@Direct.CA (Richard Parkinson) Subject: Re: Is it Northern or Nortel? Date: Tue, 30 May 1995 19:41:25 -0800 Organization: Infotel Systems Corp. In article , hfenn@mathworks.com (Holly Fenn) wrote: > I purchased a Northern 61C Meridian system loaded with Meridian mail, > IVR, CCR, ACD, Meridian MAX, and Meridian Link. For six months I have > had the worst service and support through Nortel. Has anyone else had > the same problem? I came from a 12 year ROLM background so I have > nothing to compare this too. I can't figure out if my frustration > lies within Nortel's organization, or if Northern just isn't the > technological giant it markets itself to be? > Any feedback and/or recommendations on an alternative service provider > would be greatly appreciated. My understanding is that Nortel is the new name for Northern Telecom, thus they are one and the same companies. Are you dealing with Northern directly, or is in fact your maintainer a distributor? If the latter, you should put the heat on Northern. If the former complain to the Richardson, Texas headquarters. Regards Richard ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 May 1995 20:14:38 -0700 From: lincmad@netcom.com (Linc Madison) Subject: Re: Algorithm For Parsing Phone Numbers Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) In article kwbrown@panix.com (Kate Weber Brown at Bank of Bermuda) wrote: : Is there anyone who can send me an algorithm for taking apart a string : of numbers and working out which digits are area code or country code, : etc.? I'm trying to build an application which bills fax calls from : the log ... Well, yes and no. The format of an international number is: (dialing prefix) -- depends on country of origin; e.g., 011, 00, etc. (country code) -- 1, 2, or 3 digits (city code) -- 0 to 6 digits (local number) -- 1 to 8 digits The maximum total number of digits in the last three segments is 12, but is scheduled to increase to 15 digits in the not-too-distant future. There are other rules which can be invoked when the country code has been parsed; for example, numbers in Denmark are always the two-digit country code, no city code, and an 8-digit local number. In the U.S., Canada, and other parts of World Zone 1, the location can be fairly precisely specified by the country code (1), city code (3-digit area code) and prefix (first 3 digits of the local number). However, for billing for fax calls, you probably only need to account for parsing the country code. Look at the first three digits after the international dialing prefix and you're home. You can invoke more detailed rules for domestic calls, to whatever extent your costs vary by location. Linc Madison * San Francisco, California * LincMad@Netcom.com ------------------------------ From: fybush@world.std.com (Scott D Fybush) Subject: Re: California's New Area Code: 760 Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA Date: Wed, 31 May 1995 04:40:50 GMT So we can now add the new "760" area to the very exclusive list of areas that will have had three different area codes since 1980. As best I can figure it, the others are: 847 and 630 - Illinois - were 312, now 708, splitting again 562 - California - areas that were 213, now 310, splitting again ... and that's pretty much it, I think. The 760 area was, of course, part of 714 until that code split in half in 1982, with San Bernardino, Riverside, and Orange counties getting 714, and the rest going 619. (SB and Riverside later split themselves, to 909). Scott Fybush - fybush@world.std.com (and a former resident of the future 760-872, Bishop CA) ------------------------------ From: haynes@cats.ucsc.edu (James H. Haynes) Subject: Re: Telecom History Date: 30 May 1995 21:31:30 GMT Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz In article , Greg Schumacher wrote: > Last weekend I was at a yardsale and while poking through the piles of > books found one titled "Principles of Electricity applied to Telephone > and Telegraph Work 1953 Edition". Scanning through it briefly, I found > some intresting photos and diagrams of cross bar and step by step > switches. And at $1 it was a deal I could not pass up. Great book. I cut my teeth on that one, after having been loaned the 1938 edition by the local wire chief. > My question is this: The frontispiece is a photo of a statue labeled > "Spirit of Communication". The statue is a winged nude male in the Here's some info from George Oslin's book. There is a picture of the statue, with the caption "The Genius of Electricity (later renamed the Spirit of Communication) was a familiar figure on the New York skyline. Then a reference to another picture of the building at 195 Broadway, NYC, with the caption "Western Union headquarters building, 195 Broadway, New York. The gold-winged figure at the peak of the tower is "Genius of Electricity", erected October 24, 1916, the 55th anniversary of the completion of the first transcontinental telegraph. When W.U. sold its half ownership of the building to AT&T, AT&T renamed it the "Spirit of Communications". Then there is some text: "Western Union invited sculptor Evelyn Beatrice Longman to design a statue symbolizing the Genius of Electricity to top the Fulton Street tower on its 195 Broadway headquarters, built in 1875. The result was a twenty four foot high bronze statue of a man with a twelve foot wing span, standing on a large globe. One arm held cables; the other hand, held high, grasped darting lightning bolts, representing electrity that powers telecommunications. The statue was erected on October 24, 1916, the fifty-fifth anniversary of the first transcontinental telegraph line. "In 1930, Western Union sold its interest in the building to AT&T, which rechristened the statue the Spirit of Communications, gilded it with more than 12,500 pieces of gold leaf, and called it 'Golden Boy'. In 1980 AT&T moved the statue to its new headquarters at 550 Madison Avenue. For sixty-four years at 195 Broadway the statue was the second largest sculpture in New York, higher than the 151-foot Statue of Liberty, and a familiar sight to millions." The book I'm quoting from is "The Story of Telecommunications" ISBN 0-86554-418-2, by George P. Oslin, (age 93) the former public relations director for Western Union, published by Mercer University Press. I'll say the book is a mess, especially toward the end; but I'm glad the old man took the time to write it. It could have used a lot better editing -- but then the publisher mostly publishes religious books so probably lacks an editor qualified for this topic. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 May 1995 10:08:01 -0400 From: rmuderick@attmail.com (Robert B Muderick) Subject: Re: Telecom History > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It was -- still is? -- at the AT&T > Building on Broadway in lower Manhattan. A picture of that statue > was also the standard back cover of Bell System telephone directories > for many years, and quite a few business offices, including the one > in downtown Chicago had replicas of it. The phone books always had > that statue on the cover somewhere, along with the little circle and > the words 'American Telephone and Telegraph and Associated Companies' > in the circle. I guess they quit using the statue about 1960. PAT] The winged statue called "Spirit of Communication" or "Golden Boy" was moved at some point to atop the building at 550 Madison Avenue, also in New York City. But a couple years ago when AT&T leased the building at 500 Madison to Sony, the statue was moved to a pedestal in front of corporate headquarters in Basking Ridge, NJ. (I get to see it every day out the window). As part of the latest move it was given a much needed restoration. Here is the description given to visitors in Basking Ridge: (The location has not been updated) ... "The Spirit of Communication" or "Golden Boy" was created by Evelyn Beatrice Longman and has stood in New York since 1916. Mrs. Longman's design was selected by the president of AT&T at that time, Theodore N. Vail; the architect of the old AT&T headquarters building in lower Manhattan, William Welles Rosworth; and noted American sculptor Daniel Chester French after a nationwide competition in 1914 to develop an AT&T corporate symbol. Some of Golden Boy's statistics: Height of Bronze Figure : 24 Feet Granite Base : 21 Feet Weight : 32,000 pounds Wing Span : 23 Feet Gilding : 23 Karat Gold Bob Muderick rmuderick@attmail.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V15 #264 ****************************** Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa08669; 1 Jun 95 4:21 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA04663 for telecomlist-outbound; Wed, 31 May 1995 21:05:21 -0500 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA04654; Wed, 31 May 1995 21:05:18 -0500 Date: Wed, 31 May 1995 21:05:18 -0500 From: TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson) Message-Id: <199506010205.VAA04654@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #265 TELECOM Digest Wed, 31 May 95 21:05:00 CDT Volume 15 : Issue 265 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Book Review: "Being Digital" by Nicholas Negroponte (Laasri Hassan) Re: Book Review: "UNIX Communications and the Internet" (Pat Fogarty) Re: Telephone 'Call Back' Services (Bert Kooi) Re: Dime Line Anyone? (David Kammeyer) Re: Need One Mile PC Communications (David Kammeyer) Re: Auction All the Spectrum (Michael J. Kuras) Re: I Just Bought a CT2 Phone and I Love It (Eric Tholome) Re: I Just Bought a CT2 Phone and I Love It (Kimmo Ketolainen) Re: Need One Mile PC Communications (Vince Muehe) Re: Is it Northern or Nortel? (Allan Bourque) Troubles Retrieving Voice Mail in NYC (Sven Dietrich) Re: How to Make a Long Distance Call in 1942 (Pete Farmer) 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: 500-677-1616 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: LAASRI Hassan Subject: Book Review: "Being Digital" by Nicholas Negroponte Date: 31 May 1995 09:01:25 GMT Organization: Alcatel CIT Le Pecq, France Since 1993 through the present time, I have been searching for books which present the upcoming information superhighways. Unfortunately, all the papers and magazines were repeatedly chattering about the same topics. A lot of them present rather policital views with no precise action plans. Others present some telecom technologies as the milestone of the information superhighway building, i.e., ATM, SDH, ASDL, etc. Of course, VOD is still the hot stuff that every one is talking about. Thus, I was always frustrated after reading and reading the same thing written many different ways. That was before I read Being Digital, Nicholas Negroponte's last book on the future of digital products and services. First of all, the book is a good starting point for many directions, be it technical, economical, or social. Its reading is really funny: I read it in less than a week, though I have done so only at home after a full day of work. As an ex-researcher in Artificial Intelligence and presently engineer in the telecommunications industry, I focused my attention on the technical aspects of the book. I also found that I learned many new things from a social and commercial point of view. It provides a deep analysis of the current status of multimedia (Negroponte simply identifies it as the melding of bits) and where more work needs to be done. In particular, the book shows where the present R&D in HDTV IS now and where it SHOULD be. From my point of view, this part of the book is the most important if not the major one. I highly recommend its reading to all those working on services such as visual browsing, information searching. Negroponte suggests that such services should be based on what he calls the bits-on-bits (information on the content of a digital stuff). I also appreciated the interface part. It shows where AI in general and intelligent agents can have an industrial come-back and play a terrific role. Instead of searching, just program your interface agents and it's up to them to do the work based on your centers of interest. I highly recommand the reading of this part to those reseachers looking for challanging but not toy problems for their AI models and systems. I'm really sure that AI may help in the future of the Internet surfing. The only thing which I found missing in this book is the refernces of the research going on in institutions (e.g., MIT Media Lab). This will help "thirsty" readers, like me, to follow where their developments will lead us. Finally, I will end my review by asking Negroponte "When will Volume II be ready?" Dr. Hassan LAASRI Alcatel CIT 3, Parc des Grillons 60, Route de Sartrouville 78230 Le Pecq - France Phone: + 33 1 34 80 79 33/Fax: + 33 1 34 80 79 47 Alcanet Code: 2 117, Internet: laasri@cett.alcatel-alsthom.fr ------------------------------ From: puff@mercury.interpath.net (Pat Fogarty) Subject: Re: Book Review: "UNIX Communications and the Internet" by Anderson Date: 31 May 1995 09:50:09 -0400 Organization: Interpath -- Public Access UNIX for North Carolina I found the second edition of this book to be quite useful. Since almost nothing changed for the third edition, it's still useful, but somewhat out of date. For instance, there are still full chapters on rn and vnews, but tin? trn? Naaaaaaah ... The appendix on transfer protocols still thinks xmodem and kermit is all there is. (One could argue that Kermit _is_ all there is). I didn't buy it. Go to remainder sales and look for the second edition instead. Pat ------------------------------ From: 72763.1306@compuserve.com (Bert Kooi) Subject: Re: Telephone 'Call Back' Services Date: Wed, 31 May 1995 11:45:03 GMT Organization: Kooi Info Services Reply-To: Bert.Kooi@worldxs.worldaccess.nl sknopoff@chomsky.arts.adelaide.edu.au (Steven Knopoff) wrote: > I have two related questions I hope someone might answer: > First, does anyone know of a phone company that offers cheap rates (e.g. > under .50/minute) between the U.S. and Australia? Yes, the USA Callback company MTC Passport. Their rate is US$0.29 p/min. from Australia to the USA. > And second, can anyone here familiar with these 'call back' long > distance services (some of which claim to offer U.S./Australia rates as > low as .30/minute) explain why these companies' sales/customer service > operations are run in such unprofessional manners? I have looked into > three of these services (including MTC Passport) but have hesitated to > proceed because their own sales phone numbers keep changing (at least > here in Adelaide they do) and/or because the people answering the phone > act as if they are somehow unauthorized or unwilling to answer questions > about the service, or they say they will call back with the answer to a > question but do not call back. At one point I started to think that this > type of business might not be legal, but I checked with the Australian > telecommunications ombudsman and Australian Trade Practices Commission, > both of whom say that 'call back' services are perfectly legal (though > they had no further information about them). Why, for example, don't > these companies advertise in the phone book or newspapers like any other > telephone-related business? Although I'm in the callback business maybe would like some experience from the other side of the globe: I'm a MTC Passport representative in The Netherlands for over one year now with about 60 happy clients. Why are my clients happy? Because the rates of our Dutch PTT are about twice the rates of MTC Passport to most countries. My clients call the USA, Australia, Israel, Netherlands Antilles, Aruba, South Africa, Iran, Singapore, Hong Kong, etc. MTC Passport is located in the USA and they are offering a product to customers all over the world. You can imagine this would be very expensive to have offices all over the world. I guess that is why they contract (small) local agents like me in The Netherlands who give rate information and sign up forms to customers who are interested in low international telephone rates. If you have any further questions you can email me at: 72763.1306@compuserve.com BTW: I also have a client in Australia who seems happy with the Passport service. Bert Kooi Kooi Info Services Schanshoek 75 1188 LL Amstelveen The Netherlands tel +31-20-640-4072 fax +31-20-640-4316 email 72763.1306@compuserve.com ------------------------------ From: David Kammeyer Subject: Re: Dime Line Anyone? Date: 31 May 1995 04:17:30 GMT celestin@celestin.com (Paul Celestin) wrote: > I just got a mailing the other day from a company called VarTec Telecom, > Inc. that states you can get 10 cents a minute long distance service > anytime, anywhere in the continental U.S. Only catch is a $5 monthly > service charge for residential lines, even if you use it just once. I > think the service charge for business lines is $15. Stay away from Vartec! I signed up with them, when their promotion was "get every tenth call for one cent. I compared the probabilities and such, and they looked to be the best deal I could find. I switched all seven lines in my house to them (I used to run a BBS). Anyway, a few months later I decided to switch to MCI. I had them switch all my lines. After a few days, I checked my lines by dialing 00 and asked the operator what company they were. They all were MCI. About two days later I needed a long distance operator for something or other and I got the VarTec operator. I was puzzled at this, and it seems that five of my lines had mysteriously been switched over to Vartec. I then called MCI, explained my situation and they switched the lines again to MCI. They were switched over to MCI, and after two days, they went back to Vartec. After this, I called Vartec and asked to talk to a supervisor, and threatened legal action. I then called Ameritech and told them not to let Vartec switch it again. Anyway, Vartec caused me a lot of trouble switching the lines and getting back the switchover fee. As a side note, the MCI rep said that Vartec is notorious for this. I'd be very careful when dealing with these folks. ------------------------------ From: David Kammeyer Subject: Re: Need One Mile PC Communications Date: 29 May 1995 04:37:03 GMT rconstan@gate.net (RC) wrote: > We're using reachout between two PCs, but the nominal 9600-28K baud > rates available between the machines is not quite fast enough for the > customers needs. However, the machines are one mile apart, and the > customer is willing to string his own wire if necessary to gain > thruput. Unfortunately, high speed phone lines are simply not > available in this area. But it seems to me that a mile is not too far > fetched for the right kind of direct connection. If anyone is > familliar enough with the possible off the shelf solutions, please > email me. This sounds like a perfect application for Spread-Spectrum radio. I know Black Box sells stuff for this. Basically you just put an antenna on each building, and you get 2mbps, no FCC licensing. Furthermore, you can get a data compression box on each end and get about 3.5mbps out of it. That should be more than enough speed considering that's 1/3 of ethernet. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 May 1995 17:40:18 -0400 From: mkuras@ccs.neu.edu (Michael J Kuras) Subject: Re: Auction All the Spectrum Organization: College of Computer Science, Northeastern University khh@access4.digex.net wrote: > Here's how Congress can raise $10 billion a year and cut government > at the same time.... > Economists have known for years that the best way to manage the > airwaves is to sell them off in orderly parcels, and then let the > market decide how best to use them. Recently, however, economists have > been putting numbers to this argument. The numbers are stunning.... I found this related article in the WSJ: SPECTRUM AUCTION PLANS MAY ACCELERATE House Republicans are considering a Congressional Budget Office recommendation to auction television broadcasters' existing analog channel spectrum seven years from now as part of a plan to balance the budget by 2002. By that time, they hope that most broadcasters will have moved over to new digital-broadcasting channels. Current FCC plans provide broadcasters the new digital channels for free, allow them to use both digital and analog channels for 15 years, after which time the analog channel spectrum will be returned to the government. Speeding the auction process up, although onerous to the broadcasting community, would still be less drastic than another suggested alternative, which would force broadcasters to pay billions for the digital channels in the first place. (Wall Street Journal 5/24/95 B8) michael j kuras www.ccs.neu.edu/~mkuras mkuras@ccs.neu.edu [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Interested readers are also referred to the issue of the Digest just before this one (#264) and another writer who flatly says 'abolish the FCC'. I'd appreciate your thoughts. PAT] ------------------------------ From: tholome@dialup.francenet.fr (Eric Tholome) Subject: Re: I Just Bought a CT2 Phone and I Love It Date: Tue, 30 May 1995 20:24:45 +0200 My article about my new CT2 phone generated quite a few messages in my mailbox from various people asking various questions. Since this seems of some interest for DIGEST readers, I thought I'd take the time to answer them here for the benefit of us all. What is CT2? CT2 is a standard for cordless phones. It is digital and operates in the 900 MHz range. Anyone cares to give more details? What CT2 handset do I own? It is sold by France Telecom, holds the "SAGEM" sticker (a French Telecom company), but is in fact a Motorola Silverlink 2000 product. It is sold $200 in France (this may sound expensive, but remember that all telecom products and services are a lot more expensive in France and Europe than in the USA). What CT2 Private Base do I own? A Motorola Silverlink 3020. It is sold $380 in France. What is Bi-Bop? Bi-Bop is the commercial name of the telepoint service offered by France Telecom which let's you use your CT2 handset in the street. This service is available in and around Paris, in Strasbourg and Lille. France Telecom did install many base stations (several thousands). Actually, there are so many that I don't bother looking at the map they gave me when I intend to use my phone in the street: I simply count on getting the dial tone, and most of the time, it works! Bi-Bop lets me call any number, as long as I'm within the coverage area. Bi-Bop also lets me receive phone calls (this is optional). Because receiving calls is not straightforward (there is no automatic location updating), incoming calls will, most of the time, hit my voice mail. Every time I try to use my phone, I'm notified if someone left a message and I can retrieve it very easily. In one word, Bi-Bop is definitely neither as convenient nor as powerful as a real cellular phone, but the latter are still a lot more expensive than Bi-Bop, which explains why Bi-Bop has gained some popularity here (there are around 80,000 Bi-Bop subscribers I believe). How much does Bi-Bop cost? Currently, I pay $10/month to subscribe to Bi-Bop, and all my calls (outgoing AND incoming) cost me $0.20/min extra. I also pay $6/month to enable incoming phone calls and have a voice mailbox. A new plan was recently introduced: the extra cost for communications is $0.35/min, but there is no monthly fee. This is obviously targetting occasional users (like me!). Are there other telepoint services anywhere? Hong kong has a big CT2 public network. The Netherlands has quite a big CT2 public network ("Greenpoint"). England had four but they are not operational anymore. Germany had plans to start one but gave it up. A private operator is about to open another CT2 public network in Bordeaux, France. Anyone has more info about these networks, or others? Some roaming agreements were signed, at least between Bi-Bop and Greenpoint. That's it for today! Eric Tholome 23, avenue du Centre tholome@dialup.francenet.fr 78180 Montigny le Bretonneux phone: +33 1 30 48 06 47 France fax: same number, call first! ------------------------------ From: Kimmo.Ketolainen@utu.fi (Kimmo Ketolainen +358 40 500 2957) Subject: Re: I Just Bought a CT2 Phone and I Love It Organization: University of Turku Date: Wed, 31 May 1995 21:03:41 GMT janjoris@win.tue.nl (Jan Joris Vereijken) wrote: > By the way, the U.K. used to have *four* (correct me if I'm wrong) > CT2 networks, but all have stopped operations. Damn!=20 CT2 would have been a financial suicide in many countries -- here in Finland, DECT has taken its place in local area networks, and GSM in national and international level (~700 000 subscribers in the population of 5.1 million). CT2 (known as _Pointer_) was aborted shortly after its introduction as technically and commercially unsound. I would suggest GSM for you too if only the cost of use in France was decent. I have compiled a short listing of European digital cellular networks' rates. The listing has at the moment only prices from Finland, Sweden and UK. I would appreciate all information from the other countries using GSM or DCS180 Kimmo.Ketolainen@utu.fi Studentbyn 84 A 10 =B7 FIN-20540 =C5bo =B7 Finland = ------------------------------ From: Vince Muehe Subject: Re: Need One Mile PC Communications Date: 31 May 1995 16:04:39 GMT Organization: Primenet rconstan@gate.net (RC) wrote: > We're using reachout between two PCs, but the nominal 9600-28K baud > rates available between the machines is not quite fast enough for the > customers needs. However, the machines are one mile apart, and the > customer is willing to string his own wire if necessary to gain > thruput. Unfortunately, high speed phone lines are simply not > available in this area. But it seems to me that a mile is not too far > fetched for the right kind of direct connection. If anyone is > familliar enough with the possible off the shelf solutions, please > email me. You may want to look into wireless to connect the sites. One possible solution is to use SOLECTEK's AIRLAN that will connect sites up to three miles at 2Mb/s (vs your current 28.8Kb/s. You can reach them at 800-437-1518, ext. 3900. (I have not used this product and do not vouch for the effectiveness of providing a solution). Vince Muehe ------------------------------ From: a10271@email.mot.com (Allan Bourque) Subject: Re: Is it Northern or Nortel? Organization: Motorola Date: Wed, 31 May 1995 17:52:42 GMT hfenn@mathworks.com (Holly Fenn) wrote: > I purchased a Northern 61C Meridian system loaded with Meridian mail, > IVR, CCR, ACD, Meridian MAX, and Meridian Link. For six months I have > had the worst service and support through Nortel. Has anyone else had > the same problem? I came from a 12 year ROLM background so I have > nothing to compare this too. I can't figure out if my frustration > lies within Nortel's organization, or if Northern just isn't the > technological giant it markets itself to be? Nortel/Northern are now the same company. Northern has had a history of bad customer support. In fact, during most of the late 80's, they did not even deal directly with users, only the distributors. > Any feedback and/or recommendations on an alternative service provider > would be greatly appreciated. Try Wiltel. They have an excellent TAC center and I have had fairly good luck with them. Regards, Allan Bourque a10271@email.mot.com ------------------------------ From: Sven Dietrich Subject: Troubles Retrieving Voice Mail in NYC Date: Wed, 31 May 1995 21:39:33 EDT Just wanted to share my troubles of retrieving my voice mail from a public pay phone in NYC: I went up to a NYNEX pay phone with the keys even with the covering metal plate and called the main number for my voice mail via 10288-0-516-877-xxxx *bong* . After entering the mailbox number and the * key, the phone hangs up on me. Hmm. So I repeat the process. Same thing. Then I tried 1-800-321-0ATT *bong* 516-877-xxxx *bong* . This time I got to enter my mailbox number, * key and passcode, then a disconnect. So I tried a different phone (same style phone though). Same thing. Coin call. Same thing. Frustration builds as I know by now that I *do* have messages but get disconnected before I can retrieve them. I finally walked up to a NYNEX phone with *raised* keys and did not have any problems via calling card. This all happened within two blocks of 6th Ave and 10th Street. Anyone have a clue what went on here? Sven Dietrich -- A/UX SysAdmin | Internet: spock@abraxas.adelphi.edu (MIME) Faculty Support Lab | Voice: +1-516-877-3332 | PGP key via Adelphi University, New York | Fax: +1-516-877-3347 | finger & server [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It sounds like the '*' key on those phones forces a disconnect doesn't it? PAT] ------------------------------ From: pete@tetherless.com (Pete Farmer) Subject: Re: How to Make a Long Distance Call in 1942 Date: Wed, 31 May 1995 16:09:46 -0700 Organization: Tetherless Access Ltd. > The operator's switchboard had two buttons on it marked 'return' and > 'collect' and by pressing one button or the other, the money would > fall in the box or the table would tip in the other direction and dump > the coins back out to the caller. A manager I had worked with at Bell Atlantic had once been put into service as a PSTS operator in Norfolk, VA, during a strike, and handled calls from coin telephones. Unfortunately, the training she got for the position was less than adequate and -- you guessed it -- for her first full day on the post, she hit the wrong button *every time* she handled a call. Everyone who completed a call got money back, and everyone who failed had their money taken. Nothing like getting the public interested in a quick settlement! Peter J. Farmer Internet: pete@tetherless.com Tetherless Access Ltd. Voice: 415-843-6880 ext.16 2468 Embarcadero Way Fax: 415-843-6890 Palo Alto, CA 94303 WWW: http://www.tetherless.net/ [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: In days of old ... when coin phones had three slots on the top for money (25/10/5) and coin return slots without the trap door on the front as they have had now for many years, customers used to retrieve their own coins from the collection table in the phone, sometimes even to reuse the same coins for the 'additional deposit' the operator was demanding. The old payphones just had a little cup down at the bottom where the coins fell into it when you got your money back, and less than honorable people knew you could take something like a coat hanger or any piece of stiff wire bent the correct way and stick it up the chute where the coins fell out. Carefully probing with your stiff piece of wire up the chute, when you reached the table in there, the object was to cause it to tip in your favor so the coins would tumble out before the operator got around to tipping it in her favor. For local calls it was no problem since the money was simply held on the table until the call was finished at which point the coin would dump in the box. So in the middle of your call, you stalled for time with the person you were talking to while you got your probe up there and tip the table enough to get the coin back. On a long distance call -- or any call where an operator was on the line supervising the collection, care had to be taken to not get her wise to what was going on. Let's say the long distance call cost $2.00. For domestic calls -- the norm -- where the table could hold the entire payment, it would stay there until it was all put in and your party answered, just in case the operator had to give it badk (person to person and the called party not available, etc.) So you would put four quarters in, and pause ... start working on the table with that little wire stuck up the chute. Meanwhile the operator was demanding more money, "another dollar please!" ... you'd say, "just a minute operator! I am looking for more change ... ' ... you would get the coins back you started with, and give them all to the operator a second time. Yeah right, looking for more change ... If the operator suspected hanky-panky or thievery of some kind, she would hit that collect key in a hurry and dump all the coins in the box before you could get them back out ... and the long time operators recognized the voices of the children who were the main perpetrators of the fraud. I got suspended from junior high school for two days when the cafeteria supervisor at school caught me teaching a couple other boys how to do it. The cafeteria pay phone was on a completely manual exchange; a five cent coin got you an operator who asked 'number please?' and the idea was to liberate that nickle from the innards of the phone before the operator got around to collecting it when your call was finished. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V15 #265 ****************************** Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa19073; 2 Jun 95 2:01 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA11680 for telecomlist-outbound; Thu, 1 Jun 1995 20:41:00 -0500 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA11669; Thu, 1 Jun 1995 20:40:57 -0500 Date: Thu, 1 Jun 1995 20:40:57 -0500 From: TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson) Message-Id: <199506020140.UAA11669@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #266 TELECOM Digest Thu, 1 Jun 95 20:40:00 CDT Volume 15 : Issue 266 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson ISLIP'95 a Success (Bill Wadge via R. Jagannathan) South American TE (Modem) Approvals (profgmby@cybercom.com) Re: ALI From Centrex With Many Locations (Paul Cook) Re: Troubles Retrieving Voice Mail in NYC (Bradley Ward Allen) Re: Troubles Retrieving Voice Mail in NYC (Steve Kass) Oppose Mandatory Touch-Tone $ervice - Your Action Needed (Anthony Wallis) Long-Distance Carriers and LEC's (Joseph Norton) 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: 500-677-1616 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: R. Jagannathan Reply-To: Subject: ISLIP95 a Success Date: Thu, 01 Jun 1995 12:00:00 GMT Bill Wadge is the editor of an electronic newsletter of Intensional Programming, called Field and Stream (F&S). I am attaching his latest issue regarding ISLIP 95. (If you want to subsribe, contact Bill at wadge@csr.uvic.ca or see http://lucy.uvic.ca. -Jaggan --------------- Date: Tue, 23 May 95 15:56:09 PDT From: wwadge@csr.uvic.ca (Bill Wadge) Subject: F&S: ISLIP95 a Success Sorry you haven't got a Field & Stream for a while but things got hectic with finals and preparing for ISLIP 95 all coinciding. Anyway I just got back from Australia and I'm pleased to say that ISLIP95 was a real success. (ISLIP is the annual Lucid/Intensional programming conference, held this year at Macquarie University in Sydney Australia, 3-5 May). Obviously not everyone from N. America was able to attend and there was some concern. However, the concerns proved groundless. It was one of the most successful ISLIPs ever, whether in terms of attendance, variety of topics, quality of presentations, and geographical diversity. There were authors/presenters from: AUSTRALIA/NZ: Griffith University, University of Adelaide, University of Queensland, Macquarie University, Australian National University, University of Canberra, University of Canterbury (New Zealand), SINGAPORE: Nanyang Technological University JAPAN: Teikyo Heisei University, Shimane University EUROPE Verimag (France), IRSIP/CNR (Italy), N AMERICA University of Laval, University of Victoria (Canada), SRI, Arizona State, Notre Dame (US), Topics included - Dataflow/Parallelism, - Intensional logic programming (modal, temporal), - Real time/ reactive systems, - Higher order functions, - Program verification, - Versions - Object-oriented programming - The Web Mehmet Orgun (Macquarie) did an great organizing ISLIP95, There was general agreement that the three day format made it easier to take in. Also, everyone appreciated the informative "Introduction to Intensional Programming" (by John Plaice) which opened the Symposium. We were all grateful to Macquarie University and the MPCE department who supported the Symposium with excellent facilities, high quality contributions, and incisive comments and questions from the floor. Finally, let me give a plug for Sydney Australia - a cosmopolitan city in a spectacularly beautiful setting. With great restaurants; my own favorite being the Erciyes Turkish restaurant on Cleveland St in Surrey Hills. (Disclaimer: I have received no considerations for this endorsement, though I wouldn't say "no" to a nice Iskender Kebab ... :-) In the next F & S I'll discuss some of the technical highlights. ------------------------------ From: Swenson the Hardware Helper Subject: South American TE (Modem) Approvals Date: 2 Jun 1995 01:17:34 GMT If anyone can provide me with or point me to sources of information concerning the safety/PTT approvals process in South America I would greatly appreciate it. I am specifically interested in Brazillian regulatory approvals to sell a modem-type device. Thanks-a-lot. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 1 Jun 95 11:30 EST From: Proctor & Associates <0003991080@mcimail.com> Subject: Re: ALI From Centrex With Many Locations steegman@tomcindy.rotterdam.ny.us (Tom Steegmann) writes: > I work for Schenectady County, NY E911, and we are having a problem > with some of the larger centrex operations (including the one for our > county office building). The problem is that the ALI information > coming from any of the trunks is undependable. The county government > is based at 620 State St, but has offices in at least seven other > buildings all on 388-xxxx. According to NYNEX, it is actually a > centrex sitting on top of a PBX, if that helps. The PBX can be the solution to your problem. PAT writes: > In the case of a PBX where all the trunks are at one place, and users > at an OPX (off-premise extension) dial 9 to get an outside line, then > everyone is going to show up at the address where the switchboard is > physically located, since usually when the telco central office responds > to the PBX trunk it has no idea which user the PBX is dealing with. > Maybe some readers with E911 experience will write in to tell how they > deal with oddities such as you describe. Proctor & Associates makes a product that solves this problem with 911 calls from PBXs. It is called PBX ANI, and here is how it works: Our product connects to your PBX, and all 911 calls are routed via our box, instead of going through your regular PBX trunks. We generate your own dedicated 911 trunks that go to the answering point, and we also generate the ANI in standard format, just like a regular 911 or TSPS trunk. At the other end (the Public Safety Answering Point, or PSAP) our dedicated trunks hook up to the PSAP equipment just like any other 911 trunk. With 911 calls, the ANI is sent from the originating CO in a 7 digit MF format. The number is matched with a location using an ALI (Automatic Location Identification) database at the PSAP end. With PBX ANI, you supply the location information for your PBX extensions to the folks who administer the ALI database so that all of the extensions in your system show up with a real location. In the case where you do not have DID (Direct Inward Dial, where each PBX extension has its own 7 digit phone number) you work with the local telco to assign phony, non-dialable 7 digit numbers to each extension which are just used for ANI signaling and ALI database purposes. The reason we use dedicated trunks for this is that there is no way to send ALI or changed ANI information over a regular POTS line or PBX trunk on top of a 911 call. If there were a way to do this, then hackers would have a field day spoofing locations on 911 calls. For more information on the PBX ANI product, contact Proctor & Associates at 206-881-7000, or call Russ McCarthy at 714-770-0443. Paul Cook 206-881-7000 Proctor & Associates MCI Mail 399-1080 15050 NE 36th St. fax: 206-885-3282 Redmond, WA 98052-5378 3991080@mcimail.com ------------------------------ From: ulmo@panix.com (Bradley Ward Allen) Subject: Re: Troubles Retrieving Voice Mail in NYC Date: 1 Jun 1995 17:40:13 -0400 Organization: URL:http://www.armory.com/~ulmo/ (see rivers.html for PGP key) Sort of. According to a friend of mine, NYNEX has long been known to be (overly) cooperative with law enforcement. What you describe has something to do with the fact that when you dial the number, the payphones sending the dialed number to the police are not fast enough to hear all the digits you dial, or their buffer gets overflowed, or somehow they cannot receive all the data, so it just hangs up on you. Dial slower. But I try dialing slower and that sometimes works, sometimes does not. I think the theory is also to prevent people from using pagers. I just keep trying. Certain payphones are much more annoying in this regard than others. Each and *every* time this happens to me, I arrange for a credit to be sent from NYNEX to me for the amount I lost (just dial "0" (operator) from the payphone where you lost your money, or another payphone; also hit "#" to speed up the connection); if that so happens to be the cost of a call on my cellular phone, well so be it, they send me a credit for that amount, and I say that the NYNEX payphone ate that amount in coins just so we don't have to discuss the matter. It's best to have it done to a home phone number if you can in terms of billing because those checks are so annoying, but when I was between billing accounts I had them send me checks instead. (In either case logging each loss would be a good idea; I should but don't.) I sent two $.25 checks in for payment with my NYNEX bill one time, and they forgot to credit one (the other took 10 days more than the main money order, which took about two or three weeks.) I was so mad at them not crediting my account with it that I made four different billing resentatives track down what happened to it, and about two or three months later they finally adjusted my bill for the twenty-five cents. I was "overdue" by this .25 for a long time and received disconnect notices, etc. (although the disconnect notices may have indeed been based on their late processing of the main money order). I make them eat their own cooperation in terms of the inconvenience it causes me. Obviously someone someplace thinks it's worth their while for me and their company to go through all this extra fighting and trouble. Whatever, I still won't let them get me over on this one, besides the unpreventable loss in time it causes for me to deal with this all; just part of living in New York I assume (if it weren't for NYNEX, New York wouldn't be such a bad place). BTW, I have no surcharge calling cards; these things happen to me when I use a coin or a TLC prepaid card to (a) check voicemail (b) page somebody (usually people I'm emotionally attached to) or (c) dialing a number or two using my prepaid card. Even with all this trouble, NYNEX payphones are far and away better than the COCOTs. (Should I say "not as bad as"??) Even when normal phones say things like "1-800-555-1212 is not a number reachable from this area." (I always look up and say, "Gee, has midtown Manhattan been declared a different country?") Oops I forgot to realize during this post that when I make billing representatives spend hours looking for twenty-five cents, NYNEX includes this in their "cost of providing local service" to the PSC and the PSC allows NYNEX to pass the cost (surprise!) along to the rate payer. I still want *my* twenty-five cents. If some complacent little old lady (using my social security money and my bank interest payments) has to pay more because I want *my* twenty-five cents, all the better. In the case where my peers have to eat the charge, well, I can't really say I'm winning much. Hmm. Maybe that's why most people don't ask for their credits ... ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 01 Jun 1995 09:37:44 EDT From: SKASS@drew.edu Subject: Re: Troubles Retrieving Voice Mail in NYC In TELECOM Digest V15#255, Sven Dietrich writes: > I went up to a NYNEX pay phone with the keys even with the covering > metal plate and called the main number for my voice mail via > 10288-0-516-877-xxxx *bong* . After entering the > mailbox number and the * key, the phone hangs up on me. [and similar trouble with other phones disconnecting] Good luck. This is a supposed "anti-drug" technique that Nynex uses in cooperation with law enforcement officials to deter the use of pagers for drug deals. I tried my best a couple of years ago to do something about it and failed. Even a pocket tone generator won't help you. These phones are set up to detect tones _not_ generated by the phone's keypad, too, and will disconnect you after some number of tones (with special emphasis on the * and # keys). It surely must be illegal for Nynex to be monitoring my conversation and disconnecting me when they don't like what they hear (the tones), but neither Nynex, AT&T or the FCC seems interested in this. AT&T will credit me for calls disconnected because of this "feature," though. My solution has been to use Nynex phones _inside_ business establishments, which are less likely to be crippled. I don't think the physical appearance of the phone will give you a clue. Steve Kass, skass@drew.edu [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, if 'the physical appearance of the phone will not give a clue' then are you saying this is a central office function? Is the CO doing something it was programmed to do in the 'War on Drugs' or whatever? Its either the phone or the CO; which? PAT] ------------------------------ From: tony@nexus.yorku.ca (Anthony Wallis) Subject: Oppose Mandatory Touch-Tone $ervice - Your Action Needed Date: 1 Jun 1995 17:04:40 GMT Organization: York University, Ontario, Canada In can.general, Lester Hiraki complains about and opposes : > .. decisions by the Canadian Radio-television and > Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) .. have allowed telephone > companies to make touch-tone service mandatory. .. Note: "touch-tone" = brand-name for DTMF (dual-tone multi-frequency). "tone dialing" vs. "pulse dialing" is better simple usage. I would like someone with telcom switching knowledge (perhaps a reader of comp.dcom.telecom, where I have cross-posted this) to give some technical enlightenment on this. Please reply to can.general . My (limited and perhaps flawed) understanding is that, where the subscriber has a choice between pulse or tone dialing, there are NOT two parallel switching systems at the central office, one for pulse and one for tone, with the pulse system being cheaper. Rather, the switching system is tone based, with DTMF tone dialing being the primary presentation of the system to the subscriber. The alternate presentation of pulse dialing is a secondary "front end" for backwards compatibility with older systems. (Going all the way back to Mr. Strowger's techno-response to his competitor's wife being the town's switchboard operator.) Pulse dialed numbers are stored and then emitted as a tone burst into the tone switched system. Thus, if the above is basically true, the "extra charge" for a tone subscriber line is a legal-economic artifact. It is costing the telcom more to provide pulse dialing and this is not being reflected in the charge differential between those who have a pulse dialing only line and those who have a tone dialing line and do not use the pulse dialing option. (The latter are fast becoming the vast majority). The issue is not really one of making tone dialing mandatory as much as it is asking for removal of support for obsolete pulse dialing. In theory, the dropping of pulse dialing support should take the following form: [1] All "pulse dialing only" subscriber lines are "upgraded" to tone dialing at no charge for specifically that upgrade. [2] Simultaneously, there is a change in regulated subscriber rates. Should this appear as an increase to previous "pulse dialing only" subscribers and a tiny decrease (if any) to "tone dialing with the hardly ever used option of pulse dialing" subscribers, then it is _not_ a trick to make more $ , but rather an economically rational removal of a subsidy. [3] Owners/renters of pulse-only telephones are given the choice of (a) bearing the responsibility and cost of upgrading the equipment at their (subscriber) end of the line, or, (b) paying for conversion equipment at the central office end of the line. Of course, (a) will be so much cheaper that there will be no demand for (b). tony@nexus.yorku.ca = Tony Wallis, York University, North York, Canada. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 1 Jun 95 00:21 EST From: Joseph Norton <0006487445@mcimail.com> Subject: Long-Distance Carriers and LEC's Hi all! A few years ago, AT&T introduced a service called "VoiceMark" that would allow a user to record a message and have it delivered to the destination phone number of choice. This service was improved and later renamed "True Messages." The service continues to expand, and is now being offered to many users of AT&T's 1-plus service (as opposed to Calling-Card users only, as was true in the past. No doubt, all of you are more than familiar with the services and other "store-and-forward" services offered by other companies. I mention this service in order to point out my recent experiences with AT&T after ALLTel began providing local service to my area. When GTE served our area, we could usually take advantage of new services offered by AT&T and other long-distance carriers shortly after the "Baby-Bells" got them. MCI and Sprint were even offering "BOC" billing to us. After ALLTel began serving our area, AT&T (and other carriers to a lesser or greater extent) could no longer offer certain services because of having no agreement with ALLTel for them. To illustrate: I heard about using "True Messages" from a 1-plus line if the service was subscribed for. I decided to try it, and since there was still some confusion as to who my LEC (Local Exchange Carrier) was, AT&T added the service to my number. Next day, I got a call from the AT&T rep who appologized, but, the service was not available to ALLTel customers and would have to be removed. I *NEVER* saw AT&T remove a service as fast as when they found out their mistake in my case :-). The service was disabled within about an hour after I got the call. If GTE still served my area, I could take advantage of this service, and the "True Connections" service (Which I used as a GTE subscriber under the name "Easy-Reach"). Other AT&T programs have been affected, and Long-Distance Carriers (such as MCI and Sprint) do not seem to be able to offer "BOC" billing on my regular phone bill. Anyone have any suggestions as to how I can use the latest services from the LD Carriers without moving to a major metropolitan area? It puzzles me that a company like AT&T (for example) cannot offer the kind of service it should be able to just because a LEC can't handle the billing. I spoke with a member of management at AT&T who thought he had come up with a solution to this problem. Simply set up independent billing arrangements with AT&T and have them bill me for everything. This service, however, is not offered in Georgia, and so that idea fell through. Maybe when there's competition between LEC's, I'll be able to use some of the newer services which shouldn't have much to do with the LEC anyway, although, I bet that opening a local market to other LEC's is going to be a lot of fun (well, maybe fun is too strong a word:-). Any of you had similar experiences? Thanks! Joseph (Joe) Norton <6487445@MCIMAIL.COM> Dalton, Georgia--The Carpet Capital of the world ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V15 #266 ****************************** Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa07014; 2 Jun 95 21:25 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA27857 for telecomlist-outbound; Fri, 2 Jun 1995 14:37:05 -0500 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA27849; Fri, 2 Jun 1995 14:37:03 -0500 Date: Fri, 2 Jun 1995 14:37:03 -0500 From: TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson) Message-Id: <199506021937.OAA27849@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #267 TELECOM Digest Fri, 2 Jun 95 14:37:00 CDT Volume 15 : Issue 267 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Bell Canada Files Rates For Business Local Measured Service (Dave Leibold) Motorola Three Time Program Limit (Ken Levitt) Re: Bell Canada Pulse vs. Tone (Scott Sarty) Manipulative Long Distance Marketing (Richard Layman) Gate Intercom Tied to Private Phone (David Baird) Libel Liability Limits? (Mike Wengler) Difference Between "A" and "B" Cell Systems? (Greg Tompkins) Conference: Commerce and Banking on the Information Highway (D. St. John) More, By George! Coming Your Way This Weekend (TELECOM Digest Editor) 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: 500-677-1616 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: Dave.Leibold@superctl.tor250.org (Dave Leibold) Date: 01 Jun 95 22:58:50 -0500 Subject: Bell Canada Files Rates For Business Local Measured Service Bell Canada announced yesterday (31st May) the tariffed rates sought for their business local measured service plan. Bell wants approval to have the charges in place for 1st July 1997, with a prior year-long "shadow" billing that will inform business customers of how much they would pay if local measured service were in effect. This originally began with a CRTC Letter Decision allowing Bell to harmonise PBX and Key system rates. The result would be that Bell could file a "threshold" pricing plan affecting all business lines. The "threshold" plan would have meant that a certain amount of local calling would be available for a local monthly rate, after which local measured charges would be applied. A Business Customer Advisory Panel was subsequently set up by Bell. This group of representatives from selected small, medium and large organisations would advise Bell regarding the proposed local rates revamp. "While the Panel did not support the concept of local measured service," stated the Bell tariff notice text, "most members felt that a simplified structure, without a usage threshold, would be preferable". The panel's reasons, as listed by Bell, were that this would be easier to manage, would ensure costs only pay for local calls made, and would minimise cross-subsidisation of heavy users by low volume users. Bell now seeks straight local measured tariffs without that initial threshold. Bell Canada Tariff Notice 5506 contains the specifics of Bell's Business Exchange Measured Service filing. "TelecomLink" will be the buzzword given to this fundamental change in local phone service billing. All of the following are proposed tariff revisions that require CRTC approval and could be altered or rejected in the process. Some of the highlights: * Business 2-party service will be upgraded to individual line service. * The former "Business Message Rate" service applicable in some business line cases would be withdrawn in favour of the new pay-per-call scheme. * 4-party customers would still have a constant monthly local service rate * Business lines in some northern points, served by exchanges in rate group 3A, will retain flat-rated local service. These are for exchanges in northern Ontario or Quebec whose local calling areas are counted at 1500 phone numbers or fewer, where installation of local measuring would not be worthwhile. * Proposal is similar to Ameritech's scheme in Illinois. The Charges: The local call charges will depend on the distance between the origin and destination exchange "wire centres", similar to how long distance calling is measured (V&H co-ordinates and all). The four bands and their costs per minute are: 0-15 km $0.015/min 16-30 km $0.020/min 31-45 km $0.035/min 46+ km $0.055/min Charging begins with an initial 30 second period (ie. half the per-minute cost), then charges occur in 6 second increments (each increment would be one- tenth the per-minute cost). Thus, if you're on the phone to a local supplier where the rate distance is in the 16-30 km range, and you're on hold for 20 minutes, the call would cost 20 x $0.020 or 40 cents in peak times (plus applicable taxes). Discounts would be available depending on the time of day and day of week. Local charges from 5 pm to 11 pm weekdays would be discounted 10%; local calls between 11 pm and 8 am any day are discounted 30%; local calls throughout the weekend (from Friday 11pm until Monday 8am) would also be discounted 30%. There are discounts proposed for volume usage, starting at $10 of local usage per month. The percentage of these discounts increases according to the amount of local usage incurred per month. Initially, there would be a $60 cap on local usage charges each month, but Bell will increase this cap and eventually eliminate this limit after 4.5 years. For competing long distance providers using "line-side" access, this would mean expected increased costs of 1.6-5.7% initially, eventually reaching a 16.4-19.9% increase when the price cap is gone. Fidonet : Dave Leibold 1:250/730 Internet: Dave.Leibold@superctl.tor250.org ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 02 Jun 95 01:30:45 EST From: levitt@zorro9.fidonet.org (Ken Levitt) Subject: Motorola Three Time Program Limit In Telecom Digest V13 Issue 842 Telecom Moderator writes to Mark Earle > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Your documentation above is remarkably > similar to the way Motorola has programmed their phones for the past > several years. Your documentation would work easily on many old phones > from Motorola I suspect. My old 600 channel Motorola phone also went > into 'local' or 'test/programming mode' with the same grounding of a > pin as you describe it above, enabling one to reset the counter which > supposedly restricted programming the phone number to three times. > Since my Motorola had a 25-pin thing on it which connected to the > battery pack, the way I handled the grounding of the pin was to get a > 25-pin connector from Radio Shack. I opened it up, shorted the desired > lead in there to another lead coming from the pin on the back of the > phone known to be a floating ground. I have the 25 pin connector, but I need to know which pins to short. I looked through all of the Telecom Archives and could not find the answer. Any help would be appreciated. Ken Levitt - On FidoNet gateway node 1:16/390 UUCP: zorro9!levitt INTERNET: levitt@zorro9.fidonet.org or levitt%zorro9.uucp@talcott.harvard.edu [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Volume 13 ??? Issue 842 ??? Geeze, you are not behind in reading your mail are you? Unfortunatly I no longer have that old phone, and when it left me what documentation I had went with it. I hope one or more readers with Motorola phones, particularly the old, big heavy jobs will write you on this with an explanation of the pinout. I do recall a pin to the floating ground was right next to the pin which needs to be held low to go into so-called 'local mode'. It was a simple enough job in the Radio Shack 25-pin gender changer to drop a bit of solder judiciously between the two pins connecting them. Then to get into local mode, you pull the battery off, slide in the modified 25- pin connector sandwhich style, and reattach the battery to the other side of the connector. That brings the phone up 'local'. Then you set the desired register to zero. Someone with one of those old phones help out on this, and write back to the requestor with the information. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 02 Jun 1995 11:31:44 -0400 From: SCOTT SARTY Subject: Re: Bell Canada Pulse vs. Tone Bell Canada phoned me (for my personal home telephone) to offer DTFM. What is interesting is that, now it is CHEAPER (approximately $6.00 / mo.). I was required to turn in my rotary phone, and use a Vista 200 phone. I have until now been a pulse hold out because they wanted to charge me more for a service which was cheaper for them. Now that Bell has a more sensible rate, I have switched. I have not received my first bill yet, so I have not actually verified this (I don't completly trust Bell's claims). Scott Sarty srs@blakes.ca ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 2 Jun 1995 11:36:12 EDT From: Richard Layman Subject: Manipulative Long Distance Marketing 1. The Tuesday 5/30/95 edition of the {Wall Street Journal} had a good article on ONCOR, the alternative operator service owned by Ronald Haan, which charges up to $9/minute for calling card calls from payphones where it has the "privilege" of providing long distance services. Well worth reading. 2. Today, I called Dial&Save, which sent me a mailing on the envelope stating: Important Announcement for all Washington, D.C. telephone customers. Inside it says that we are guaranteed savings 25% below AT&T, MCI, and Sprint basic long distance rates. Although the fine print says that "rates and guarantee detailed in Dial and Save FCC tariff #1" I called the number they provide for customer service 800-787-3333 for specific mileage band rates, which they refused to provide me. The representative stated "I'm not going to go over your phone bill for you." I said "You can't give me specific rates?" She hung up stating "Thank you for calling." I guess AT&T, MCI, and Sprint may not be so bad ... they did list a chart of international rates, but I make very few such calls, so I had no real basis of comparison. Dial & Save, 4219 Lafayette Center Drive, Chantilly, VA 22021-1209 1-0-457 Richard Layman, Mgr., Business Development, and Research Producer Computer Television Network, 825 6th St. NE, Washington, DC 20002 (202)544-5722 - (202)543-6730 (fax) - rlayman@capaccess.org http://www.phoenix.net/~ctn (... I know, it needs work) [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Thank you for providing information on this charming new arrival in the industry. I'm sure our readers will swarm over there to sign up with such personable customer service reps on duty taking calls. PAT] ------------------------------ From: xdab@kimbark.uchicago.edu (David Baird) Subject: Gate Intercom Tied to Private Phone Reply-To: xdab@midway.uchicago.edu Organization: University of Chicago -- Academic Information Technologies Date: Thu, 1 Jun 1995 02:43:44 GMT I hope this does not result in a flame war, but I am interested in the collective wisdom of the net on the following topic. The condo association where I live is in the process of installing a new intercom system between the front gate (fronting on the street) and the individual units in the association. The system will consist of a "phone" at the front gate programmed to speed dial the phone numbers of the residents' apartments. Thus someone at the gate will l1G$press, e.g., 02, the unit will go off-hook and dial my land-line phone number (or any number I tell them, I guess). If the number dialed is busy, the person at the gate is SOL unless the individual's phone line is programmed with call waiting. Then the individual on the phone would be notified of a call, but a modem call would be knocked off-line (and sending *70 at the beginning of the modem session still leaves the user blissfully unaware of someone at the gate). The system which is being replaced is a hard-wired intercom (speaker/microphone at the gate and in the unit) that is hard to maintain and repair. At the moment, however, I can be connected to the net, and still know when the pizza guy has arrived. I wonder how many people and/or buildings have these "phone" units? How reliable are they? I guess the answer to this question will ultimately be how will it stand up to the elements and vandalism? But more on my mind is how do net users who live in buildings so equipped deal with modems, etc. on the line "tied" to the gate? Currently, I do not have call waiting, so incoming calls do not knock me off line in the middle of a session. I do have Ameritech provided Voice Mail, so messages can be left for us if my wife or I am using the modem or using the phone. Will a call generated at the gate ring through to a answering machine or voice mail if not canceled by the individual at the gate? I would think it would, so I will then have to pay real money to listen to people at the gate after the fact. Do you "just live with this state of affairs" and just accept the fact that when the phone line is in use you will not know anything about what is happening at the gate? Some thoughts I have had about the situation: *I have a phone installed in my unit for my convenience and use. Since the condo association currently supplies the intercom service, the condo association should supply a pots line for this new service. *While I do not have an unlisted phone number, some residents in the building do. They are not pleased to have to turn their number over to the management company to have the unit programmed for speed dialing. How should one respond to their concerns? *What should be the association's response to an (hypothetical, as far as I know) individual who does not have/want a phone in their unit? Does the condo association have a responsibility to provide the unit owner a way to be notified of a visitor or repair/service worker waiting at the gate? Am I just being a Luddite on this issue, or do I have grounds for thinking that this solution is not the best way to approach the problem of remote notification from the gate? The cost for repulling pairs from the gate to the individual units, and a new intecom system, is admittedly greater when compared to the "phone" system's initial start-up costs. But are there hidden costs, and are there other legal and/or privacy concerns that will come back to haunt this installation? As I noted at the beginning, I hope this does not lead to flame wars. I know I could easily have a second pots line installed in my unit for my modem/fax. But at the moment I do not have to incur this additional monthly expense, and would not look favorably to having pay for a second line if forced to do so. I am looking forward to hearing the collective wisdom of the net. David Baird xdab@midway.uchicago.edu University of Chicago d-baird@uchicago.edu Networking Services (312) 702-7161 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The association is opting for the cheap way out on this. *Good* front door/apartment intercom systems which operate via the telephone use either CO-provided equipment with dedicated pairs jumpered into your phone line or they use a control box in the basement of the building (or wherever telco's demarc is for the property.) I think the former, CO-based system, called Enterphone, and tariffed by various telcos was ruled against by Judge Greene with the telcos unable to sell any further systems and existing subscribers grandfathered. I know Ameritech does not offer it any longer; all they do is maintain the old customers of Illinois Bell who have had it for years. The on-premises version is called 'Interphone', and was manufactured by GTE/Canada for quite awhile ... maybe still. Either way, the results are the same. With E(I)nterphone, the control box (or central office) sends dialtone to the front gate and a phone there. The front gate dials a three digit code. The control box (or central office) translates that to a given *house pair* at the premises. That *house pair* (in the case of a control box on the premises) or *dedicated pair from the central office* (in the case of a CO-based system) always stays with the apartment, regardless of what actual phone number is in use. Indeed, the resident need not have phone service at all, just an instrument attached to the pair in his apartment. So the front gate dials a (usually) three digit code. The translation is done to a pair. The pair is tested for busy, and if it is not in use, ringing voltage is sent. The ringing cadence identifies the call as sent via the front gate rather than a 'regular' call. I think it is two short rings and a pause, then two more short rings. If the pair tests busy then a unique call-waiting tone is imposed on the line over the existing conversa- tion. It also is unique so the apartment user can distinquish a central office call waiting versus a front gate call interupting a 'regular' call. The apartment dweller answers the phone and is given up to 45 seconds for a conversation with the gate. This limit can be set by the installer. The ringing cadence, as mentioned above, allows the apartment dweller to use the appropriate answer phrase, or to ignore the call entirely without risking missing a 'real' phone call if desired. If the phone is in use and the control box (or central office) imposes the special 'front door call waiting' tone, then the apartment dweller can choose to ignore it or answer it. If ignored, the gate is automatically disconnected after about five or six rings. If the apartment dweller chooses to answer, this is done in the regular way with a switchook flash. The local control box then puts the central office on hold and connects in the gate call. As noted above, there can be up to 45 seconds of conversation. To admit the gate caller to the premises, the apartment dweller dials 7 on the phone. To deny admission, dial 9. (This varies by installation also). In either case, the gate is then disconnected and if a 'regular' call was in progress the central office is reconnected. If not, then the phone simply goes dead, or returns 'regular' dial tone if left off hook a few seconds. I(E)nterphone cannot be used for apartment-to-apartment calls. If the apartment dweller chooses to admit the visitor (by dialing 7), the control box sends appropriate current to the gate to allow the gate or front door to unlatch momentarily. If the system is CO-based, then the CO sends current over a dedicated pair to a relay near the front door which in turn throws the relay and allows the appropriate current to unlatch the front door. Neither version allows calls from the gate to be 'call forwarded'. This should be obvious since neither system relies on any specific phone number, but rather, just a pair of wires from the control unit to the apartment using the existing house pairs. Likewise, neither version will send calls to voicemail, since there is no call to be withdrawn after a certain number of rings. The use of *70 does not affect calls from the gate. In both the premises and CO-based versions, *70 is overridden by the gate. In most places, there are at least two pairs in every apartment. At the time of installation, if you have two phone lines, residents ask to have the front gate system attached to one or the other. It is not necessary to reveal your phone number to anyone -- all they use are the pairs which come there. If a resident has only one phone line, then often times he will request that the front door system be attached to the idle pair in his apartment. He then purchases a cheap ten dollar phone somewhere to attach on that line in his apartment for door-answering purposes only. If your phone is disconnected for non-payment (or you are new in the building and don't have it turned on yet) this does not matter where the front door is concerned. All you need is an instrument on the pair in question. In both versions, it is strictly front gate to apartment. The apartments cannot call each other, nor can they call the gate. In high security locations where the gate or front door phone is likely to be vandalized, special phones with armored handset cables, etc can be used. One installation in Chicago I am familiar with uses a speaker- phone at the front door, and a touch tone pad with aluminum buttons to press. Pressing the first button (always a '1' in their application) turns on the speakerphone with a 45 second timeout. The next two digits are translated to the apartment in question. They leave nothing for the 'guest' at the front door to get his greasy filthy hands on except buttons to push. No receivers to steal or smash, no phone to rip out, etc. The speaker itself is mounted inside the wall behind a steel plate. Tell your association to reconsider what they are doing, and to do it right. Yes, it costs a bit more, but provides excellent security. Many buildings in Chicago use the system I have described, along with a television camera which monitors the gate or front entrance. The apartment dweller need merely tune on 'channel 3' on television to view the front door while talking on the phone to the person he is viewing on television. This is the *only* way to go, in my opinion. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 1 Jun 1995 09:20:08 -0500 From: wengler@ee.rochester.edu (Mike Wengler) Subject: Libel Liability Limits? Regarding the court decision holding Prodigy liable for libel for 'publishing' a message from one of its users, PAT writes: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I think the decision was fair and proper. > ...I support Prodigy's right to have full editorial control over every last > item on their system if they want. ... > And I'll tell you who I think will be the next one to get their corporate > neck on the chopping block: America On Line. Those folks lean hard and > breath heavily on their user/subscribers also with their 'Terms of Service' > provisions which the Guides are *constantly* reminding people about. > Say a profane word in a chat room? Read those Terms of Service! Put up > something disagreeable in one of the forums? Read those Terms of Service! All sysops provide an 'editing' function like AOL's. I have simply NEVER heard of a system where an abusive user is tolerated indefinitely. S/He is kicked off the system, after being warned. What constitutes 'abuse' is, of course, an editorial decision, and warning, and kicking the user off is an editorial act. AOL formalizes it in codified policies because they are big, but EVERY system on the net does it. The implication of PAT's point of view, then, is that ALL system operators will and SHOULD be liable for the CONTENT of the postings of their users. If AOL should be liable for libel, then every University or company that allows access to the various fora on the internet is a publisher. Guess what? Sue them and they'll yank internet access. That is the only 'editorial' decision they can afford. And what gain to whom then? PAT? WHY, oh why should kicking off a consistent curser or other sort of obnoxious jerk bring the resonsibility on you of checking the facts of every consumer's opinion of the product they received (or failed to)? What possible societal good is served by this policy? PAT? No one seems to sue printing presses that I'm aware, anyway. The author, yes, the publisher, yes if it has deep pockets, but the printing press, I don't hear of it. Why can't AOL be more like a printing press in terms of liability. Suppose I run a printing press, and refuse to print up a bunch of pornography. Do I then have to not only READ, but CHECK THE FACTS in everything else brought in for me to print? PAT? Mike Wengler For PGP, research plans, & more information, see web pages starting with: http://www.ceas.rochester.edu:8080/ee/users/wengler/home.html Electrical Engineering Department Voice: 716 275-9402 University of Rochester Fax : 716 473-0486 Rochester NY 14627 Mobile: 716 748-1930 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It is a matter of degree. AOL tries very hard to police their users rather than waiting for sufficient complaints *from other users* as a reason to deny service. If no one complains at all, a Guide on AOL will still write up a user for various things. That is a little more pro-active than I think would be allowed if it came to a court test. If a system is going to be something more than just a hodge-podge of whatever the users happen to write there, then there has to be some editorial control. As soon as some editorial control gets underway, you are on the proverbial 'slippery slope' that leads to what the editor did or should have done to prevent libel, etc. I think in general though, it is time for BBS sysops to grow up. If you want to have a genuine e-zine kind of thing, then play by the rules. If all you want is to have your hobby, that's fine also, but go one way or the other. I personally think most sysops would opt for some professionalism in the way their boards are run. I think the electronic online community has matured to that point in the past decade. In any event, cases like Prodigy are what keep the courts busy. We have to save some work for the lawyers and judges don't we? Should they have to go hungry because the rest of us behave ourselves so perfectly all the time? PAT] ------------------------------ From: Greg Tompkins Subject: Difference between "A" and "B" Cell Systems? Date: 1 Jun 1995 04:59:20 GMT Organization: 4-T Acres What exactly is the difference between "A" and "B" cell systems? I am currently on GTE Mobilnet in Portland, Oregon and was just wondering. Thanks. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: "B" systems are those systems owned and operated by the local 'wireline telco' of record in the community being served. "A" systems are those operated by 'someone else'; typically a telco from another town. Ameritech is the "B" carrier in Chicago because it operates the phone company here; it is the "A" carrier in some other places. Likewise, Southwestern Bell Mobility is the "B" carrier in St. Louis where they are also the phone company, but here in Chicago Southwestern Bell is the "A" carrier, operating under the name Cellular One. Is that all clear as mud? Many/most "A" carriers use the franchise name 'Cellular One' for their activities while the "B" carriers use whatever name they use. PAT] ------------------------------ From: David St. John Subject: Conference: Commerce & Banking on the Info. Superhighway Date: 1 Jun 1995 06:15:13 GMT Organization: University of California, Irvine COMMERCE AND BANKING ON THE INFORMATION SUPERHIGHWAY July 24 & 25, 1995 San Diego, California ICM Conferences, Inc. (http://www.intermarket.com/infowatch/icm/) announces an executive conference for financial organizations seeking to develop business in cyberspace. The goal of this event, headed by Chairperson William P. Anderson, President and CEO, Block Financial Corporation, and other Key Contributors is to: * Bring Financial Services Providers and "Cyber Entrepreneurs" Together * Inform Banks how to meet Demands for their Services in Cyberspace * Define the Potential for New Banking Business * Inform the Banking Executive how to Optimize New Profit Opportunities You should attend this event if you are involved with: o Chief Executive Officers o Retail Banking Executives o Delivery Systems Managers o Electronic Banking Managers o Professionals in the fields of Strategic Planning, Operations and Technology, Smartcards, Telecommunications, Sales and Marketing o Presidents, Vice-Presidents, Chief Information Officers of Financial Sales and Marketing o Those who wish to acquire a working knowledge of cybercash on the emerging infobahn Content and Theme: As more and more commercial information providers, producers, distributors and consumers come together to do business in cyberspace, what should banking institutions know about, and how should they tackle, the opportunities on the infobahn now under construction? How can they protect and expand marketshare in the face of new and aggressive non-bank competitors in cyberspace? How can banks use advances in technology to provide new services and create new ways of doing business on this wholly new banking delivery channel? After extensive research, ICM has prepared a program where delegates will learn: o When the Internet will safely handle cashflow. o How Smartcards and electronic banking will intertwine. o What leading edge technologies non-bank contenders will be using to take away bank customers. o How technology will influence buyer behavior for financial services. o What products and services are available on the infobahn for financial institutions. If you would like more detailed information, including a list of actual speakers, sent to you automatically via fax or US post, you can make an Online Inquiry (http://www.intermarket.com/infowatch/icm/oninq.html). If you do not have WWW access, or if you have specific questions, you can contact ICM Conferences, Inc. directly at (312) 540-3016. ICM Conference Guide: http://www.intermarket.com/infowatch/icm/ ------------------------------ From: TELECOM Digest Editor Subject: More, By George! Coming Your Way This Weekend Date: Fri, 02 Jun 1995 14:30:00 CDT I have two more great items from George Gilder. An eleventh article in his series is now available, plus another item where he 'answers his critics'. One will be transmitted immediatly, following this issue of the Digest. The other will be sent along over the weekend as well for your reading pleasure. Naturally, both will find permanent homes in the Telecom Archives, in the sub-directory devoted to Gilder's work. PAT ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V15 #267 ****************************** Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa25794; 6 Jun 95 1:35 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA21545 for telecomlist-outbound; Mon, 5 Jun 1995 19:12:11 -0500 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA21537; Mon, 5 Jun 1995 19:12:09 -0500 Date: Mon, 5 Jun 1995 19:12:09 -0500 From: TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson) Message-Id: <199506060012.TAA21537@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #268 TELECOM Digest Mon, 5 Jun 95 19:12:00 CDT Volume 15 : Issue 268 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Book Review: "net.sex" by Rose/Thomas (Rob Slade) MCI Purchases Darome Teleconferencing (TELECOM Digest Editor) The PBX Owner's Lament (Kevin Fleming) "Fax Mailbox" Type Services - How They Work, Which Are Good (Donald Burr) CTI Application Wanted For Data Collection (William Boswell) Billed Party Preference (Mark J. Cuccia) Crossed Wires and ANI (Chris J. Cartwright) Inbound Out-of-Home-Area Cellular Calls (Spiros Triantafyllopoulos) Cellular Service in Hungary (George F. Levar) Bell Canada Applied For Information Service Trial (Dave Leibold) LDDS Cost Information and Quality Query (eric@tyrell.net) NTI Remote Assistant (Allan Bourque) NYNEX CallerID Bug (Barry F. Margolius) 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: 500-677-1616 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: Mon, 05 Jun 1995 15:20:21 EST From: Rob Slade Subject: Book Review: "net.sex" by Rose/Thomas BKNETSEX.RVW 950412 "net.sex: The Complete Guide to the Adult Side of the Internet", Candi Rose/Dirk Thomas, 1995, 0-672-30702-2, U$19.99/C$26.99/UK#15.50 %A Candi Rose and Dirk Thomas (oh, really?) dirkncandi@aol.com %C 201 W. 103rd Street, Indianapolis, IN 46290 %D 1995 %G 0-672-30702-2 %I SAMS Publishing %O U$19.99/C$26.99/UK#15.50 800-858-7674 75677.720@compuserve.com %O 317-581-3743 75141.2102@compuserve.com 75141.2104@compuserve.com %P 243 %T "net.sex: The Complete Guide to the Adult Side of the Internet" Sex sells. Because sex sells, it is often used to promote either an otherwise lackluster product, or a product which has no other value. It is, therefore, somewhat astonishing to find that careful writing and a good deal of research have gone into this work. Part one deals with email and mailing lists. Descriptions are thorough, and there are often sample messages. The list includes not merely "kinky-girls" and the like, but social and political lists touching on matters of sex and sexuality. Part two covers Usenet news, with chapters on related discussion newsgroups, graphics postings, personals, sex and politics, and anonymizing servers. IRC (Internet Rely Chat) and MUDs (Multiple User Domains) are described in part three. The final section discusses looking for file archives, various available FAQs (Frequently Asked Questions lists), and companies with sex-related products. There is an appendix which talks about file archiving, compressing and encoding software and formats. The discussions of general Internet tools are brief, but quite sound. A list of mail-to-Usenet gateways is the most complete I've ever seen. (Ironically, it includes the defunct decwrl site, but not the ubiquitous utexas mailer.) I'm surprised at a "search strategy" which uses arcane local commands, but doesn't take advantage of archie. One point in regard to scanning files should be made--at least one prosecution for scanning and making available copyright material from magazines such as Playboy has been successfully completed, and more are in the works. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1995 BKNETSEX.RVW 950412. Distribution permitted in TELECOM Digest and associated publications. Rob Slade's book reviews are a regular feature in the Digest. Vancouver ROBERTS@decus.ca | Computer user thinks Institute for Robert_Slade@sfu.ca | the machine just works for him Research into Rob.Slade@f733.n153.z1/| Monkey disagrees User .fidonet.org| Security Canada V7K 2G6 | - virus haiku ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 Jun 1995 18:09:31 -0500 From: TELECOM Digest Editor Subject: MCI Purchases Darome Teleconferencing MCI Communications has purchased Darome Teleconferencing of Chicago for $32 million. The deal, which was concluded about a week ago, created one of the world's largest privately held international teleconferencing companies. Darome, which has 12,000 clients worldwide, now gets access to MCI's extensive customer base. On the flip side, MCI now gets extensive inroads into the teleconferencing market. Darome was founded in 1969, the same year as MCI was making its first major expansion here in Illinois. The MCI/Darome conferencing unit will operate as a separate entity within the MCI Business Market group. The agreement still needs stockholder approval from stockholders of both companies and clearance under the federal Hart-Scott-Rodino Act. According to Philip D. Knell, Darome's president and CEO, desktop video conference units will be quite commonplace within the next three to four years. PAT ------------------------------ From: Fleming,Kevin Subject: The PBX Owner's Lament Date: Mon, 05 Jun 1995 12:31:46 This weekend, the {Arizona Republic} ran an article in the Business section about how awful it is that business owners in the new Arizona area code (520) are having trouble receiving calls from their customers/suppliers. Never mind that the permissive dialing period hasn't ended yet (it's scheduled for 7/23), one guy says that he's already lost 60% of his business. Of course, the Corporation Commission has already asked US West to automatically extend the permissive period (right after US West extended the one in Washington, I believe), but US West said no. Now they are in negotiations for a non-automatic extension, but US West is already denying requests for new telephone number blocks, and the cellular/paging companies are being hurt. They're out of numbers (or nearly so) and can't get any more until some time after permissive dialing ends. Isn't this getting silly? Have any of the new NPAs gone out of permissive dialing yet? On another related note: Recently I was at the local Novell office downtown, which is located at the AT&T office building. This building is served by some type of Definity/Audix combo and provides tenant service to all the non-AT&T tenants, including Novell. I needed to place a call to a customer that has a number of the form 602-906-xxxx, a form that's been used here since about two days after it was allowed. The PBX denied me, obviously it hasn't got the proper exchange/NPA tables set up. Not even at AT&T. Kevin Fleming, Reliable Networx, Phoenix, AZ Internet: KFleming@ReliableNetworx.COM ------------------------------ From: picard@silcom.com (Donald Burr) Subject: "Fax Mailbox" Type Services - How They Work, Which Are Good Date: 5 Jun 1995 04:08:01 GMT Organization: Starfleet Command My roommate and I would like to be able to receive FAXes. However, due to various reasons that would take too long to get into, we cannot have a second phone line in our apartment, and we can't afford a fax machine, or to have a computer on 24 hours a day. I've heard of "fax mailbox" type services that will give you a phone number that people can send FAXes to. Then you call in at a later time and pick up any FAXes waiting for you. It kinda works like an answering machine or voice mail, but it's for FAX transmissions. Since I don't know exactly how they work, if anyone does, and can explain it to me, I would appreciate it very much. Also, what extra hardware do we need to have in order to use this service? Will it work with FAX modems hooked to computers, or do you NEED a fax MACHINE? Lastly, I have no idea who offers these services, and how much they cost. Obviously, we'd want to try and shop around for the best deals, and if it's more expensive than the system we're using now, it will probably be best to make do with what we have. If it matters, we live in the Santa Barbara, CA (southern California) area, and our local telephone provider is GTE. We use MCI for our long-distance service. Please reply by E-MAIL to picard@silcom.com. Thank you for your help! Donald Burr, ComSci major in training :-) [by 6/95, we hope...] POB 91212, Santa Barbara, CA 93190-1212 // tel: (805)564-1871 // fax: 564-2315 email: picard@silcom.com // PGP Public Key - use finger or public key servers http://www.silcom.com/~picard ** Uphold your right to privacy - Use PGP. ------------------------------ From: boswell@primenet.com (william boswell) Subject: CTI Application Wanted For Data Collection Date: Mon, 5 Jun 1995 11:28:07 MST Organization: Primenet I need a reliable (read rock solid) CTI app that will collect data from callers via the phone's keypad and save that to a file that I can incorporate into a database I'm designing. This is my vision: caller dials number and gets message: "Enter authorization code." Caller does so and is authenticated. "Enter daily sales volume" Caller enters ##### (whatever number) and terminates with pound sign or whatever. Application saves input into flat file for later merge into database. Any help appreciated. bill ------------------------------ From: Mark J. Cuccia Subject: Billed Party Preference Date: 5 Jun 1995 13:36:28 GMT Organization: Tulane University Does anyone know what the latest is on 'Billed Party Preference'(BPP)?? A recent FCC Inquiry deals with 'branding' collect calls (reverse charge) calls via operators/automated-operator-services on BOTH ends of the call. The Opr/Opr-Svc. MUST identify itself to the party placing the call AND to the party receiving (and paying if they accept) the call. We all know about the problems of PRIVATE PAYPHONES (euphamistically called 'COCOTS') and Private Operator services(?), euphamistically called AOS'. MOST of us know how to use 10-XXX+ (soon to be 101-XXXX+) access/identifier codes, 950-XXXX and 1-800- access numbers which are to route the call via the carrier WE as the caller want to use (and if it is collect/3d.pty., since we probably have a personal arrangement with the paying party, we know the carrier they would like us to use) to over-ride the preselected carrier of the private payphone owner (even the '0' carrier of the Telco payphone, chosen by the business location owner). (In an earlier post, I stated that I would like to see ALL local telcos/inTRA-Lata carriers ALSO have access numbers/codes as above, preferably a UNIVERSAL/NATIONAL code/access-number for 'the local exchange carrier' for use on InTRA-LATA calls, since SOMETIMES, Bell/LocalTelco IS less-expensive than ANY IXC on inTRA-LATA/Local -- THIS would be IDEAL for private payphone and PBX situations where you cannot get the LEC '0' services) Billed Party Preference (BPP) is supposed to use 'LIDB' Line-Information- Data-Bases, something like the 800 Database -- A 'LOOKUP' would be done on '0' type calls and the call would route over the (primary) carrier of the BILLED party, rather than the originating-line (calling) party. The end-user (calling party) CAN, of course, use a 10-XXX+ to override, or use 950- or 1-800- 'feature-group-B' access for a DIFFERENT carrier (and of course, the billed party could refuse the call). The only catch to this override is that the dialing party might just dial 0+ at a private payphone (assuming that the collect/3d.pty's chosen carrier will be the carrier), but the PAYPHONE'S INTERNAL CHIPS will route the call with its 'dialout' by doing a 10-XXX+ or 950/1-800 for the ripoff '0' carrier. BUT I haven't seen anything lately about implementation of LIDB or BPP. ANYTHING LATELY??? Mark J. Cuccia CALL/WRITE/WIRE: HOME: CHestnut 1-2497 (rolls to cellphone/voicemail) (+1 504 241 2497) WORK: mcuccia@law.tulane.edu UNiversity 5-6000 (EXT.5954 TEL; +1 504-865-5954) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 Jun 1995 13:48:16 EDT From: Chris J. Cartwright - ELF Reply-To: Chris J. Cartwright - ELF Subject: Crossed Wires and ANI If this has been explained previosly I apologize, but curiosity has gotten the better of me. I work on a contract to the miliary and in addition to making all the computers play nice with each other I seem to be the local telecom guru. This does not speak well of my talents but more the lack of talent around me. In any event I was troubleshooting some of our incoming modem lines and caused an odd (to me) situation to occur. To explain a little we have 600 pairs coming in from a 5ESS and several strands of fiber. A few of these are T1 some 56K but mostly these are POTS/Centrex lines. I was using MY-ANI-IS to label the demarc (cursing my predecessor!) when I slipped up. I was using a tone butt set to dial out on each of the lines in a 66 block. My count was off and I tied across pins 9 and 10 instead of 10 and 11. This gave me TIP of one line and RING of another, oblivious I hit the redial. The call went out and other than the audio being reduced nothing seemed odd. Since the AC and prefix are the same the 301-NXX sounded like the echo supression was bad. It wasn't until I got to the extension number that I got a clue something was wrong. What I got was a readback of both numbers simultaneosly! Yes they were off by a few milliseconds (accounting for the echo) but if I listened carfully I could hear both numbers being reported. A little more information. These lines can also be connect to AUTOVON so we have two outdial codes. I was using the commercial carrier for these calls. It defaults to Sprint if that makes any difference. There has also been mention of an ORM (Optical Remote Module?) at our POP. So far the facilities telco people only tell me "Nah, can't work like that". As this is a military intallation I can't experiment with this as much as I would like. A few of the questions I have are: 1) Can this happen in a "normal" configuration? 2) Is it a security problem for us? 3) What does the billing system do with this? I'm sure others in the group will have more questions and hopefully answers to this one. Chris Cartwright, Technical Engineer Mail dsc3cjc@imc220.med.navy.mil ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 Jun 1995 13:36:38 -0500 From: c23st@kocrsv01.delcoelect.com (Spiros Triantafyllopoulos) Subject: Inbound Out-of-Home-Area Cellular Calls Hello, Could someone please explain the mechanism that allows cell phones to *receive* calls while they are out of their home area? I recently had the need to receive a call while out of my area (Central Indiana via Cellular One) and according to the friendly representative all I needed to do was dial some access code ONCE to unlock the block from my phone. He said that once the block is released, I can receive calls anywhere in the US and all people have to do is dial my number in Indiana (317-xxx-yyyy) and the system will locate me in any state I am, without me doing anything special or my callers calling funny access numbers. I did not try this (I was able to place calls but not receive) and the obvious question is, is the guy right? will the system search thru ALL cell networks in the US trying to find me, or I need to register somehow that I'm in the Chicago area so that I can be reached there ... Any explanation of the above will be appreciated. It *can't* be as simple as what the guy said. Thanks, Spiros Triantafyllopoulos Kokomo, IN 46904 (317) 451-0815 Software Development Tools c23st@kocrsv01.delcoelect.com Delco Electronics Corporation "Reading, 'Rithmetic, and Readnews" ------------------------------ From: George Levar Subject: Cellular Service in Hungary Date: 5 Jun 1995 15:25:34 GMT Organization: Andersen Consulting I have some friends visiting the US from Hungary. They have commented how inexpensive cellular hardware is here compared to Hungary. They would like to buy a flip phone here and get service for it in Hungary. Will this work?? Does Hungary have the same type of cellular system as the US? George F. Levar george.f.levar@ac.com Andersen Consulting georgel@mailgw.doyne.edu ------------------------------ From: Dave.Leibold@superctl.tor250.org (Dave Leibold) Date: 05 Jun 95 22:59:00 -0500 Subject: Bell Canada Applied For Information Service Trial The Bell Canada Tariff Notice 5453 back in 15 March 1995 contains the proposal to test Bell's Local Information Service (LIS). Bell sought the approval to have this trial from 1 August 1995 to 31 July 1996. This market trial requires approval from the CRTC if that regulator has not ruled on this application already. Instead of the 976 or 900 numbers, there would be new #1xx# format numbers to dial (such as #123#, including the # signs). These numbers are intended for access to databases (perhaps voice, perhaps data, depends on the info provider). Customers could be billed a flat rate per call. Those wanting seven-digit numbers for this service can make use of an option that sets up a 555.xxxx number seven-digit access. The Tariff Notice states that 30 service providers plan to participate in this field trial. The numbers will be available throughout Bell Canada territory except NPA 807 and independent companies (perhaps also excluding a few exchanges not converted to DMS technology, unless Bell plans to complete its system-wide switch conversions by the time the market trial begins). Bell South and Cox are mentioned as having a similar setup in the U.S. Fidonet : Dave Leibold 1:250/730 Internet: Dave.Leibold@superctl.tor250.org ------------------------------ From: eric@tyrell.net (ERIC) Subject: LDDS Cost Information and Quality Query Organization: Tyrell Corporation - 800-TYRELL-1 - POP's in 504/816/913/316 Date: Mon, 5 Jun 1995 01:12:43 GMT Info I'd like to share: I just went through my phone bill, and found that LDDS would save me more than 50% off my Sprint long distance bill. For interstate calls, LDDS charges $.20 per minute during peak times (8-5) and $.10 otherwise. Note the peak time of 8-5. Sprint's peak time ends at 7 pm. However, the biggest cost factor for me is the fact that there is no surcharge for the use of the LDDS phone card. Sprint charges $1 per call...and I end up paying $1 each for a lot of one minute calls (for reaching an answering machine, generally!) Info I need: So what does one get in terms of quality of connections and customer service with LDDS? Sprint is just OK for customer service (on good days!), but has great quality ... any advice would be appreciated! Eric ------------------------------ From: a10271@email.mot.com (Allan Bourque) Subject: NTI Remote Assistant Organization: Motorola Date: Mon, 05 Jun 1995 16:43:09 GMT Hi all, A few years ago, my NTI rep gave me a disk from Northern with an NTI program called Remote Assistant. This program worked along side Procomm Plus for Windows, and allowed you to highlight an error message and via a ProWin macro, copy and paste the message into a search form that would then interpret the message. I still have the program, but it is based on information from release 16, and I am running release 20. Does anyone know if NTI still supports this product, or did they ever? Thanks in advance, Allan Bourque a10271@email.mot.com ------------------------------ From: bfm@panix.com (Barry F Margolius) Subject: NYNEX CallerID Bug Date: Mon, 05 Jun 1995 16:32:32 GMT Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and Unix, NYC I just got a flyer in the mail describing my callerid options (though I've had caller ID for a year or so). It suggested if I had any concerns about my privacy options I could call 890-1900 and the electronic operator would tell me just what restricts I had signed up for. Well the electronic operator said I was not in a caller id area! I then called from line 2 to line 1 just to verify things, and caller id worked fine. So it looks like NYNEX's automated caller id information number is broken. Hummmm. barry [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: By the way, remember the article last week about how one can call up and get the balance and payment arrangements, etc on any phone because of the lack of security? It works that way! I tried the 800 number given for NYNEX (even though I am in the Chicago area) and punched in at random a few 212, 718 and 914 numbers. It cheerfully told me how much they owed, how much their last payment was, etc. You'd think they would at least block it from outside their region. It did not even cut me off after one or two queries, but was willing to sit there and keep talkiung as long as I punched in numbers at random. What concerns me is that some people would make those inquiries in a not-so-random way. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V15 #268 ****************************** Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa04766; 6 Jun 95 4:31 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA24180 for telecomlist-outbound; Mon, 5 Jun 1995 21:27:22 -0500 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA24171; Mon, 5 Jun 1995 21:27:19 -0500 Date: Mon, 5 Jun 1995 21:27:19 -0500 From: TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson) Message-Id: <199506060227.VAA24171@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #269 TELECOM Digest Mon, 5 Jun 95 21:27:00 CDT Volume 15 : Issue 269 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Book Review: "Internet Slick Tricks" by Glossbrenner (Rob Slade) Any Experience With African Telecom (Tanzania)? (John Palmer) Queueing Theory Book Wanted (Jarun Ngamvirojcharoen) USRobotics's FTP Site? Where? (Bradley Yi) INMARSAT Modems and Crypto Gear (Everett F. Batey) International Telephone Codes (Chris Hendriks) Long Distance Rate History Question (Dawn Adler) Need Help With Codaphone 4250 (Larry Rachman) Long Distance Cordless Phone Needed! (Josh Assing) Videoconferencing Experiences (Evan Rosen) ANI vs CALLER ID (Greg Tompkins) Revised Exon Amendment: ACLU Cyber-Liberties Analysis (ACLU Information) 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: 500-677-1616 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: Mon, 05 Jun 1995 12:18:29 EST From: Rob Slade Subject: Book Review: "Internet Slick Tricks" by Glossbrenner BKINTSLK.RVW 950411 "Internet Slick Tricks", Glossbrenner/Glossbrenner, 1994, 0-679-75611-6, U$16.00/C$21.95/UK#14.99 %A Alfred Glossbrenner alfred@delphi.com %A Emily Glossbrenner %C 201 E. 50th St., 31st Floor, New York, NY 10022 %D 1994 %G 0-679-75611-6 %I Random House Electronic Publishing %O U$16.00/C$21.95/UK#14.99 212-751-2600 800-733-3000 800-726-0600 %O abiggert@randomhouse.com 74261.2352@compuserve.com %P 271 %S Slick Tricks %T "Internet Slick Tricks" First of all, "Slick Tricks" is apparently a series. The intent of the series is to provide the "essence" of a given topic. In other words, this is supposed to be another beginner's guide based on "the least you need to know". Secondly, make note of chapter two, and, "The Best Tip in the Book: Get a Delphi Subscription!" Ostensibly, Delphi is being promoted because it was the first of the major commercial online services to offer a full Internet connection: i.e., ftp, telnet, email and Usenet news. (This explains why the World Wide Web only gets peripheral mention down around page 227 -- Delphi does not support dial-up IP.) Basically, there is a lot of good information here -- buried in a mass of text, some jokes, and lots and lots and lots of opinions, all organized (or, in some cases, disorganized) to present the net to you in such a manner that certain viewpoints are displayed in the most favorable light. Even knowing the material and the key words to look for, I still found reading this book and extracting the answers to be very difficult. I think it improbable that the biases in the work would exactly match those of any given reader, nor that the book's agenda would correspond to the reader's needs. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1995 BKINTSLK.RVW 950411. Distribution permitted in TELECOM Digest and associated publications. Rob Slade's book reviews are a regular feature in the Digest. Vancouver ROBERTS@decus.ca Institute for Robert_Slade@sfu.ca Research into Rob.Slade@f733.n153.z1/ User .fidonet.org Security Canada V7K 2G6 ------------------------------ From: jp@uuhare.rabbit.net (John Palmer) Subject: Any Experience With African Telecom (Tanzania)? Organization: The Rabbit Network, Mt. Clemens, MI Date: Mon, 5 Jun 1995 15:39:57 GMT My company is exploring the possibility of providing IP connectivity to several concerns in Tanzania (east Africa). Has anyone had any experience with Telecom in that part of the world? Is there anything we should watch out for, etc? Thanks. ------------------------------ From: jarun@netserv.chula.ac.th (Jarun Ngamvirojcharoen) Subject: Queueing Theory Book Wanted Date: 5 Jun 1995 17:49:12 GMT Organization: Chulalongkorn University Could anyone suggest to me a book about queueing theory (a good reference one)? Thanks in advance, Mr.Jarun Ngamvirojcharoen 599/171 Soi Yuedee Chan Rd. Bangkolaem Bangkok 10120 Thailand Tel. (662) 291-2871 E-mail : jarun@pioneer.netserv.chula.ac.th ------------------------------ From: bradyi@aloha.com (Bradley Yi) Subject: USRobotics's FTP Site? Where? Date: Mon, 05 Jun 1995 00:52:39 -1000 Organization: FlexNet Inc, HAWAII Does anyone know where USRobotics's FTP site is? Could you email me the FTP address? Thanks! Bradley Yi bradyi@aloha.com ------------------------------ From: efb@suned1.Nswses.Navy.Mil (Everett F Batey SysAdm) Subject: INMARSAT Modems and Crypto Gear Date: 5 Jun 1995 20:57:56 GMT Organization: NSWC PHD (NSWSES) Port Hueneme, CA, USA Looking for folks with experience in: - Using INMARSAT and similar birds for DS-0 data comms; OR - Using INMARSAT and similar birds for DS-0 data comms with encryption; OR - Folks with long distance packet protocol test info as on sending of data over 180Deg of terra firma; (eg like Hyper Protocol [Hilgreave]); OR - A better newsgroup in the common distributions (comp, sci, etc) for Satellite Communications. Thanks, /Ev/ efb@suned1.nswses.Navy.MIL efb@gcpacix.uucp efb@gcpacix.cotdazr.org efb@nosc.mil WA6CRE Gold Coast Sun Users Vta-SB-SLO DECUS gnu Opinions, MINE, NOT Uncle Sam_s | b-news postmaster xntp dns WAFFLE ------------------------------ From: Chris Hendriks <75140.2330@CompuServe.COM> Subject: International Telephone Codes Date: 05 Jun 1995 01:46:23 GMT Organization: Kaiser Aluminum Since the break-up of the old USSR, I understand that all the component states, now independent, have been assigned new international telephone dialing codes. I,m sure there exists a listing of these codes, together with the appropriate city codes ... I have been unable to find such a list. If someone would point me in the right direction, it would be greatly appreciated. Chris Hendriks 75140.2330@compuserve.com [ELECOM Digest Editor's Note: For starters, take a look at the country codes files in the Telecom Archives. Carl Moore and David Leibold have worked quite hard and diligently on these files over the past few years and we have all benefitted from their work. Actually, I am sort of ashamed the archives is a bit disorganized at present due to other very time-consuming obligations, but I intend to spend much of the day on Tuesday doing some organization there and getting the files as up to date as possible regards area codes and country codes, etc. If you would like to check out the files in the Telecom Archives you can do so using anonymous ftp lcs.mit.edu. When connected, login anonymous, then give your name@site as password. Then, 'cd telecom-archives'. On the other hand, wait a couple days and check it out later this week after I have installed several new files and gotten the code listings up to date. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 05 Jun 1995 10:47:18 -0700 From: dadler@ix.netcom.com (Dawn Adler) Subject: Long Distance Rate History Question Pat, I would like to know how much was the average LD rate in the USA back in early 1900's to 1985? I know right now it is about as low as 11 cents and as high as 23 cents per minute. Also what is the average basic rate for a local line? Right now, in Oakland, Ca (PacBell (: $11.37, Denver, CO (USWest): $18.29, etc. How much was it in those time frame I mentioned above? I'm so interested in telecommunications especially with Area Codes, Prefixs, etc. Thanks for your time. Michael Adler Oakland, CA [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: In some possessions which belonged to my grandmother is a small (4.5" wide by about 6" long) ***handwritten*** telephone bill dated March 1, 1927 on letterhead from the Illinois Bell Telephone Company of 212 West Washington Street, Chicago 6, Illinois, Telephone OFFicial-9411. The letterhead was entitled "Invoice For Telephone Subscription" and it stated in a quite attractive style of handwriting that the monthly charge for service in advance was one dollar, eighty five cents. Since I do not know if my grandparents at that time had an extension phone or non-pub or anything that might have increased the cost of the monthly service -- and since in those days B